Wikipedia-l July 2002

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

50 participants
385 discussions

4 factor fair use test
by Jimmy Wales 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test This is a nice summary of the "4 factor" fair use test. Here's my interpretation of how we would argue for fair use in the case of a photograph of a still-copyrighted artwork, like a painting or sculpture in a museum. 1. What is the character of the use? Our use is nonprofit and educational. Because the photo of the artwork would naturally be accompanied by an article about the artwork, our use is criticism and commentary. Notice that even commercial use can be o.k., if the use is generally educational, commentary, criticism. 2. What is the nature of the work to be used? In general, this factor will not help us. The nature of the work is 'imaginative'. I'm not sure if a work of art in a museum is considered 'published' from this perspective or not. 3. How much of the work will you use? Here we are in very good shape. A small web image of a statue or a painting is a relatively small use. A recent U.S. Appeals court decision (Arriba) said that search engines can use thumbnails of web photos that are copyrighted, for example, in Google's image search. This is similar. A small web image is not a full and complete reproduction of the work. 4. If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions? This seems to lean heavily in our favor. It seems unlikely that our use would detract from the market for the original or for permission for real reproductions (posters and the like), so long as our images are kept small. If we offered massive and extremely accurate digital files which would permit the end user to print a nice poster, this would weigh against us. But a small web image is not going to damage the market for posters. --Jimbo

3 3

[Fwd: [ wikipedia-Bugs-584804 ] URL followed by punctuation->broken link]
by Brion VIBBER 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

The old software knew that 99.9% of the time humans don't _really_ mean it when they put a comma, period, or other such item of punctuation immediately after a URL, but that these are rather intended as, well, punctuation. The new phase III software trusts us more; URLs that are followed immediately by punctuation (period, comma, paren, semicolon, etc) now include this punctuation in the hyperlink, which leads to a lot of broken external links where URLs are put casually into text, particularly on talk pages. Bug or feature? You decide! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ wikipedia-Bugs-584804 ] URL followed by punctuation->broken link Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:34:59 -0700 From: noreply(a)sourceforge.net To: noreply(a)sourceforge.net Bugs item #584804, was opened at 2002-07-22 02:04 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=584804&group_i… Category: Page rendering Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Brion Vibber (vibber) Assigned to: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker) Summary: URL followed by punctuation->broken link Initial Comment: If a URL is put directly into article text, and is followed immediately by a punctuation character, that character is in many common cases misparsed as part of the URL. This usually results in a 404 or other page-not-found error when a user clicks on the link. Example: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox" both render and parse correctly, and the link is clickable. The quote mark is not parsed as part of the link. But: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox, http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox; http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox! http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox? http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox) all include an extra character on the end, resulting in failure when the link is followed. This is contrary to the functionality of software phase I and II, and will break a lot of links to external sites, particularly in talk pages but also in some articles. (Note that the question-mark link here in fact works by happy coincidence, but is still incorrectly included in the URL where it really oughtn't to be.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker) Date: 2002-07-22 10:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=3076 This was brought up before, and I rejected it, because things like commas and periods are perfectly legal URL characters; it would be wrong to not to parse them as such. But I'm willing to be swayed by consensus here--if the community really thinks we /should/ do it "wrong" and leave out punctuation in certain contexts, I'll do that. But it will have to be defined precisely and agreed upon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Brion Vibber (vibber) Date: 2002-07-22 10:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=446709 Yes, those are all valid characters in URLs. However, they're all _very_ rare at the _end_ of URLs, yet very common as punctuation in English text. Some people will deliberately leave a space after a URL before using punctuation on the assumption that some stupid piece of software is going to try to make a link that includes the punctuation, but this is A) ugly and B) not done often enough that we ought to rely on it. People _do_ put punctuation immediately at the end of links, and they seem to expect that the software will _not_ give them a 404 error because of it... especially the software has been handling the case correctly for as long as they've used it. Not taking this fact into account violates the principle of least surprise and breaks far more links than it corrects (if any). On the rare occasion that a URL actually ends in one of the above characters, we have the [URL URL] syntax. I'm forwarding this bug report to wikipedia-l for a group vote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=584804&group_i…

7 7

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Copyright Question - Catholic encyclopedia
by Larry Sanger 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

FYI, I did ask the Catholic Encyclopedia web editor for permission when the same issue came up probably about a year ago. I didn't get a reply, if I recall correctly. It's worth trying again, but I doubt they have a nice view the prospect of the encyclopedia's content being included in Wikipedia. If we feel we don't have one, it would be good to get a definitive view on such issues, when they arise, from a lawyer, and then just proceed regardless of what New Advent says (or fail to say). Larry

2 1

Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] multi-headed VANDALS
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

Wow, I don't remember that one. It could have its use, but sometimes even complete nuts make the occasional sensible edit. kq You Wrote: >correct me if I'm worng, but I seem to recall a feature >in the UseMod software where one could revert all changes >done by one user or IP. it would seem quite usefull in this >case. > >regards, >WojPob >

1 0

Re: Contoversy flag on articles.
by Toby Bartels 28 Jul '02

28 Jul '02

Neil Harris wrote: >(Name of issue here) is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing >points of view... &c. "'''Evolution''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view." "The '''theory of relativity''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view." "The '''heliocentric model of the solar system''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view." I think that an honest admission, in '' like disambiguation page notices, that the article is not *yet* NPOV is preferable. -- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>

6 8

Admin status
by Tim Marklew 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

Mav wrote: >I see no need to block users like Zoe or Jheijmans or Enchanter etc. from >editing the Main Page, copyediting and condensing policy pages (which is >/badly/ needed for some of them BTW) or administratively moving articles. >These users and many others have more than enough experience with our >policies, naming conventions and such to be trusted to do semi-sensitive >work >like that. Heck, Zoe and Jheijmans already meet the requirements for being >sysops; they are trusted members of the community, and they contribute to >policy discussion (although trusted, I don't remember Enchanter >contributing >to this list on a regular basis -- I may be wrong...). You are absolutely right that I have never written to the list (though I have been reading your every word...). So hi to everyone! Personally I think the current situation where most users are blocked from editing the policy pages is OK. For important policy pages like, say, NPOV or naming conventions, I don't think anyone (including administrators) should be making changes without discussing them first, either here on the list or the talk page. By having only a limited number of administrators able to make the change, we make it more likely that policy changes and other changes will be discussed properly before being implemented. If a non-administrator has a suggestion for a new or revised section on, say, a naming convention, they can post their suggestion on the talk page. When people have had time to make any comments an admin can then make the change in the subject page. Where more substantial editing is needed, we could create a page like, say, "Proposed draft of neutral point of view" for people to work on before making the change to the official page. It would be nice if the article moving feature were available to all users though. I don't know much about how it currently works, but in theory it should be possible to implement it so that there is no danger of it deleting any articles or history. In that case it would be safe for anyone to use, as any mistakes could be reversed. Tim (the Enchanter) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

1 0

Re: URL followed by punctuation->broken link
by Toby Bartels 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

Brion VIBBER wrote: >Crop final punctuation from links: Brion, Tony Tut, tut, shouldn't misspell your supporters' names, Brian ^_^. -- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>

2 1

Wat is een oefenwedstrijd?
by Pierre Abbat 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

Someone calling himself "Jerrydon" has again uploaded a picture of some scene at a ball field, and this time added the comment "foto van een oefenwedstrijd van NEC". I cannot identify the game, and it's not used on any of the pedias, so I'm deleting it again. What does the comment mean? phma

3 2

Re: Blocking IPs
by Toby Bartels 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

Pierre Abbat wrote: >Road Runner addresses are generally dynamic, though people who leave their >computers on all the time get the same address for months. You may want to >complain to abuse(a)rr.com and ask them to lart the vandal. This one appears to >be in Albany, New York. I'm not really comfortable writing to abuse addresses myself and speaking for the community or appearing to. I guess that I'll unblock the dynamic RR address when maveric149 unblocks the similar one that he did. -- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>

1 0

Re: Image width
by Toby Bartels 27 Jul '02

27 Jul '02

Tarquin wrote: >Yes, but the width of the browser window itself should be much less: >http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TenWordLine That explains why I like to read Wikipedia with my browser at half screen. I always rationalised that it was so I could look at another article (or web site) while editing, but there's more to it than that. You are absolutely right! -- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
39
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l July 2002