On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
So, it seems (if I interpret Jimbo's mail on wikitech and the discussion
here correctly) that most of us would like *some kind* of category
scheme in wikipedia. I do, too! But, we seem to differ on the details
(shocked silence!).
So far, I saw three concepts:
1. Simple categories like "Person", "Event", etc.; about a dozen total.
2. Categories and subcategories, like
"Science/Biology/Biochemistry/Proteomics", which can be "scaled down" to
#1 as well ("Humankind/Person" or something)
3. Complex object structures with machine-readable meta-knowledge
encoded into the articles, which would allow for quite complex
queries/summaries, like "biologists born after 1860".
Pros:
1. Easy to edit (the wiki way!)
2. Still easy to edit, but making wikipedia browseable by category,
fine-tune Recent Changes, etc.
3. Strong improvement in search functions, meta-knowledge available for
data-mining.
Cons:
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
*little* complicated.
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
birth_place='London' death_month=.....>")
For a wikipedia I'd have to write myself, I'd choose #3, but with
respect to the wiki way, #2 seems more likely to achieve consensus (if
there is such a thing;-)
Magnus
If I am not mistaken, the important part of CC licenses is that they are not
necessarily viral.
For example, CC-by (aka CC-Attribution license) allows the authors of
derivative works to change the license terms, as I understand. If you modify
the work, you should still make an attribution. But you do not have to
license that derivative work you created under the same (CC-By) license. You
can fully copyright it, or you can release it under GFDL.
CC-by-sa (CC-Attribution-Share Alike) is a different story. That is viral
and requires derivative works to be released under the same licenese. This,
I think is clear when one compares two license terms, especially the part
4-b.
And here are the links:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcodehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
Sorry if I am mistaken. But if I'm right, you can create some derivative
work first, and you can release it under GFDL. I hope someone else can
double check the legal code on this point.
regards,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now
FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Andre Engels wrote:
> As far as I know, this is not true. Creative Commons only allows spreading
> under the same license, not with more or less rights. Since the GNU/FDL is
> not the same license, it is not allowed to go from CC to GNU/FDL - or vice
> versa.
>
> I'd love it if someone proved me wrong, and either showed that there is a
> loophole (intended or unintended) that can be used and/or could get the
> "those licenses require basically the same things but in different wording,
> so no harm is done by cross-licensing" argument into something that would
> be juridically valid.
There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you
to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that
covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require
attribution. A summary of their license is here:
http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any
purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative
works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.
That said, we still probably won't be able to include much. PLoS
publishes journals, and journals publish new research. As an
encyclopedia, it is beyond our scope to publish research that has not
yet gone through extensive peer review.
Stephen G.
SV wrote:
>Speaking of media -- we *need* a news wiki. No joke.
Already a very active one at [[Current events]]. Which, BTW, helps keep the
/encyclopedia/ up-to-date. Wikipedia would be harmed by diverting that effort
into a different project - it is simply way too similar to just updating the
encyclopedia to reflect current events.
Besides, there is already Indymedia.
Oh and I like the Wikimedia logo /exactly/ the way it is. The only thing I
would change on the MediaWiki logo is to obtain a photo of a more perfect and
healthy flower (unless that is supposed to be somehow symbolic ;).
The PM logo was a wonderful concept but PM's specific implementation of that
idea was a monster that needed refinement. The runners up did not need such
refinement (as always, IMO).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hey, sorry to keep bugging you all, but I think I've
missed like a few months worth of messages here and
I'm trying to catch up. Anyway, is there any mirror
site for Wikipedia where you can just read the
Wikipedia? Basically, I want a place to go where I
can read the Wikipedia when the server is
sloooooooooooooooooooow. If not, it might be a good
idea to set one up. Perhaps
http://www.wikipedia-imitation.org/ ? ;-)
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Learn a cool language for free!
http://www.lernu.net/
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingeltöne fürs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
Oh my, well, is the dispute over place names? Or more substantive
issues than that?
If the dispute is over place names, then subject to the advice of
Germans I know, I am willing to decree what strikes me as the
obviously correct solution: things are to be named in the German
wikipedia what the majority of Germans call them, and things are to be
named in the Polish wikipedia what the majority of Poles call them.
Also, is there any suspicion that a banned user (HJ) has returned?
She was always stirring that topic up.
--Jimbo
The amount of traffic on wikipedia-l and wikien-l is getting way out
of hand, and so I'd like to propose the following voluntary
guidelines. By 'voluntary' I mean that I'm not about to start
moderating the lists or kicking people off for failing this, but I do
ask that everyone have consideration for others and try to remember
these.
(And, I should say up front: I've been bad about this myself, and I
admit it, so don't call me a hypocrite!)
1. Wikipedia-l should be used for *policy* discussions that have
*global* implications, stuff about the general theory of NPOV, stuff
about how the software impacts our actual practices, etc. There will
often be overlap with topics on wikien-l, but we should still try to
keep wikipedia-l global in scope.
2. Wikien-l should be used for *policy* discussions that have
implications primarily on en.wikipedia.org. This includes limited
discussion of individual articles, discussion of particular disputes,
discussion of policies and practices that have arisen solely on en
rather than globally. Discussions of actual _content_ of articles is
fine, but should be tied as much as possible to a discussion of
general principles -- the place to talk about articles is the article
talk pages!
3. The distinction between wikipedia-l and wikien-l is sometimes
fuzzy, so let's cut people some slack if they don't do it precisely
the way we would do it.
-------
For *both* lists, check twice before sending -- could your message be
better sent to just one or two people? Is it just a joke? If it is
just a joke, it is so funny that you have to crack it to everyone?
(Sometimes this is fine, I'm just saying let's keep ourselves under
control.)
Is your post likely to hurt feelings? Is it likely to make a bad
situation worse? Is there a way to rephrase a few words to be kinder,
and to have a better chance of swaying good people to your point of
view? Are you simply antagonizing a jerk? Are you simply being a
jerk?
The main thing is: let's keep the lists focussed on our mission, and
keep extraneous junk to a bare minimum.
--Jimbo
> On Thursday, Oct 30, 2003, at 12:56 US/Pacific,
> Chuck Smith wrote:
> > Hey, I just noticed that
> >
> >
>
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/kristie.lustout/video/
>
> > wikipedia.wmv
> >
> > is no longer there. No big surprise. Does anyone
> > have a local copy of it who could upload it to
> > Wikipedia and then indicate the address to me?
>
> We don't have the legal right to redistribute it, of
> course, without
> CNN's permission.
>
> You can probably order a copy of the program on
> videotape, which will
> be higher quality anyway:
> https://orion.fdch.com/forms/orcnn.html
How about getting a not-quite-so-legal copy? If
someone has it, please email me privately (but DON'T
attach any files, please).
Thank you,
Chuck
=====
Learn a cool language for free!
http://www.lernu.net/
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingeltöne fürs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de