>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:37:01 -0700
>To: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
>From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
>Subject: Re: [Wikilegal-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Public Library of Science
>GFDL Compatible
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>
>>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
>>
>>I never understood why he thought so, though. He may have explained
>>it to me in a way that I ought to have understood, nevertheless I didn't
>>and still don't.
>>
>>Read in particular 4(a) at the link I give above.
>>
>>--Jimbo
>
>I find this language particularly interesting:
>
>"If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must,
>to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference
>to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a
>Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent
>practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such
>Licensor or the Original Author, as requested."
>
>We, of course, are both a collective and derivative work.
>
>Fred
>
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere, so I post it anyway.
Last week the Public Library of Science (www.plos.org) launched their
first Open Acces Journal under the Creative Commons Attribution License
http://www.plosbiology.org
This means (at least in theory) all of this can be reused in the
Wikipedia, including images.
Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.bewww.open-education.org
I haven't received a message from Wikipedia-L in some
time, so I'm testing to make sure it still works...
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
> From: "Guillaume Blanchard" <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l ext pict
> > why don't allow them in meta/user/talk pages ? I
> had a
> > pictures of my
> > baby
> > on my user page, I can't see it any more :o(
> >
> > If you upload the baby picture on fr, I promise
> you we
> > won't delete it :-)
> >
> > (but put a newer one)
>
> It exacly what I want to denounce. People will put
> non-encyclopedic pictures
> on the server !
> What is the reason to ban external pictures from
> meta/user/talk pages ?
>
> Aoineko
Parce que nous voulons fournir � l'utilisateur final
une information pr�cise (d�taill�e) et exacte afin que
celui ci puisse juger pouvoir utiliser l'image ou non.
Cette information est fourni par l'interm�diaire de la
page de description de l'image. Sans la page de
description, l'utilisateur final ne peut savoir si
l'image est libre de droit ou sous copyright...
Quand tu upload une image sous m�ta, que tu fais un
lien externe vers m�ta, l'utilisateur final n'a pas
acc�s � la page de description.
Et m�ta n'est pas non plus un lieu de stockage.
Ce qu'il faut, c'est un syst�me central ou nous
pouvons partager des images, et dont les pages de
description par langage apparaitrait dans chaque
wikipedia. Meta n'est qu'un pis aller. Le stockage des
photos perso a le meme impact qu'il soit fait sur meta
ou ailleurs.
[[en:]] pictures on meta do not provide description
pages on wikipedia. Meta is not the right place to
pile up pictures. What we need is a common image
project.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Constantinople was officially the name of the city far past the Byzantine
period, I think...the Ottomans always called it that, and according to the
Istanbul article it was not officially changed to that name until March 28,
1930 (and interesting, Istanbul comes from Greek "stan poli", not Turkish).
(I know that's not really the point, but I thought I might clear up this
particular example :))
>From: Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV disputes
>inPolish-German articles
>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:03:56 -0800
>
>Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
>>You have wrong idea about the problem. The disputed area wasn't
>>exclusively
>>Polish or exclusively German at that time. Usually, it's hard to even
>>decide who was
>>the "majority", as we don't have detailed data from the epoch, and it's
>>known
>>to differ from town to town. It's also not possible to tell what was the
>>official
>>language - the concept of "official language" is a recent one - then some
>>mix of
>>Latin and local languages was used, depending on context. Also, the name
>>of a city
>>could be the same in both German and Polish at that time, only to diverge
>>later
>>with phonological changes. "Torun'" is example of a name which isn't
>>originally Polish
>>nor originally German. According to modern etymology it was Polish name
>>equivalent to
>>"Tarno'w", later to be imported to German language during times of the
>>Teutonic Order,
>>then to be reimported to Polish in significantly changed version. "Warta
>>Boleslawiecka"
>>is another such example, except that reimporting happened after the Second
>>World War.
>>
>>The only sensible policy is to consequently use contemporary names, with
>>possibly
>>versions in the other languages parenthesized.
>>
>>
>This makes sense for some of the names, but I don't think for all. For
>example, "Danzig" was until 1945 the generally accepted English name for
>that city, so I think speaking of someone like Arthur Schopenhauer (a
>German born in 1780) being "born in Gdansk" is a little bit anachronistic,
>and speaking of him being "born in Danzig (modern-day [[Gdansk]],
>[[Poland]])" is more accurate. I think we should generally use the name
>that would've been used by the person if it's clear, and otherwise prefer
>the modern name. So, Constantinople (not Istanbul) for the Byzantines;
>Danzig (not Gdansk) and Koenigsberg (not Kaliningrad) for 18th-century
>Germans, but Warsaw for everyone in all time periods, etc.
>
>The main impetus behind this suggestion is that it seems odd to say someone
>was born in a city that they wouldn't have called by that name--if
>Schopenhauer thought he was born in Danzig, and in fact mentioned Danzig in
>his writings, then that's what we should call his birthplace.
>
>However, I do think your argument has convinced me to use the modern names
>when discussing the general history, if former names are unclear, which I
>think is how it currently is: [[Gdansk]] refers to the city by that name
>throughout the history section, including the 16th/17th/18th/19th
>centuries. That seems fine to me. It's be wrong to refer to 16th-century
>[[Kaliningrad]] though.
>
>So perhaps unfortunately we need to do it on a case-by-case basis?
>
>-Mark
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Paul Ebermann wrote:
>Do you think of professors in US colleges, which
>teach the language in question (to students
>having English as native language), or of professors
>in a country of the given language itself (so the
>language will be native to most students).
That is a loaded question because you specifically mentioned "US colleges."
I don't care what nation or language is the main one for the professor and
his/her students so long as the professor teaches his/her students the
language we want articles in.
I have a personal slight preference for a 'foreign language' situation since
art, culture and history are often mixed-in with learning a foreign language
(at least in my part of the world). However I have no objection to a 'native
language' set-up if the result is the same.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Danny wrote:
>I agree with Steve that we should not pay for knowledge.
>Having "professional" experts could dictate the direction
>an article takes--someone can pull rank and say, "Hey, I
>am the expert. Don't argue with me."
Then we fire them for breaching two very clear clauses of their employment
contract; NPOV and working amicably with others.
But what I am mainly interested in is the hiring of college professors who
teach a particular language to do what Larry did for the English Wikipedia
(except in a part time capacity). Why such a specific criteria? Because we
could suggest to the instructor (or require him/her) to give his or her
students a choice to obtain part of their grade (and extra credit) by
translating Wikipedia articles or even create new ones from scratch. This
would potentially add dozens of Wikipedians contributing to a small Wikipedia
overnight.
So an professor who teaches 80 students Arabic at a university could lead his
or her students into creating many hundreds of articles in a single term.
Once an article is created by a student, the professor edits it to improve
usage and grammer and then adds a critique of the article on the student's
user talk page if needed. Then the student can view the article diff in order
to see the corrections. Other students could also help improve the article. I
think that would be a fun way to learn - and teach - a language.
That much activity should be able to kick-start the Arabic Wikipedia in a
year's time (which would be a nice cut-off point for the contract). So for a
few thousand bucks we get a self-sustaining Wikipedia in one of the world's
great languages. Dirt cheap price if you ask me once the grants start
comming-in. And they will come-in.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:27:02 +0900
From: "Guillaume Blanchard" <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp>
why don't allow them in meta/user/talk pages ? I had a
pictures of my
baby
on my user page, I can't see it any more :o(
If you upload the baby picture on fr, I promise you we
won't delete it :-)
(but put a newer one)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mailing lists (Was: Dammit!
> Post to the right
> list or don't post at all.)
> The Cunctator wrote for the most part:
>
> >Don't blame the participants--blame the flawed
> interface of using
> >multiple mailing lists for discussing Wikipedia
> issues.
>
> Do you mean that it would be better for the French
> speakers
> to look through all posts now on wikiEN-L /and/
> wikipedia-L
> to search for matters relevant to all Wikipedias?
> Having general material appear on wikiEN-L from time
> to time,
> and [[en:]]-specific material appear on wikipedia-L
> occasionally,
> seems easier to deal with than always having to
> check everything.
>
> Of course, I read both lists anyway, so I'll defer
> to Anth�re if I'm wrong.
>
>
> -- Toby
:-)
I am registered to fr, en, main, international,
textbook, and tech lists.
Because you guys are commonly spilling things at the
wrong place and that is the *only way* to know what is
going on. Ideally, I should also follow the village
pump as well, because more than once I fell upon
something all decided there. But I rarely do.
And of course, discussions also go on at meta, so that
is another place to watch.
For an english-only participant, that makes rather few
places to follow. Not so for someone working on
several wikipedias. Plus, we do not read so quickly as
you all do. And sometimes misinderstand entirely
things done, such as I did 2 days ago with Mav.
I think ultimately, one give up trying to follow.
I could not assume more than 100 messages a day in my
mail box, so I switched to digests. Now, I am breaking
threads, because I can't answer to a comment, just
copy the title of the thread. Further impairing the
information flow.
I know few internationals have the courage to follow
everything.
-------
Need proof ?
Some time ago, the english wikipedia decided to change
the software to make it suit better her own needs;
that is to make it possible to any sysop to block
someone.
I followed the discussion. It was a general soft
change, intended for the needs of ONE wikipedia only
(granted, we could use it as well one day, and that
can really help in case of vandalism). It was
discussed by english wikipedians only. It was decided
by english wikipedians only.
When I said that I did not want that on the french
wiki (sorry that no one else speak up, but I am not
gonna stop giving my opinion just because I am alone
talking), the soothing answer was "then we won't make
it available on the french wiki".
It was not even officially announced to
internationals, though imho, it is a *major* change,
and could have *very* bad consequences on those
wikipedias, where there are few sysops and no Jimbo.
Of course, the feature is available on the french
wiki. Just as politicians, promises last the time they
are written.
Similarly, a year ago, I remember fighting against the
red links for non articles, saying I would prefer ? to
be default. Again, I was finally told that the french
wikipedia would have ? as default then. Do I need to
say which one is default between ? and red links ?
Last week, one french, one that is supposingly
following the ML discovered by chance the ability to
block user name with one discussion here. He is
typically one that should have known, that should have
followed the discussion. But clearly did not. Probably
because the decision in software change was lost in
the discussion threads.
When the change over blocking decision was done,
french were discussing over a problematic user. I did
not want him to be banned, because I thought the issue
could be solved through discussion. Unless I am wrong,
it was.
If the french had known the feature, I foresee he
would have been blocked. So, I did not say anything
:-)
I suppose most french users are still not aware sysops
can block them. And it is not written anywhere :-)
------
I know damn well everyone is making efforts, and that
in the heat of a war, it is easy to make a mistake and
post things at a wrong place.
I know also that some people do disperse discussions
on purpose.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a global project.
Language can make whatever policies they see fit.
But software is commun asset. As such, any change made
to it should be discussed in common. Not at the
village pump and not on the english list. And ideally,
not in english only.
And when english people decide of a software change,
please do stop saying the change will be local only if
international do not agree with it. The truth is that
it is a good way to shut someone else opinion to say
so, and force someone to accept something, when they
discover that whatever their opinion, the change is
there, so better do with it.
I hardly dare to remind this, but the internationals
are slowly growing up. They may not be underage
wikipedias any more. They also have concerns on their
own, that are perhaps not those on the english
wikipedias.
There are also the small ones, not to forget. They
should perhaps have a specific mailing list, or a
specific place on meta, on their own, because their
concerns are differents from the biggest ones.
Any change in softwaree should NOT be discussed in
english and on english list and pump only. And it
should be officially announced somewhere. Perhaps a
"technical news" page should be set somewhere, where
we would put the upgrades announcements, the software
updates, the server status, the purchase
announcements, the classical bugs (ugly red missing
and visited links). Having all this centralized could
help have the information follow.
Meta is becoming messy, because we can't distinguish
was is one wikipedia relevant, from what is wikipedia
wide relevant. English use meta as a repository of all
what they like on their main space. It is hard to
distinguish what we should read from what is not
necessary. Making it even more likely that we miss
something.
I would like very much to see something like
"categories" on meta, with boxes to tick when creating
or saving a page "english specific matters only",
"general matters". So at least an indicator on the
recent change could highlight what we are little
likely to be interested in. Or...do I dare say
again...even better, separate recent changes ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com