(Sorry, if you receive this for the second time - MS Exchange does not
like Mac OS X Mail very much, it seems :-/
German / Deutsch (nur ein Versuch - Bernd :-)
(Achtung: Ich weiß nicht, was IRS ist - s.u. Weiß jemand mehr?)
Ich freue mich die Existenz der Wikimedia Foundation Inc. bekannt zu
geben, die nach den Gesetzen des Staates Florida, Vereinigte Staaten
von Amerika, gegründet wurde. Ich übertrage dieser neuen Gesellschaft
folgende Rechtsgegenstände:
1. Alle Nupedia.com/net/ort/ usw. Domain-Namen
2. Alle Wikipedia.com/net/org/ usw. Domain-Namen
3. Alle Urheberrechte (copyrights) an Software oder Artikeln die bisher
bei Bomis, Inc., liegen und schon unter der copyleft-Lizenz
veröffentlicht wurden. (Dies umfasst Auftragsarbeiten von Jason, Tim,
Larry, Toan, Liz und mir selbst, sowie von anderen Bomis-Angestellten,
die an diesen Projekten im Rahmen ihrer Anstellung gearbeitet haben
mögen, aber es umfasst nicht Arbeiten von jeden
Beitragenden/Beteiligten, die diese auf eigene Kosten erstellt haben
oder während sie nicht Angestellte von Bomis waren.)
(All dies wurde bereits unter GNU GPL oder GNU FDL veröffentlicht, so
dass die Übertragung des Copyrights bzw. der Urheberrechte im Grunde
nur eine Formalität ist. Trotzdem möchten wir dies als ein gutes
Beispiel beitragen.)
4. Zusätzlich übertrage ich alle meine persönlichen Urheberrechte zu
Werken, die schon unter der GNU GPL oder der GNU FDL zu Wikipedia und
Nupedia entstanden sind, dieser Stiftung (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.).
--------
Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt (und bis auf weiteres) gehören die beiden
Computer, auf denen Wikipedia läuft, weiterhin der Bomis, Inc., aber
meine Absicht ist es, diese (der Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.) zu
stiften, sofern dies unter den gegebenen steuerrechtlichen Bestimmungen
/ Implikationen sinnvoll ist. Ich muss hierzu zuerst einen (Steuer-)
Berater befragen.
Ich möchte Sie NICHT ermutigen, schon jetzt Stiftungen bzw. Spenden an
die Wikimedia Foundation zu richten. Ich arbeite momentan noch in einem
steuerrechtlichen Ausnahmestatus mit dem/der IRS, und ich habe noch
kein Bankkonto für die Wikimedia Foundation eingerichtet. Dies wird
noch einige Wochen dauern.
Auf der Liste der nächsten Arbeiten stehen:
1. Den IRS-Prozesse für den steuerrechtlichen Status abzuschließen.
2. Erstellung von Formularen für die Übertragung von Urheberrechten
(copyrights) an die Stiftung - falls jemand dies übernehmen möchte,
schaut bitte unter:
http://www.gnu.org/licences/why-assign.html
Dort stehen Gründe dafür, warum dies eine Gute Sache ist.
3. Einrichtung eines Bankkontos für die Wikimedia Foundation
4. Einrichtung eines Handels-Kontos für die Wikimedia Foundation, um
Geschenke in Form von Creditkarten-Überweisungen möglichst einfach zu
machen.
Ich werde alle in den kommenden Wochen über den aktuellen Stand auf dem
Laufenden halten.
--- Jimbo
(Übersetzungsversuch: Bernd Kulawik)
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Tomos wrote:
>In Japanese wikipedia, the whole article gets deleted
>when some infringement is found (or when highly
>suspected case is not cleared after some period).
>Upon deleting a page, non-infringing text exist in
>the past or current versions will be recycled - but
>the revision history is gone. I don't know if this
>practice will sustain if, say, someone does an
>infringing pasting to an article with 100 revisions,
>though.
OK so instead of theoretically breaking the law by
allowing infringing material in the article history
you are definitely breaking the law by destroying
attributions to the people who wrote the
non-infringing part of the article? The GNU FDL
/requires/ author attribution and the way we do that
is through the article history. Please don't delete
the history of an article that still has valid,
non-infringing text just because somebody at one time
added illegal text; having infringing text is a lessor
evil than destroying valid author credit. If and when
a copyright holder complains a developer can delete
the particular revision. No need to be too paranoid
about this. :)
>If adding a new function for deleting just a past
>version of an article is fairy easy, I personally
>would like it to happen.
It sounds like it would be and I will be all for it.
However, there are more important things to do first
with the deletion management system to make it
scalable. And each revision deletion will have to be
easily undeletable by another Admin. Basic undeletion
(like we already have for entire article histories)
is, IMO, absolutely needed before regular Admins have
this ability. I have nothing against the developers
first making an easy to use user interface for them to
delete revisions though - and they always should have
the ability to permanently delete things (in cases of
slander and libel, for example).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Some people consistently move passages (usually the entire article) of
copyright violations to Talk pages. Talks may not necessarily be considered
Wikipedia proper. But they are still integral part of Wikipedia operations
nevertheless.
This such behaviour acceptable?
I think such people think the violated passage is still useful information
that can be consulted later. But I mean, if you want to see the violation,
go check out the history, or if the warning still presents, the source
website.
Or is Talks actually legally not a part of Wikipedia and so we are not
responsible if there's unlawful matters or craps on it?
Menchi Zh-En
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Currently, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights says, as I
undersand, that when one finds a suspected case of infringement, s/he should
delete that part, and then leave a note on the deletion "along with the
original source" in talk page.
What Menchi encountered were perhaps a result of that instruction.
Also, I have been wondering if English and other wikipedias keep
copyright-infringing material in the article history. True, it is not
accessible from search engine, but keeping an infringing material in the
page history sounds anyway illegal. And one may download the data including
past versions and think
the whole thing is under GNU_FDL. Is it trivial enough to ignore?
In Japanese wikipedia, the whole article gets deleted when some infringement
is found (or when highly suspected case is not cleared after some period).
Upon deleting a page, non-infringing text exist in the past or current
versions will be recycled - but the revision history is gone. I don't know
if this practice will sustain if, say, someone does an infringing pasting to
an article with 100 revisions, though.
If adding a new function for deleting just a past version of an article is
fairy easy, I personally would like it to happen.
Currently, Copyright infringement notice in
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text include "unless a
stub replaces this text, deletion will occur." So are there indeed articles
with infringing materials in some past revisions?
Cheers,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:03:10 +1200 (NZST)
> From: "Simon Oosterman" <bobo(a)enzyme.org.nz>
>
> I have recently tried to install the wikipedia software (phaseIII) onto
> the server I use to host my sites. Unfortunately, I did not have much
> luck, and neither did the administrator.
>
> He beleives that you need root access to be able to install the software
> which is unfortunate since I do not have a virtual gnu/linux box... as a
> result, when I run install.php it stops somewhere along the line when it
> tries to create a wikiadministor in the mysql db..
>
> Any ideas or ways to get around this?
>
> I would rather not have to use twiki instead of wikipedia phaseIII!
>
> Is there any possibility of including access controls into wikipedia? I
> would like to have some rather delicate documents collectively edited, but
> I can not have people adding things to the list that would then make it
> incorrect? (sensitive information...!) (-:
Our software really hasn't been designed for ease of installation. I
strongly recommend UseModWiki instead (
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl ). It's a snap to install: just
put a single Perl script in your cgi-bin, create a directory for you
wiki data, and edit the config file. It's wiki syntax is almost the
same as Wikipedia's, and you can easily set up an editor
password, so that no one without the password can edit the wiki.
- Stephen
> From: "Ilya N." <ilyanep(a)yahoo.com>
>
> I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't recieved one since I
> signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always look at the archive...
>
> Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP (very annoying) if this
> persists!
Without more details, it's difficult to diagnose the problem. If you go
to http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l and enter
your email address, at the bottom of the page, you can examine
and change your subscription options. There is an option called
"Disable Mail Delivery". Make sure that this is set to "Off".
If that doesn't fix it, I'm afraid I don't have any other ideas.
- Stephen
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org
I have recently tried to install the wikipedia software (phaseIII) onto
the server I use to host my sites. Unfortunately, I did not have much
luck, and neither did the administrator.
He beleives that you need root access to be able to install the software
which is unfortunate since I do not have a virtual gnu/linux box... as a
result, when I run install.php it stops somewhere along the line when it
tries to create a wikiadministor in the mysql db..
Any ideas or ways to get around this?
I would rather not have to use twiki instead of wikipedia phaseIII!
Is there any possibility of including access controls into wikipedia? I
would like to have some rather delicate documents collectively edited, but
I can not have people adding things to the list that would then make it
incorrect? (sensitive information...!) (-:
-- bobo