From: Stevertigo <utilitymuffinresearch2(a)yahoo.com>
--- "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> However, that does not solve the problem that
> each fair use must be specifically described, i.e.
> when one uploads an image it is available to use
> on many encyclopedia pages, what is needed is
> information _about_each_use_
Each use?? IANAL -- but I know when man's "law"
starts contradicting God's Law.. Reason,
reasonability, etc. No wonder you guys are turned off
to "fair use" -- its almost untenable with that
standard.
If there was (years from now) an image.wikipedia.org,
that *centralized* dealing with images across all
wikis, it would be easier to deal with images as a
whole -- upon input. But you're saying this ideality
would still not satisfy fair use--that each use of
those images must be justified?
Wow.
~S~
-----
I see two possibilities
Either we decide it is enough to indicate the image is
copyrighted on the description page, but might fit
with fair use doctrine.
Then, we see the article pages to which the image is
linked.
in these articles, we mention ''in hidden text'' the
fact the use might be said "fair use".
Pb is that the user will not necessarily look at the
source, so will miss the info
Or the image description mention it is cp, but might
be fair use, and try to describe which use are
possible
As for the central database, it would make sense
perhaps, that it contains only gfdl and public domain
images. not cp ones, that would remain on local
wikipedias.
This would favor use of free images.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Fantasy wrote:
>Hi Mav (or Jimbo),
>Re http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fundraising.html
>In your function of Treasurer for the board,
Er, ah, I just volunteered to be treasurer if nobody else who was
qualified/motivated didn't want the position. Nothing official at all at this
point.
>I think it would be really helpful to add Information
>(on a subpage?) regarding how much is already
>there / who gave on what date.
We can't give out that info if the people who are donating don't want us to
release their names. Currently there is no way for people to indicate whether
or not they want their donation to be anonymous, but I'm sure we could post
periodic PDFs with the dates and amounts (no names).
>A lot of comments (especially on the german
>wikipedia) are always "Who is this Jimbo",
He's the guy that pays the bills and makes all this happen (over a quarter
million US bucks and counting last time I checked). What more is needed than
that?
>"What is this Wikimedia-Fondation", "Why should
>we trust this people",
So far the Foundation is just Jimbo and the reason you should trust him is
because he has never given any reason not to be trusted while being in a
position that could cause the end of the project on a simple whim (or to
bastardize the concept by making it commercial; have you ever seen an add on
Wikipedia?). He is now legally subordinate to the Foundation but as I said he
is the Foundation so far. I still trust him completely though.
>"Can we not have our own German Server/Organisation"...
Why? The Wikimedia Foundation /is/ the German organization too and we are far
more stronger by pooling our resources instead of fragmenting them.
>Maybe with a little bit of transparency we could
>show them that this is a really "Open" Organisation.
Slow down - we still need to set the darn thing up. Yes, it legally exists but
a great deal of work still has to be done by the community to make the
Wikimedia Foundation actually become more than just Jimbo.
>Maybe something like this:
>List of Donations as of xx.xx.2003 in total 123.4 USD:
And Euros, Yen, Canadian dollars and Pounds just so that people outside the US
can get a grasp on what the numbers actually mean (even though the actual
bank account will only have US dollars in it).
>Date / Amount / Real-Name / (Country?)
>Date / Amount / Wiki-Username
>Date / Amount / (wants to stay) Anonymouns
>Date / (wants to keep amount secret) / Name or Anonymous
>...
As I said there is currently no way for people to indicate all this info.
IMO, all we really should be worried about (especially at first) is pure
numbers and dates, not who contributed how much. The "who" has to be kept
confidential at least until we get a way for people to indicate that they
wouldn't mind having this info made public. Even then it should be a
community decision on whether or not to make the 'who' info easily available;
last thing we need is for people to think that the size of their donations
somehow gives them more power in our community. Merit and a good track record
should still be the number one criteria we consider for that type of thing.
>If the users see that the amount send was officially
>stated/received somewhere, maybe they would put
>more trust (and money) into Wikimedia/pedia.
For now at least, this info will have to be placed on a page on meta. I think
I heard that we have received about US$1,000 in donations so far and that
Jimbo put a couple thousand in the account when he opened it.
IIRC from skimming Wikitech-l, what we have right now in funds is almost what
we need to upgrade our current servers, but there has been some talk about
also buying a US$6,000 server in a few months (giving us a three server
set-up). That's why a mention of the Foundation and our fundraising drive is
an important thing to mention in the press release.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
From: Steve Vertigum
<utilitymuffinresearch2(a)yahoo.com>
>> "Our" logo was not a community work
>> "Our" logo choice was not a community decision.
>I didnt have the strength to read your whole email,
Anthere...
sorry...I...sometimes...am abusing people time in
going into details :-(
>(its late) but I share some of your
>sentiments-- in that the "process of elimination" way
>of doing things-- the Darwinistic voting process as
it
>were-- is ultimately entirely anti-thetical to the
>notion of wiki--which is primarily about
>collaboration.
>There *could have been more emphasis on
collaboration,
>there *could have been less of an emphasis on
>deadline, etc, etc, etc. But monday-morning
>quarterback is easy (American football
>reference=after-the-fact etc. ) And theser are things
>to think about and learn from. Before this whole
>production .. it hadnt occured to me how unwiki a
>"voting process" can be, if the wiki collaboration
>isnt considered. But now its more clear that the
>collaborative element needs to be enhanced in the
>future, and that the design of such endeavors and
even
>the wiki itself will continue to change to better fit
>the collaborative ethnic.
Your comment...raise three comments in my mind.
First, reminding that voting results in the
satisfaction of the majority. And that always, a
significant minority will be dissatisfied with the
result. And even if this minority accepts the decision
taken, because it the "rule of the game", it will
resist actively or try to attenuate the consequences
of this decision. And that is why I don't like voting.
Second, reminding that consensus is (imho, at least
ideally) a decision process that will lead to a
solution ***all*** can accept (live with), even if
some would have preferred another solution. It means
some people will be happier than others, but that no
one will be entirely dissatisfied. That is the deep
meaning of "consensus" as majority or "consensus" as
unanimity. It does not aim at pleasing everyone, but
at being at least acceptable to *everyone*.
Third, that I participated in four logos.
One, I made alone, and it did not meet success
(admitedly, it was bad).
One was on the original idea of another user, who
apparently since then is gone.
On two logos, I worked from a mascot suggestion of an
unknown wikipedian. Then I collaborated with Olie to
try to have a stylistic ant. To me, that means these
logos were the results of a 4 people input.
The last one is Erik logo, whom I offered the flower
from a picture I took in one of our nearby cropfield
last June. I did not do much otherwise. Took the
picture one sunny day, and extracted it. But, Erik had
no "free" picture.
I am no graphist. Neither developper, nor
knowledgeable in Communication. I forgot the
transparency on one logo.
But, I had fun making these logos, even if specialists
would say they are bullshit. And doing them with
another person, offering my flower to Erik, each of us
all, bringing a different little bit to these logos,
gave me a lot of happiness :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Hein ? ...speechless...no...I do not think I said that
Or if I did, it was not understood the way I meant it
I fear.
I am all for a common logo. I could go for variations.
But all my contributions to the topic have been in the
direction of us having a common one, under which we
could all be recognised as ONE project. I think what I
suggested once in a discussion was that old logos
could be kept, but I meant a global vote would decide
this. A wikipedia wide vote, where people would
globally agree to use the new one, or to keep the
current set as is. This was precisely the last option
of the second part of the vote. Option 12.
My opinion is that it is curious to have asked people
to vote for the 12 option globally, to again ask them
locally. The option 12 specified that only "the set"
was an option, and now we suggest that actually the
individual option is ok.
I am very unhappy to be here associated with that
third part, which I do not support. I supported the 12
option, not this.
Should one wikipedia choose that individualistic path,
I would consider that a failure for the current
process. If some of my comments are responsible for
this last part, I deeply regret them.
I have been unhappy for 2 years with our illigitimate
logo. I supported this competition very much, I spent
a lot of time trying to make logos myself and to get
french people involved, I do not want to be associated
to this third part, which is just going against all my
wishes.
I want us to take decisions together, to work deeply
on that. Not to pretend working together, to be
allowed at the last step to be sessionnists.
The current french logo has a very deep history to
carry. I want to say again that I respect and
appreciate very much his original author, a very nice
fellow. And to say again that I know he was doing what
he thought the *best* at that time. He was acting in
good faith.
When the logo was changed, we were very few, still in
phase I, with extremely little communication between
wikipedias, and a software decision process entirely
centred on en, which was strongly resented by several
internationals.
"Our" logo was not a community work
"Our" logo choice was not a community decision. One
person draw it one day, then sent it to Jason, asking
him to install it. Jason, quite naturally, said "let's
ask the community first". The original author got in a
frenzy, indicating the english people had no
legitimity over french choices. So the logo was
installed, with no french giving his opinion; just
discovering it one day on Wikipedia. The decision to
change the logo was made by one person, with no
discussion whatsoever. For this, it is illegitimate as
a community choice imho.
Besides, this affair raised tensions between Jimbo and
the french wikipedia, and it also raised tensions
between the french wikipedians as well. Some very
harsch words were exchanged. Some talk of forking
then.
I was a one or two months old newbie, so I only
protested, but let the logo in place. Just tried to
explain to Jimbo what happened. Thanks for Brion for
soothing people at that occasion. I hope people
realise how important Brion is in the existence of the
international wikipedias. Not only for software
details, but just for his very helpful way to help
people understand one another.
Were that logo change happen today, I would boldly
revert a change that would be "today" said anti wiki.
Actually, I think that anyone boldly changing the logo
with an entirely new one that way today would be
labelled a problematic user at best, a vandal at
worse.
Consequently, not only do the logo has no right to be
there, since no opportunity was given to "discuss" it
and to "choose" together, but it also carry the weight
of separatism.
This is bad for a common project to exist under
different logos. A logo is precisely a message of
unity. As I already said, variations are ok to me, as
long as it is obvious to externals that they belong to
a common network. But our logo was quite different
from the original one, and would be even more
different of the new one. I just fail to see it as
acceptable.
Somewhere, in the french definition of consensus,
there is a notion of "blocking position". If we were
deciding upon consensus, I would use this right. Since
we are currently using democracy, I can't.
However, if the french choice is to keep the current
logo, officially showing to the world, a clear desire
of independance, I think this will require to be
seriously worked on.
If it is just an aesthetic choice (clearly, not
everyone is happy with the new one), I wonder if I
won't set a voting session every few months, to check
if the group did not change his mind :-)))
And in any case, asking people to vote three times is
bad.
-----
Since some people are not very happy with the new one
they consider cluttered, why would not we adopt that
logo for now.
And then a couple of artists quietly work on a few
less variants, and make new propositions in a couple
of months ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:22:20 -0400
From: "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fair use and inline
links
To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<002a01c3844a$5cd0a5d0$7cfea8c0@COMPAQAlex02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Anthere" <anthere6(a)yahoo.com>
> However, our users should be given the copyright
> status of the information provided. Text is gfdl.
> Images...not always so. They may prefer not to use
> fair use images, or cp pictures, with author
> permission to wikipedia. The problem of inline
> linking, is that the user have no easy access to
that
> information. He could look for the internet link.
See
> the image displayed, and now what ? How could he
know
> how to tweak the link to get to the image
description
If this is going to be done it is all the more reason
for the image description page to be completed with
specific information. Remember that the image use page
can never be "fair use" it is the use of that image
that is fair use, thus all images that are used as
fair use must have copyright information, i.e. where
it was from, who took the photo, etc., otherwise a
subsequent editor will never be able to determine if
their use of the image will be fair use. If the
copyright owner appears and says, yes you can use the
image in this article but we do not agree with using
it in that article, it would be easier if both
articles (<!-- in hidden text -->) explained the
rationale for fair use, then if Wikipedia wanted to
say that it could use the images it would have some
idea why the uses are fair use. Otherwise the material
will just have to be deleted.
Alex756
-------------
That means it would be interesting to add some
"fields" in the upload page,
* perhaps one field explicitely for the cp status,
public domain, gfdl, cp with permission, cp without
permission, field that would be mandatory
* one field for author name
* perhaps one for source
If the image is cp, that means the one linking the
image to a page would have to respect a certain
process when linking it to a page perhaps ?
If standard inline linking is used, all that
information won't be available, but perhaps the user
could hide information in the page.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
When will File Upload on www.wikipedia.org be re-enabled? I'm trying to get
an artist's permission and I need to take a screenshot of his image in situ
with copyright recognition (which I will do by editing article and taking
screenshot without saving the edit). Thx, JDG.
A design will never please anyone unfortunately.
But, should we shut the very numerous voices that
scream "clutter" ? That have been screaming this for
at least 2 weeks, and certainly before the second vote
started (when it was quite obvious this one was an
leader) ?
What about a three voting choice rather
* agree for this logo to be THE logo
* will postpone my decision after some variants are
made
* want to keep my old washing power barrel ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Magnus wrote:
> OK, so is there an example for
> * a row with several cells (say, more than 2)
> * that has some properties in common (e.g., background)
> * which can't be defined in the <table> / {| statement
> * in a table that is not one of a default type (countries, elements
etc.)
Magnus, I do agree that most <tr..> options are redundant.
However I did find some that may qualify (there will be more but this is
what I found in half an hour). Most address alignment.
(<table align=..> has a different purpose)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_game
<tr align=center>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/computation
<tr align=center>
is this a standard table?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_I_of_Russia
<tr align=center>
is this a standard table?
(the elements table you mentioned is probably the Hydrogen etc version)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity
<tr align=center>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_LR_parser
<tr align=center>
only 2 columns but very many rows
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline
<tr valign=TOP>
----
The option most used for table cells by far is align=...
What do you think? Would a wiki shortcut for this be useful?
If so, some suggestions for syntax,
shown in this order: left,right,center.
(align=left for completeness sake, left is default)
|<
|>
|^
or
|[
|]
|^
or
|l)
|r)
|c)
The last one might easily be extended to valign:
|t)
|b)
|m)
So
|ct) would expand to
<td align='center' valign='top'>
Regards, Erik Zachte
>I would like to support making impossible to make
some
>inline links on all wikipedias; not english only.
>I understood the en took that decision because of
>goatce.However, as you say, it is not nice for the
>webmaster and the other web site. Besides, the link
>may die. Plus, the reader does not know whether he
may
>benefit the ressource. He might come to believe he
can
>just copy the image, and that one be GFDL. It is
>misleading and dangerous to other one.
>Finally, Alex and
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
>indicated that it was not necessarily a good idea to
>use this type of linkage.
So deep is the silence around this proposition of
mine, that I suppose that everybody is in agreement.
So...Brion...could you please remove the possibility
of making online linking from the international
wikipedias please ?
It is a consensus reached by those who worked clearing
up the topic these past 10 days. With no opposing
voices. Thanks.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com