http://www.intern.de/news/5441.html
Reuters jagt Content-Diebe
25.03.2004
Die WebProNews vergleicht die neueste Ankündigung der Nachrichtenagentur
Reuters mit den Maßnahmen der Musikindustrie gegen P2P-Nutzer. Reuters
will zukünftig genauer überwachen, wo Agenturinhalte legal erscheinen,
beziehungsweise illegal übernommen werden.
--
nach uns der synflood.
"Peter Gervai" <grin(a)tolna.net> schrieb:
>
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Speci%C3%A1lis:Whatlinkshere&tar…
>
> should list
>
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Magyar_uralkod%C3%B3k_list%C3%A1…
>
> but it doesn't. Obviously it's because of the problem I already brought up
> half a year ago about msg and linkback tables.
>
> Is there a way to actually update the whatlinkshere tables? At least weekly
> or so? It would be _extremely_ nice to have that in working order. It is not
> a solution to "go and edit them once" since I cannot FIND them without the
> whatlinkhere, and that's the purpose of the stuff anyway. :-)
I agree; I know one regular on nl: who has complained that he would like to go
through Deadendpages, but gave up on it because there are many redirects in
there...
Andre Engels
May international wikipedias have a different power
structure than the english one ?
Will all the stewards currently listed on meta have
these powers over all wikipedias or just the english
one ?
Do they need to have knowledge of sql queries and
linux stuff ?
regards ant
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
I propose that wikipedia-l and intlwiki-l should be merged into one
(wikipedia-l). Please read my rationale, comment and vote on:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list_merge
The proposal includes a new page on meta, [[m:Requests for permissions]],
to handle bureaucrat and adminship requests.
Regards,
Erik
What do you think about force user to choose a licence (in a combo box) when
uploading a media (pictures, sound, etc.) to Wikipedia. I see 2 benefits:
* Force user to care about licence,
* Automatically add {{msg:<NameOfLicence>}} to the bottom of media
description page.
Aoineko
Example:
----------------------
| Choose a licence |v|
----------------------
| GFDL |
| Public Domain |
| Fair Use |
| ... |
--------------------
Erik Moeller wrote:
>The goal of Wikisource is to be a text respository.
>Text is only a subset of the larger group of media,
>and there is no reason to have a specific repository
>exclusively for text and a combined repository for
>other media. Either they should all be combined or
>they should all be split up.
Wikibooks is already more than just textbooks - why can't Wikisource be about
more than just text?
Just expand the focus of Wikisource instead of creating a new project.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
>What are the downsides?
>
>- The user interface is likely to be a bit clunky at first. We can fix
>that.
>- This project can exceed Wikipedia in costs if it is successful. I
>believe prominent fundraisers will cover us, if not, we can fix this by
>limiting the scope of the commons.
>- People will upload all sorts of things which we don't want. We can fix
>that the same way we deal with Wikipedia articles we don't want.
>- Changes to the software will be very specific to our needs, other
>MediaWiki sites will probably be unable to interface directly with the
>commons. Maybe we can authorize other projects on an individual basis to
>interface with us.
>
If I may suggest another complication--I think using the name "Wikipedia
Commons", or a variation on it, such as a commons.wikimedia.org URL,
will give some people the impression that material there is licensed
under one of the Creative Commons licenses. If this source repository is
not going to restrict itself to any one license, its name should not
suggest that it does.
For that reason, I prefer the Wikisource name, and I agree with mav that
it seems like we could just expand our existing project instead of
starting a new one. I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete with
it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our energy
on setting up duelling projects?
--Michael Snow
In my original proposal I suggested that images on the commons would have
to be referenced as
[[Image:co:Airplane.jpg]]
I realize now that this is not necessary. We can instead just use
[[Image:Airplane.jpg]]
If you would add this instruction on the English Wikipedia, and
Airplane.jpg exists locally, it would use that one. If it doesn't, but it
exists on the Commons server, it would use the remote version instead.
This makes the use of the Commons transparent. There should be links on
the image (really file) pages to quickly move files to and fro.
We can even provide this functionality for other MediaWiki sites, or wikis
which implement the necessary interface. Say you would type
[[Image:Paris-Metro.jpg]]
on Wikitravel; again, if the image exists locally, the local version is
displayed, if it does not, the remote version is downloaded and cached for
future use (compare timestamps when using cached commons images).
This would also make it relatively easy for a mirror to use our images
without downloading our entire collection of them. They would just have to
enable that option, and images would be transparently fetched (and
updated!) when needed.
As an additional advantage, we no longer need to worry about the fair use
issue. Sites which want to allow fair use would download a tarball of
these images generated from the files on the *local* wiki (e.g. English),
the others would only accept images that are stored on the commons server,
guaranteed to be under a free license.
The same principle could even be applied to articles. If you link to
[[Declaration of Independence]] from a Commons-connected wiki, and that
page does not exist, the wiki would fetch it from the Commons and enter it
into the edit box that is normally blanked (like Wikinfo's Wikipedia
import interface). You can then copy and paste content from there as
wikisource [*], or you can save it locally to get a copy of that page.
What would be really neat, of course, would be transparent transclusion of
articles from the Commons:
{{commons:Declaration of Indepdence>p2s1}}
becomes:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness.
p2s1=paragraph 2, sentence 1 - this only works for pages which rarely
change, of course.
Look Alice, we're in Xanadu! Again, these segments could be stored locally
and compared with timestamps from the Commons on demand.
This is advanced stuff, but could certainly be entered into our roadmap.
Any wiki which would implement our interfaces could transclude material
when needed.
Regards,
Erik
[*] I actually typed "wikisource" without thinking, referring to wiki
source code, not to the Wikisource project. I think that illustrates my
point about the name being ambiguous nicely.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>I can see how the misinterpretation of
>"Commons" that you cite might arise , but the image that it evoked from
>me was quite different, and is based on a meaning of "Commons" that has
>been around for much longer: the town square where everyone comes
>together to share what unites them.
>
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course.
But why invite confusion, especially if we include things under CC
licenses, as Erik's proposal would allow? Better to have a distinct name
that causes no misunderstandings. Since the commons is land for the use
of the whole community, how about the equivalent in water? i.e.
"Wikimedia Reservoir". The original sense of "source" is water-based, too.
>> I'm not terribly familiar with the activity on
>> Wikisource, but if Ec thinks the commons project would just compete
>> with it, he's in a good position to know. Why should we dissipate our
>> energy on setting up duelling projects?
>
>"Compete" does not exactly describe my concern. It's more a clash of
>visions.
>
(Ray Saintonge also wrote:)
> Personally, just like Encyclopedia Brittanica is a major competitor of
> Wikipedia, I would see Wikisource as eventually becoming a competitor
> of Project Sourceberg.
This statement from your previous post was part of the reason I
expressed myself as I did. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
>Perhaps too, the Wikimedia Commons can begin the move toward unified logins.
>
This I would wholeheartedly endorse. For me personally, and I know of
others, the biggest thing that inhibits participating in multiple
Wikimedia projects is the nuisance (mixed with a little laziness) of
having to log in separately to each one.
--Michael Snow