> The first and probably best would be to go to Wikipedia forks such as
> Wikinfo and mcfly (ok, maybe not mcfly) and tell them how the folks at
> the Wikimedia organisation are... well, describe your plight. Some
> forks really hate the Wikimedia foundation and will feel very sorry
> for you and assist you with such a project, whereas others seem to be
> meant more to augment Wikipedia and their users still contribute to
> Wikipedia on a regular basis.
> best,
> node
If someone is serious about setting up a wiki and willing to help me figure
out the technical details I'd be willing to provide the server space. But
apparently Tim Starling is already willing to do this on Wikimedia's
servers...
> In fact, I'll happily create
> any wiki if the potential contributors agree in advance to use a
> language file which is already mature, and that you refrain from
> requesting interface customisations which require developer attention.
> -- Tim Starling
I'd like to create a wiki for for geographical information. I've registered
wikiteer.org. Can we set it up?
Anthony
Jens Ropers wrote:
> I agree with what you said below, yet I will continue to call ALL
> kinds of napalm-type weapon "napalm", because the word very deservedly
> carries a horrible connotation and the newer weapons' slightly altered
> formula makes them no less despicable, especially in cases where the
> they're actually worse (like having "added oxidisers").
>
> Let's not forget that the article rightly pointed out that several
> official documents from the U.S. military itself referred to the newer
> napalm-alike weapons as "napalm".
> "If that's what you call it yourself you can't scream murder over
> other folks calling it that."
Actually, it wouldn't be the US military claiming the trademark. If the
trademark owner does misuse the name (i.e. DaimlerChrysler referring to
a Land Rover as a Jeep), then that's pretty much the end of the game as
far as the trademark. But in this case the supposed owner is Dow
Chemical, not the US military, though the (lack of) evidence
increasingly suggests this is not actually a trademark.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to criticize your use of the word, just
highlighting the fact that people are using it with different levels of
precision. Presumably our article on napalm could stand to have a
section dealing with the composition of napalm and discuss the varying
definitions being applied.
> That link has expired.
> Can you give us a description of what you did to get to the page or
> point us to a screenshot or password protected copy of the content
> somewhere?
>
> On 25 Sep 2004, at 07:38, Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
>> http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?
>> f=toc&state=vg813n.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural
>> =yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PAR
>> A2=Napalm&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_
>> search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
>
The data indicates that it's a search through the US Patent and
Trademark Office, which is something I already had done in my initial
research. Napalm, at least in the sense we are discussing, does not
appear in the search. That's a fairly strong indication that napalm is
not a trademark. In the absence of any other evidence, I would have to
conclude, as Stirling does, that napalm as a trademark is an urban legend.
>> And genericide isn't a crime, the accepted definition removes
>> trademark status when a word enters common use. Companies discourage
>> use of trademarked words as regular words, not because it is against
>> the law, but because it is not against the law.
>
Actually, it can be against the law if they choose to pursue the issue.
Trademark owners have been known to seek injunctions against other
parties to prevent them from misusing their trademark as a generic term.
This is not a criminal issue, however, and genericide is barely a word,
let alone a crime.
--Michael Snow
Jens Ropers wrote:
> If it acts like napalm but just happens to contain ''slightly''
> different chemicals, ''plus added oxidisers'', then of course it's
> ''totally irresponsible'' to call the substance napalm.
> Jayzuz, that would be like--like calling a land rover a jeep! Or
> calling a whirlpool a jacuzzi!! Or--gasp--calling photocopying
> xeroxing!!! How TOTALLY inaccurate!!!!
> </irony>
Actually, from the perspective of the owners of those respective
trademarks (Jeep, Jacuzzi, and Xerox) it would be totally inaccurate and
irresponsible. You may not personally care about such things, but they
would go to a great deal of effort to discourage people from using those
terms incorrectly.
Wittingly or not, the elements of your analogy have a significant point
in common, which is that these are all trademarks in danger of
genericide (fortunately, a much less violent demise than those you have
been arguing about). Interestingly enough, I discovered that our article
on napalm states that it too is a trademark, belonging in this case to
Dow Chemical. However, my initial research was unable to verify this
claim. Does anybody have a source that could back this up? I rather
wonder whether napalm as a trademark might already have gone generic,
given how many people use it to mean any gasoline-based military
incendiary device, as shown by this discussion.
Instead of flaming each other from divergent points of view, perhaps we
could redirect our focus to getting facts correct in our articles.
--Michael Snow
First of all, let me say that as always, for me NPOV is
non-negotiable. There will be no policy which says that Chinese
wikipedia must avoid topics that are upsetting to the Chinese
government. Chris Mahan and anyone else who advocates for such a
policy may continue to do so, and such a discussion might prove
interesting, but please do so with full knowledge that I place a very
absolute firm veto on the idea from the outset, so the discussion will
necessarily be academic only.
I don't exercise my authority much, but I have always said that NPOV
is non-negotiable, and I really do mean that.
Having said that, I also think that the best approach for us is to
work within the Chinese system to whatever degree is possible. That
is, although I do not know much about Chiense law, I know that the
Chinese constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, press,
assembly, and that Chinese law does allow for these things to a
degree. It is most likely the case that Wikipedia's policies of
neutrality mean that we do not actually violate Chinese law, although
in the long run we may have to go into court in China to prove it.
This will be difficult and expensive, but it is a far better route
than either of wild ranting against the Chinese government and a far
far far better route than to give up our neutrality principles for the
sake of convenience.
--Jimbo
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
To Fred Bauder:
> There have been instances where Chinese troops have been undisciplined.
> All it proves is that people who have been desperately poor
> all their lives were tempted by wristwatches and ballpoint pens.
Do you know what you said is things about 20 years ago when I’m only a child?
Do you know China have the most cell-phone users in the world now?
Do you know China have ten million broadband Internet users,
just after USA, Japan and Korea, and will surpass Korea soon?
Yes, we are a developing country, but we are developing fast.
I have to say that the mailing list now is full of bias on China.
About Tibet problem, I provide some history issue
to reflect the common opinion in China.
Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama must be approved their identity
by the central government since Qing dynasty hundreds years ago.
Just in 1910s when China was very weak,
there was a movment to divided Tibet from China.
Great British took some part in the issue,
And we dislike the colonialism role of Great British.
* There are memorials which regularly get deleted from Wikipedia. A
few handfuls of them have escaped deletion and are waiting in VfD/Old
to be migrated to a separate wiki for such content. (Content about
modern people, or the recently deceased, often hard to verify)
* There are also regular bios of modern people who don't seem
encyclopedic, which find their way into the Wikipedia dustbin.
* Finally, there are people who would love a place to collaborate on
genealogy, but recognize that the large collection of structured stubs
such a project would produce, would be somewhat anathema to current
Wikipedia article standards.
The proposal for a Wikimorial/Wikipeople wiki grew slowly out of the
above points; Mav's original idea was called Wikimorial, and most of
the old discussion on meta is at [[m:Wikimorial]] ; more recent
discussions about the name have touched on Wikifamily, seem to prefer
the name Wikipeople.
The memorial wiki has become as much a dumping ground for obits of
people killed in the disaster, as a memorial to the event and its
extensive aftermath.
Some of the obituary content of the current September 11 memorial wiki
might be better suited for a Wikipeople project (and linked to from a
list on the memorial wiki, for instance).
I would like to see a Wikipeople wiki get off the ground, to help
clarify where certain content related to people should go, and to
encourage contributions from editors on genealogy and 'unencyclopedic'
people. Please comment.
--
+sj+
Scríobh Ray Saintonge,
> This is speculative polemic.
> Ec
Yup, and we've got all those shining examples of free, independent media in
the PRC so that we may witness their enlightened, liberal approach to
criticism. Oh wait, no we don't.
If the Chinese government isn't going to let the Chinese media give a
balanced, NPOV opinion on such things as Falun Gong or Tibet, what makes you
think that they're going to tolerate Wikipedia, especially Chinese-language
Wikipedia, doing the same. Not unless we agree to toe their party line -
which, I would sincerely hope, we're not actually willing to do.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Wikimedia has remained unblocked in China
for as long as it has been.
Regards,
- Craig Franklin
-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.
Hi,
Mandrakesoft, the company which created and sells the Linux distribution, is
interested to distribute a DVD with an English and French version of
Wikipedia. This DVD will be sold in their web site and included with the next
distribution, due in next April.
Mandrakesoft will take legal responsibilities for this publication and is
ready to donate some money to the Wikimedia Foundation. The amount is still
to be decided.
Mandrakesoft wants that we provide them with a master DVD, and would like to
complete this first edition for Christmas.
As you may have noticed, a mention about this was included in the press
release and the newsletter with the authorization of Mandrakesoft who will
also publish a press release about this project.
The summary below is also available on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_and_Mandrakesoft
== Points fixed so far ==
* It will first be sold on Mandrake web site, then included in the next
version of the distribution.
* It will include only the current version of the English and French
distribution. Mandrakesoft publishes a French version sold in French speaking
countries and an English (international) version sold elsewhere in the world.
The English Wikipedia will be sold with the international version of Mandrake
Linux.
* Mandrakesoft asks that the Wikimedia Foundation provide them with a master
DVD.
* Mandrakesoft will take the legal responsibility for this publication.
* Fair use images should be removed as the publication has to comply with
worldwide copyright standards, not US only. Also images without proper
licensing information have to be removed.
== Questions that need answering ==
* Do we include only complete articles or the whole of Wikipedia including
stubs?
* How do we package it? Several possibilities, see the page on meta.
== What you can do ==
So we need some help to complete this project.
* Work is needed to provide proper lisensing information on all images in the
English Wikipedia.
* Help packaging. Help with technical knowledge is needed here. Med and
Hashar, among others, are already working on this.
Thanks,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
A new multilingual mailing list has been set up for people interested
in translations of wikimedia content. You can sign up here :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/translators-l
The list will announce new content for translation as soon as it is
created, and provide a place to talk about the progress of
translations. New content includes new Mediawiki: messages and
sitewide notices, and important changes to pages on the
wikimediafoundation site.
--SJ
I don't know about you guys, but I think it's intolerable that the
dictatorial Chinese government shuold be able to say what sort of articles
we have on Wikipedia. I, personally, would rather the resource be banned
within the PRC, than comply with their demands for self-censorship.
Plus, if we do soften our approach on there, and adopt a more
pro-"communist" attitude, I think we do a disservice to the Chinese-speaking
community. The very nature of the repressive Chinese government means that
they won't be satisfied with NPOV as it stands - they'll want a POV that
makes them look good, just like in Chinese newspapers, television, and
radio. Such a tone is incompatible with the foundations that Wikipedia
stands for.
Regards,
- Craig Franklin
-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.