Hello,
I'm new to the mailing list and I have some questions regarding GFDL.
I'm active in Greek wikipedia. Some months ago greek company
http://www.magenta.gr/ created a wiki (http://www.live-pedia.gr) importing
in it, its previously commercial encyclopedic dictionary
http://www.magenta.gr/gr/lexicons/gr_encycl_dictionary.htm (of questionable
quality) to create a wikipedia-like encyclopedia, asking from users to
contibute. For months there was a notice that all content is GFDL (in fact
they had copied the copyrights page
(http://www.livepedia.gr/index.php/Live-Pedia.gr:%CE%94%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE
%B9%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1) from Greek wikipedia
(http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%
B4%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1:%CE%A0%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%
CE%AC_%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%8E%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1). During
this time, some articles from Live-Pedia were transferred to greek wikipedia
and articles from greek wikipedia to Live-Pedia (paying attribution
according to the GFDL)
Last week the notice to GFDL has change to one that states that the content
is under another license (Magenta Documentation License) but that license is
not uploaded yet, so we do not know the rules.
As I understand:
* All content that has been copied while there was a notice that it was
under the GFDL continues to be like that, and that means that all articles
that were copied to wikipedia before they change the license can stay.
* I can still use the articles (the 500 longest articles) I had copied to my
computer before they change the license (I'd like to put some in wikipedia).
Q1: Are these right?
Q2: The articles copied from wikipedia to Live-Pedia should be deleted from
Live-Pedia or they can stay with a notice that they are under the GFDL
unlike the rest of their articles that they are under another license?
Thanks,
geraki@elwikipedia
Hi,
my name is Marcio.
I would like to know if there is any project involving the Brazilian Portuguese language.
If not, there is a chance of starting one ?
Brazilian Portuguese is similar to European and African Portuguese are similar, but there is a lot of differences in writing and meaning of the words that can make the enciclopedia articles tricky.
Best regards,
Marcio
> In the translation page however the language shows as a possible target
> in the list, however when choosing it, there is an error message
> saying the language is not known (or something like that, in German)
Sorry, now ok.
Am Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:15:04 +0100 schriebst du:
> uld it be possible to add Walloon (de: Wallonisch, in the language
> itself: walon)
It's done.
Cheers
Harald
It seems that the BBC likes us now :-).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> OPEN media to connect communities
> BBC News - UK
> ... Wikimedia has emerged from the Wikipedia, the freely-available, editable,
> open and collaborative online encyclopaedia set up by Jimmy Wales. ...
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4450052.stm>
On 11/20/05, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/11/20, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com>:
>
> > > So every webpage is notable? You can get information from the page
> > itself
> > > and from the Internet Archive.
> >
> > Only if there is stuff to write about it. If not, it can happily be
> > merged into a "list of websites" or some such thing.
>
>
> I was talking of web pages, not websites. And how do you decide if there's
> something to write about it?
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Just because something is notable doesn't mean it has to have its own
separate article. I'd say most, if not all, information about web
pages would be better off merged with something else. The way "you
decide" if there's something to write about it is the same way "you
decide" whether or not any bit of information improves an article or
makes it worse, using a wiki.
People, on the other hand, tend to have separate identities from one
another, and merging generally isn't a good idea. I especially hate
when one person is redirected to another person, and I don't think
that should ever be done. "Baby Gary who's 3 months old" might find a
better home on a page about his family though, at least for a while.
But please not as a separate section unto itself.
That's another pet peeve I have - when multiple different articles are
"merged" into a single one in a way that puts each article as a
separate headline (sometimes even with its own external links and
other subsections). I guess this is done as a compromise between
those who want to delete the information and those who want to keep
it, but it seems like the worst of both worlds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Answers (a redirect to [[List of
Google services and tools]]) is an example of where this disgusting
technique takes place. I fail to see how this is a better way of
organizing things. A list should be a list. An article on Google
services and tools should discuss the relationship of the tools and
services to one another, and discuss general trends which Google is
making, not present a bunch of separate articles stuck together on one
page.
Anthony
When I was trying to find what languages use small letter at the
beginning of language name, I found that it is very hard to find
village pump on bigger Wikipedias.
On Serbian Wikipedia, we put village pump as the second link inside of
navigation bar and I think that it should be implemented on all
Wikipedias. (Not necessary to be the second, but inside of navigation
bar.)
What do others think?
Dear all,
The second global IRC chat about Wikimania '06 will be this Saturday,
at 1600 UTC, lasting around an hour. We will have an update on
conference dates and deadlines, and further discussion of goals.
Please add to the agenda, and add your name if you plan to attend,
here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Planning#Meetings
You may also see on that page that a program meeting is planned for
next Tues or Wed; date pending a bit more feedback from last year's
planners (this will be an open meeting, but scheduled to make it easy
for programme planners from last year to attend, as programmes and
programs have much in common).
-- Sj
Other ways to get involved :
1. Volunteer your time, language skills, and enthusiasm:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Teams
2. Sign up for yet another mailing list (wikimania-l). It is
currently low-traffic and primarily English-language; two things you
can help change.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
3. Sign up to attend, plan carpools or offer crash space for the
event. (harder to do
before the date is fixed, of course)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Attendees