At 14:10 11/11/2006, Mark wrote:
>Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a
>dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know
>the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try
>to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise
>you are being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or
>whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to
>stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such
>language isn't considered rude.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I have to disagree with your
comments on "Don't be a dick". How the phrase is used will surely
determine whether it is being used as an Ad hominem, no matter how it
is meant. As the description itself says, "Telling someone 'Don't be
a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself".
There are other ways of criticising someone, and referring them to
the phrase (described as an essay, not a policy or guideline).
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Must Arbitrators abide by WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING, or are they exempt
during an arbitration case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscien…
1. I am embroiled in an arbitration case in which one of the editors
has been cited of being uncivil against me (with evidence provided),
using Ad hominems such being "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance",
advised me not to "be a dick", etc.
An Arbitrator has disagreed (no problem), but has then commented that
it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade", which may Oxford
English Dictionary defines as:
"to call things by their real names, without any euphemism or
mincing of matters; to use plain or blunt language; to be
straightforward to the verge of rudeness."
To me this reads as if the Arbitrator is justifying the language,
because it is considered accurate.
2. The same editor is citing as using "strong negative language"
against living people (cf. WP:LIVING), and the same Arbitrator has
made the same comment.
3. The same Arbitrator has also noted that "I do not believe Ian
Tresman's deserve good faith"
It does seem to me that if editors can not use such language at any
time, then Arbitrators should be setting an example, otherwise
editors will loose faith in the Arbitration process.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Request for wikipedia in Modern Normative Belarusian (proposed as "Belarusian (Orthography Revison of 1959) language (which is official in Republic of Belarus) has been in "Request for new language" since July of 2006.
Since that time it collected more than 100 (108) voices for support and 35 voices for oppose.
Since August of 2006 there is Test wikipedia in Normative Modern Belarusian language ( http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/be ) which now has more than 2500(!) articles in it.
Recently the request collect enough voices (3/4) for support (including 15(!) native speakers - actually there were more fluent speakers as many comments are written in modern belarusian language to get moved to "Approved requests".
Can we, please, get a wikipedia now?
We requested domain bel.wikipedia.org as it's official ISO 639-2,3 code for modern belarusian language, and because be.wikipedia.org is taken by alternative belarusian language (unofficial s.c. "neo-tarashkevich" belarusian language that differs much from Normative Modern Belarusian language).
Or, maybe, our team should contact a developer to get a wikipedia?
Thank you forward!
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 11/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Liberatory 100M.
>
> A lot of good ideas of stuff we want were collected. There is no
> further news at this time, but remember... this is not about a donation,
> but someone trying to think of sustainable business models around doing
> content liberation in conjunction with Wikipedia... it is one thing to
> imagine someone deciding to donate that much money to the movement, but
> another thing altogether to think about someone doing something
> sustainable (i.e. where they can recoup their investment).
One way to sustain regain such an investment would be to provide a new kind
of hybrid license. I have been mullying over this for some time because of
some conversations with people who have an image library and sell individual
pictures for use on websites or as hard copies. One indicated an interest in
donating some images to commons but when I explained that any images they
donate could be downloaded from Wikipedia and redistributed at will (with
only attribution as a requirement) they decided not to pursue further
discussions.
Therefore it would be useful to have a license that would be acceptable on
commons that had the following characteristics:
1) Work remains copyrighted and is licensed for use
2) Work can be used by Wikipedia without limitation on any pages of a
Wikimedia Foundation project
3) Work can be freely used by anyone who redistributes content from
Wikipedia as long as:
a) the work is attributed to the source; and
b) the work is small part of a the total redistribution of Wikipedia
content
4) The Work can not be individual redistributed without consent, nor can it
be sold as an individual unit in electronic print or other format.
I think this would create a situation where an owner of vast amounts of
content could provide Wikipedia with decent resolution images (like (1-2MB),
and still be protected from someone using commons to harvest images and
resell them elsewhere without getting a proper license.
Additionally, this creates no undue burden on any of the users of WMF
content like WikiJunior books, sites that mirror WMF projects, or sites that
use some subset of WMF content, because they can use the works in question.
Those that are looking to redistribute specific content would have to get
permission, but if there is value in selling or redistributing a single
work; then there will be enough value in forging a license agreement with
the author.
Of course details would have to be worked out like what to do if someone
uploads a bunch of images of "dinosaurs" that are used on almost every page
of the WikiJunior Dinosaur project, and how would that be different than
someone who created a compilation of all the dinosaur images and sold them
as a group rather than individually and without wikipedia articles, etc.
I think this type of license would do very little to detract from our
mission; and it would allay the fears of professionals that an image they
took could be widely used without them getting the proper compensation for
their professional endeavor (image a photographer who photographed a
"historic moment" uploaded it; and then it was splashed on the front page of
every major newspaper without any compensation).
This would also allow a archivist organization to provide works to Commons
without worrying that they are devaluing the images that they sell to the
public; or failing to meet the obligations imposed upon them by the
endowments by not meeting their fiduciary duty to protect the assets that
have been entrusted to them.
Thus providing a means for someone who wants to license and partially
"liberate" content in a way to create a sustainable business model since
they could sell the individual uses of the content.
Thoughts?
--Trödel
> Again, to be clear, this has nothing to do with AOL or Jason Calacanis'
> idea of slapping banner ads on Wikipedia.
>
> This might not be a bad time for people to start mulling that over... :)
>
> --Jimbo
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee
Is this policy for all Wikipedias or only for English one?
I think, where is an English project bias here, example in "Requests"
section (not all local committes have so many members as English
Arbitration).
--
Alexander Sigachov
The FundCom is developing ideas for a fundraising appeal to present to the Board. Please help us
edit the text at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_committee/Fundraising_appeal to
improve it, or create different versions to develop alternative texts.
A good fundraising appeal succinctly presents some of the great things we previously have done
(with an emphasis on what has been done since the last fundraiser) and presents some ideas on what
can be done in the future with additional funds. The point is to impress potential donors on our
track record and instill in them confidence that their support will be well spent and they can be
part of something revolutionary.
The final appeal will be created using ideas generated from this process. That document will then
be translated.
Thank you,
Daniel Mayer,
Secretary PT and Organizer,
Wikimedia Fundaising Committee
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link
$200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity -
Click now for info http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com
If I had 100 million, I would use part of it to purchase the historical
part (1898-1950) of the EMI Music Archives at Hayes, UK . It contains
about a million 78 rpm shellac records made in various parts of the world
by various EMI labels (Gramophone, HMV, Zonophone, etc). Some of these
recordings contain copyrighted musical works, but a lot of it is in public
domain at least in the EU. Most of them will never be published again,
because there is no commercial market for, say, Icelandic or Burmese
records made in the 1920s, so EMI will just sit on them forever unless
someone raises enough money to buy the lot.
The rest of the money would be needed to digitise the recordings and put
them online. I 'll be glad to provide guidance on this, once we get this
far...
Pekka Gronow
Helsinki, Finland
I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
(the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
(like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
the lists (me) it is ignored.
Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
enforce this.
The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
is taking to much time and stress.
Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
the boss.
Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
it, let other people do that job.
On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
Waerth