<sarcastic mode on>
Because of 2nd life's big succes the Dutch wikipedia brings to you
Wikicity. A place where you can buy your wikihouse, designed by
wikiarchitects build with wikimoney, by wikiconstructors, build with
wikisand on the foundations costs.
It is a place ruled by christians as a mosque was immediately
wikistroyed after it was erected before the muezzin could say its
wikiprayers. Also prominent wikidweller Osama Wiki Laden's wikihouse was
immediately evicted by the wikipubers ruling wikicity.
Next they will start laying wikirails for the Wikitrams and Wikitrains
and muliple cities are planned. Also wikivillages and wikivilla's are
planned and wikicanals and wikistreams will be dug.
This will all be done from the real money paid by our real donators who
expect an effort to build a real encyclopedia. Not a place where we try
to copy 2nd life or any other site with as a purpose building a
community. A bit of fun is fine. But this proposal makes fun the aim!
Hi -- someone posted a link to a neat tool a while back, and I'm
trying to track it down again. It was a webapp that used wikipedia to
visualize influence relationships between different intellectuals --
so you could, for example, trace the paths of influence from Plato to
Kant. Is there anyone who could email with the link to this
The issue has been raised over 10 times and everytime it is happening
again. I want someone to toss some heads finally ot I will want all my
1000 + articles I wrote deleted as I cannot edit them anymore.
>The Foundation is deliberately restrained from managing the community
>and content of Wikimedia projects. This separation exists for many
>reasons. You should raise this issue with the community of the Dutch
>Walter van Kalken wrote:
>>I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
>>for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
>>answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
>>from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
>>wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
>>The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
>>constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
>>vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not
>>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l mailing list
All of my edits are a copyrightviolation of books in my posession. All
texts were literally copied and because of that all of my edits on
wikipedia and pictures I added should be removed immediately as they are
in violation of the GFDL. Also all of my sources seem to be non
reputable and non trustworthy so many falsehoods consist in these edits.
Since I am blocked from editting the mistakes myself the foundation
should do better and delete all of my edits.
>>Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
>>Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
>>refusing to do anything.
I am happy to see that as the chairwoman of the foundation you take your
responsibility for foundationpolicies which keep editors blocked so
seriously. I had expected better from you.
Wikipedia:Anyone can edit .......yes as long as you do not life outside
of the western countries in a country where ISP's force you into
proxies. And the foundation in it's arrogance doesn't give rats ass. Oh
how noble. What is worse me ranting or the foundation not caring?
Kat Walsh said:
" There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and
significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be
released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in
an educational context without including the media itself. "
I do agree that there are various kinds of important situations that, in
order to be properly discussed in an educational fashion, need a
photograph (or at least, omitting one reduces significantly the interest
of the article).
To me, these include, among others:
* recent works of art
* military operations and hardware
(this list is non exhaustive, I'm just taking examples).
In all the cases in the above list, we can include written descriptions
(this is what people used to do before it was easy to reprint pictures).
However, having images is profitable. Also, in all those cases, there is
little hope that we should get "free" photographs, simply because of we
will not obtain an authorization from the artist or because our
photographers will not be allowed to photograph inside the museum, or
inside a war theater, or a spacecraft.
The usual answer (at least on these mailing-list) on such cases is that
we should delete the pictures, and it's the fault of the artist or the
organizations that could have authorized some free pictures if we don't
have pictures in the article about their activities. In a sense, that
makes sense: we're effectively devoting some free space to describe what
they do, so they should be graceful and give us a photograph.
Now, it seems (but I may be mistaken, and this is why I'm asking for
precisions) that we may carve an exemption for "significant modern
I suspect that the adjective "significant" was added so as to exclude
all the album covers and other "pop culture" artwork, and that what is
meant is that we should have, say, photographs of Picasso's Guernica and
To me, this is troubling. An article discussing a painting on Wikipedia
is, in effect, free advertisement for a number of people:
* the museum owning the painting, because it attracts visitors
* the artist's family, in countries with a _droit de suite_ (this is a
clause in EU law that says that under some circumstances and within a
limited period of time, the artist or its heirs obtain a little share of
the resale price of the works of the artist).
These people can authorize free pictures.
Thus, I'm puzzled: it seems that we're doing a favor to museums and the
heirs of various "modern artists", and supporting the speculation that
declares that certain works are more "significant" than others, without
any support from the people whose work we promote.
As an example, I remember processing some emails on behalf of the
Foundation: some artist wanted us to carry pictures of his work, but at
the same time didn't want to give a free license. In short, he wanted us
to give them free promotion without giving something back. (I'm unsure
whether this artist would be considered "significant", but he apparently
considered himself to be so.)
I would thus be glad if we could have some clarification about the
extent of this exemption for fair use, and why we seem to give 'carte
blanche' for "significant modern art".
Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Read Thai fora and websites over Thailand. It will not work. providers
> do not care as there are just a few foreigners suffering from this.
> Most Thais only visit Thai websites.
The Thai Wikipedia has just over 19,000 articles, and according to
Alexa, wikipedia.org is the 15th-most-popular website in Thailand. Even
with the standard caveats about Alexa data, that can't all be Thai
expatriates elsewhere and only foreigners in Thailand.
I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not