Robert Bihlmeyer robbe+wiki@orcus.priv.at writes:
(from URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html)
It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they would not be at Perseus
(they didn't create them, and all(?) of the authors are long dead); but they can copyright the collection, I think.
If you deal with the texts individually, you can do what you like to any one of them. But you certainly couldn't mirrot their site w/o permission, or borrow their HTML, but who would want to?
OK - call me dumb, but I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how the new world works.
I thought subpages were going, but LMS seems to still have them.
Do we have to recreate all the links to Wikipedia articles?
How does the login thing work? You said something about three tildes (~~~) but I can't get it to work.
Manning
Actually I probably spoke too soon - I didn't realise that this is really a companion to the Wikipedia for commentary, and not a meta-repository for the wikipedia as a whole.
And the log-in thing seems to have sorted itself out, though I have no idea how.
Where's everybody else then?
Manning
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:
Where's everybody else then?
You can't expect everyone to jump onto it on a Friday...
Actually using the software is a sobering experience. I'm liking the idea of a commentary namespace more and more. On the other hand, maybe it's really quite a *good* thing to have the wikis so decidedly separate.
Let's try out meta.wikipedia.com for a while, anyway, and see what happens. At the very least we'll get a very good idea of what problems we want Magnus to solve before we move the whole website to that software.
Larry
What do you mean "Friday"??? It's nearly lunchtime on a lovely Saturday - perfect Wiki weather.
MB
PS - Yes, I'm getting the hang of it, and see the advantages. The unfamiliar is always unsettling at first. The layout is certainly *much* better - I love the side bar.
Where's everybody else then?
You can't expect everyone to jump onto it on a Friday...
Actually using the software is a sobering experience. I'm liking the idea of a commentary namespace more and more. On the other hand, maybe it's really quite a *good* thing to have the wikis so decidedly separate.
Let's try out meta.wikipedia.com for a while, anyway, and see what happens. At the very least we'll get a very good idea of what problems we want Magnus to solve before we move the whole website to that software.
Larry
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:
OK - call me dumb, but I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how the new world works.
I thought subpages were going, but LMS seems to still have them.
I don't think so. / is just another character. If you'll look on
http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Manning_Bartlett/Contributions
you'll see there's no link back to [[Manning Bartlett]]. Moreover, [[/Foo]] on your [[Manning Bartlett/Contributions]] will not link to [[Manning Bartlett/Foo]].
Do we have to recreate all the links to Wikipedia articles?
So it appears.
This would *not* be the case, by the way, if the metawiki simply lived on a namespace. In that case, unprefixed links point to the main article namespace.
How does the login thing work? You said something about three tildes (~~~) but I can't get it to work.
Type
--~~~
after you have logged in. I'm not sure if the two dashes before is necessary, but maybe it is.
Larry
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:
How does the login thing work? You said something about three tildes (~~~) but I can't get it to work.
I wondered about that, too. It doesn't show up in preview mode, but when you save, it gets converted to your login. For instance, mine converts to [[user:tbc|tbc]]. So --~~~ converts to --[[user:tbc|tbc]].
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:50:58PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
Robert Bihlmeyer robbe+wiki@orcus.priv.at writes:
(from URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html)
It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they would not be at Perseus
I'm afraid that's not necesarily true. Most classical "texts" have survived as many-times-copied manuscripts mouldering away in libraries. Suppose "Euclid's Geometry" is available to us as four manuscripts, one of which is partial. Each of these is based on former copies that have not survived. Each copy was made by hand, an error-prone process, from an older copy with copying errors of its own.
The result is that each surviving manucript has a few dozen words that are different, and some are missing entire passages. Which is the closest to the original? None is particilarly close. So a good modern edition of "Euclid's Geometry" is based on a study of all available manuscripts, which the editor has used to correct each other, given certain assumptions about what the likely errors are.
This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a new edition and therefore a new copyright under US law.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 06:04:27AM -0800, Henry House wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:50:58PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
Robert Bihlmeyer robbe+wiki@orcus.priv.at writes:
(from URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html)
It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they would not be at Perseus
I'm afraid that's not necesarily true. Most classical "texts" have survived as many-times-copied manuscripts mouldering away in libraries. Suppose "Euclid's Geometry" is available to us as four manuscripts, one of which is partial. Each of these is based on former copies that have not survived. Each copy was made by hand, an error-prone process, from an older copy with copying errors of its own.
The result is that each surviving manucript has a few dozen words that are different, and some are missing entire passages. Which is the closest to the original? None is particilarly close. So a good modern edition of "Euclid's Geometry" is based on a study of all available manuscripts, which the editor has used to correct each other, given certain assumptions about what the likely errors are.
This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a new edition and therefore a new copyright under US law.
Exactly right, and you have to watch even some more recent texts, for example Shakespeare. Unfortunately that means we miss out on some more modern scholarship, but there's no way around that except to wait for copyright to expire.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 05:44:36PM -0500, David Merrill wrote: [...]
Exactly right, and you have to watch even some more recent texts, for example Shakespeare. Unfortunately that means we miss out on some more modern scholarship, but there's no way around that except to wait for copyright to expire.
There is a way: do that same scholarship ourselves and encourage academic scholars to un-restrict their work. ;-)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org