At 12:00 05/01/2003 +0000, Jonathan Walther wrote:
It might well be "a win from a usability point of view" inasmuch as one=20 doesn't have to click on a pesky check box if one's edit is minor, but thi=
s=20
is surely outweighed by the fact that those "M"s on Recent Changes would=
=20
all become unreliable (instead of just some of them being unreliable).
I'm not sure you understand. The M flag on Recent Changes is unreliable RIGHT NOW. What is a minor fix to one person may be a major point of theology to the next person. One persons raftload of spelling fixes may be minor to one person, but important to another. Since the Minor flag is essentially meaningless, we wouldn't notice any difference if it just went away altogether.
No, I understand - the current system isn't perfect. That's because people aren't perfect. But I trust people to decide what is minor and what isn't more than I trust a computer to do it, particularly as the computer is only going to be counting bytes to make a decision.
I agree we need some sort of guidance about what constitutes a minor edit, which is why I'm glad we've got such guidance on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ
LP (camembert)
I keep forgetting to enclose wikikarma - here's two: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inigo_Jones (new) http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Masque&diff=0&oldid=5609...
I've seen a lot of recent 1911-Brit imports with the followign footer: //
/ /
/> This entry was originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopedia_Britannica. /
However, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3A1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica says:
Although the /Encyclopædia/ is not copyright and you can copy its phrasing directly if you wish, Wikipedia cannot /advertise/ the presence of this material using the word "Britannica", which is a trademark http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Of course, we can still /use/ that phrase within our pages to give proper credit.
I'm a bit baffled by this. I've seen many older pages that say:
This entry is from a 1911 encyclopedia
So we can't use their name, but we credit them? Does that mean "don't use their name EXCEPT to credit them", or "don't use their name and credit them in an abscure fashion that dones't use their trademark"?
Wiki Karma: anything written by the mysterious user Fwapplet. repairing links to Henry IV plays how many typos do you want?
Tarquin et al,
The older practice was to state at the foot of an article
This entry is from a 1911 encyclopedia
The later practice, discussed on the talk pages (now archived, perhaps), is to use and adapt the EB1911 material freely, but to credit it properly when quoting directly. It also isn't a bad idea to mention on the article's talk page what the source is, although that is usually sadly obvious.
Let me take this opportunity to tout [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]] as a guide to recycling EB1911 materials. If those suggestions are followed, the articles are both better and not "stolen".
So, in answer to the question on the floor:
Use the out-of-copyright EB1911 material freely, but give them credit when quoting directly. When giving credit, cite [[1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]], which includes links to two online sources. Remove the weasly "this is from a 1911 encyclopedia' when encountered.
And, if anybody ever busts us for this (which won't ever happen), I own two hard copies of the EB1911 that we can say we used to get the info.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com |X-Accept-Language: en-us, en |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:11:51 +0000 | |I've seen a lot of recent 1911-Brit imports with the followign footer: |// | |/ |/ | |/> This entry was originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica |http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopedia_Britannica. |/ | |However, |http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3A1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica |says: | |Although the /Encyclop�dia/ is not copyright and you can copy its |phrasing directly if you wish, Wikipedia cannot /advertise/ the presence |of this material using the word "Britannica", which is a trademark |http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark of Encyclop�dia Britannica, |Inc. Of course, we can still /use/ that phrase within our pages to give |proper credit. | |I'm a bit baffled by this. I've seen many older pages that say: | | > This entry is from a 1911 encyclopedia | |So we can't use their name, but we credit them? Does that mean "don't |use their name EXCEPT to credit them", or "don't use their name and |credit them in an abscure fashion that dones't use their trademark"? | | | |Wiki Karma: |anything written by the mysterious user Fwapplet. |repairing links to Henry IV plays |how many typos do you want? | |> | | |_______________________________________________ |Wikipedia-l mailing list |Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
Tom Parmenter wrote:
Let me take this opportunity to tout [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]] as a guide to recycling EB1911 materials.
Use the out-of-copyright EB1911 material freely, but give them credit when quoting directly. When giving credit, cite [[1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]], which includes links to two online sources. Remove the weasly "this is from a 1911 encyclopedia' when encountered.
Should I update [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]] to explain this?
|From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com |X-Accept-Language: en-us, en |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:37:11 +0000 | | |Tom Parmenter wrote: | |>Let me take this opportunity to tout [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia |>Britannica]] as a guide to recycling EB1911 materials. |> |>Use the out-of-copyright EB1911 material freely, but give them credit |>when quoting directly. When giving credit, cite [[1911 Encyclopedia |>Britannica]], which includes links to two online sources. Remove the |>weasly "this is from a 1911 encyclopedia' when encountered. |> |Should I update [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]] to explain this? |
Please do.
Tom P. O88
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org