Hmmm... this would be my area of expertise I think...
I'll think about it and draft a initial report by the weekend. I'm kinda tied up in income-generating activities at present, unfortunately - I'm doing a remarkably similar (!) report for the Australian Taxation Office at present.
Manning
What we've got to do is solicit (OK, I'm hereby soliciting) a *report*--not just a mailing list-style rant or collection of opinions, but an intelligent, long, organized, clearly-written, in-depth *analysis*, about the issues involved in our maintaining various kinds of metadata. This report would (intelligently) answer the following questions:
What kind of metadata does our license require us to maintain, if any? What sort of metadata would be particularly useful for us to keep track of? What sort of metadata can be maintained *automatically* (and accurately)? What are the problems associated with maintaining certain kinds of metadata by hand? Is there *any* metadata at all that we should expect each other to maintain by hand (and which can only be reliably, if at all, be maintained by hand)?
I vaguely recall we have an expert or two about this sort of thing on board!
Larry
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McKee" d.n.mckee@durham.ac.uk To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:51 AM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue
I feel that some sort of 'Sources' namespace would be a good way of ensuring the information about the article has proper attributions. Whether it's personal knowledge (and therefore adding your name as someone personally knowledgeable about the subject) or lecture notes,
a
paraphrasing from a reference or text book or copying wholesale from a public domain source, it'd be good to know.
Perhaps we could have a third entry box for sources used when creating/editing an article, which appends to the 'Sources' namespace for quick entry, whilst still allowing the editing of the Sources
should
the whole entry require judicious destruction / major rewriting.
Hello wikipeople!
How can we ever be sure, that those people who (often anonymously)
write
new articles for wikipedia didn't just copy'n'paste it from another site?
I think we can't.
Take for example http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Gopher http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/rus/42/internet/gopher.html and chapter 2.6 here: http://www.fitug.de/bildung/allgem/inetein2.html
Is it all from the same author? Or is the wikipedia article just a ('stolen') copy? Or the copy of a revised (but 'stolen') copy? Or is
the
source under the GNU Free Documentation License?
How can we be sure about that?
I think nobody wants that just authors with prooved identities (who
are
responsible for their writing) are allowed to contribute to
wikipedia.
But are we on the save side if we just close our eyes and wait for people to come and force us to delete articles that many people have
put
much work in, but that are based on their text?
Sorry for my bad English, I'm German. If you don't understand what
I'm
talking about I'll try my best to make it clearer.
Bye, Kurt
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org