In a discussion back in 2002 (starting about here (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia/2002-August/021718.html ) It was decided that the acknowledgment for the use of FOLDOC material would be on the same page. I have seen that said mentions still exist, with the use of a template. Now the questions.
*Is this a legal requirement that comes from some interpretation of our venerable GFDL or just courtesy?
*In either case, do the rights to modify our material include the right of moving that notice to a less prominent place, or removing it altogether?
*In [[Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission]], such mention is offered
''If you do agree to grant permission for use, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission, and by providing a link back to your website. ''
Is this is still valid? Can we assure that our re-users would keep that?
Sorry if this was already discussed somewhere else, and long ago, but some recent issues in the Spanish Wikipedia demand that we have a clearer understanding of this.
Thank you,
AstroNomer
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
wiki pedista (wikipedista@yahoo.com) [050406 10:28]:
In a discussion back in 2002 (starting about here (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia/2002-August/021718.html ) It was decided that the acknowledgment for the use of FOLDOC material would be on the same page. I have seen that said mentions still exist, with the use of a template. Now the questions. *Is this a legal requirement that comes from some interpretation of our venerable GFDL or just courtesy?
Courtesy, GFDL consideration, and citing sources. We do a similar thing for SourceWatch material.
- d.
wiki pedista <wikipedista@...> writes:
In a discussion back in 2002 (starting about here (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia/2002-August/021718.html ) It was decided that the acknowledgment for the use of FOLDOC material would be on the same page. I have seen that said mentions still exist, with the use of a template.
Thanks for pointing that out. It wish someone had included me in the discussion at the time.
Is this a legal requirement that comes from some interpretation of our venerable GFDL or just courtesy?
Courtesy. I am happy for FOLDOC content to be used in any way whatsoever in Wikipedia and have modified the FOLDOC copyright in response to requests from wikipedians.
In either case, do the rights to modify our material include the right of moving that notice to a less prominent place, or removing it altogether?
I am very happy to have any kind of acknowledgement or back link on FOLDOC based articles in Wikipedia. I would be almost as happy just to have a single acknowledgement on some suitable global page. I would not be at all happy to have no acknowledgement at all but I'd just cry quietly to myself at night about it. :-)
Can we assure that our re-users would keep [credits for sources]?
Of course not, but Wikipedia should Do The Right Thing anyway.
Denis Howe FOLDOC Editor-in-Chief
Denis Howe wrote:
I am very happy to have any kind of acknowledgement or back link on FOLDOC based articles in Wikipedia. I would be almost as happy just to have a single acknowledgement on some suitable global page. I would not be at all happy to have no acknowledgement at all but I'd just cry quietly to myself at night about it. :-)
/me idly envisions a [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but then keeps quiet for fear of the anti-Categories league.
Timwi wrote:
Denis Howe wrote:
I am very happy to have any kind of acknowledgement or back link on FOLDOC based articles in Wikipedia. I would be almost as happy just to have a single acknowledgement on some suitable global page. I would not be at all happy to have no acknowledgement at all but I'd just cry quietly to myself at night about it. :-)
/me idly envisions a [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but then keeps quiet for fear of the anti-Categories league.
[[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:FOLDOC]]
"Alphax" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote in message news:425E7973.1050805@gmail.com...
Timwi wrote:
[snip]
/me idly envisions a [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but then keeps quiet for fear of the anti-Categories league.
[[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:FOLDOC]]
...which will be great when someone gets round to writing that "Give me the next 500..." code.
In the meantime, why not just add the above category to the template?
HTH HAND
"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" avarab@gmail.com wrote in message news:51dd1af805041506302887ac97@mail.gmail.com...
...which will be great when someone gets round to writing that "Give me the next 500..." code.
It's been written, It'll be in 1.5.
Kewl. I must remember to find where to put my suggestion about displaying "what-links-here" links through templates in the same fashion as REDIRECT pages...
Now where did I put that tuit?
Alphax wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Denis Howe wrote:
I am very happy to have any kind of acknowledgement or back link on FOLDOC based articles in Wikipedia. I would be almost as happy just to have a single acknowledgement on some suitable global page. I would not be at all happy to have no acknowledgement at all but I'd just cry quietly to myself at night about it. :-)
/me idly envisions a [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but then keeps quiet for fear of the anti-Categories league.
[[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:FOLDOC]]
Well, duh. That requires the presence of {{FOLDOC}} in the article. And it's not very useful because it also lists talk pages that just happen to link to it (as opposed to transcluding it).
Yeah, I know, my Category proposal also requires the presence of [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but at least it wouldn't generate such a big box that would need to be carried around with the article forever.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Denis Howe wrote:
I am very happy to have any kind of acknowledgement or back link on FOLDOC based articles in Wikipedia. I would be almost as happy just to have a single acknowledgement on some suitable global page. I would not be at all happy to have no acknowledgement at all but I'd just cry quietly to myself at night about it. :-)
/me idly envisions a [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but then keeps quiet for fear of the anti-Categories league.
[[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:FOLDOC]]
Well, duh. That requires the presence of {{FOLDOC}} in the article. And it's not very useful because it also lists talk pages that just happen to link to it (as opposed to transcluding it).
Yeah, I know, my Category proposal also requires the presence of [[Category:Articles based on FOLDOC]], but at least it wouldn't generate such a big box that would need to be carried around with the article forever.
How about a FOLDOC article listing all it's entries and articles based on them?
And since when is {{FOLDOC}} big?
Alphax wrote:
And since when is {{FOLDOC}} big?
Indeed, it is not as big as it was when I last checked (which was a long time ago, I admit). Still, though, it feels to me like baggage that the article would carry around forever. Category tags are different because I somehow don't view them as part of the article (maybe because my CSS nicely tucks them away in a corner, or perhaps because they're easy to filter out of the wiki source text algorithmically). Hence also why adding a category tag to the template doesn't really make it any better.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org