On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry" rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it. Then, we say why the article was removed on a Talk page, and ask the contributer to clarify whetheror not the article was a violation of copyright. Usually an email to Larry will serve as "proof" that a copyright holder is releasing his materialfor use on Wikipedia.
- Stephen Gilbert
PS - Actually, I think your English is rather good. :)
On 16 Nov 01, at 7:46, wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com wrote:
Message: 12 From: "Kurt Jansson" jansson@gmx.net To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:36:57 +0100 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
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
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry" rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis staff? Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and almost don't care about the other languages. I think it would help greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor ("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry, and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the role exists.
(No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry" rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis staff? Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
Speaking (authoritatively, I suppose) for the Bomis staff, I think it is both. What I mean is, I have a legal liability for copyright violations, so I have to do something about it. However, as far as I can tell, the "non-formal group of core contributors" agrees with me on this.
I should point out that not everyone agrees on the moral status of copyrights, nor on what the law should be. A few people bristled when I called it "stealing", and since arguing about _that_ wasn't relevant to my purposes, I reworded it. The main thing is just that we should take pride in generating our own content in a non-controversial way.
It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and almost don't care about the other languages.
Oh! Not true! I personally care very deeply about the other languages. The problem is that all my caring in the world doesn't help me with the fact that I only speak English. :-( (And a little Japanese, but not even enough to hold a conversation. :-()
I welcome ideas on how we can better support the other wikipedias!
I think it would help greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor ("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
At least loosely speaking, I'm all for this.
One thing is certain: the English wikipedia thrives to some extent because Larry is working on it every day. But I can't afford to hire someone to work on all the other languages. I'm happy to appoint someone, but (a) I can't pay them, and (b) I'm not sure, given the open nature of wikipedia, what that appointment would really mean. I mean, anyone who wants to take charge of a non-english wikipedia can do so, without me really having much to say about it. :-)
I do think it isn't a good idea to have separated doman names, because I'm thinking that inter-linking between the wikipedias will be very useful. And I think that keeping all the wikipedias on the same software is a good thing for a variety of reasons.
I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry, and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the role exists.
(No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
I have no objection to our designating someone as "in charge", but I'm not sure how much it would really mean. Larry does a lot of work, day in and day out, because I pay him.
--Jimbo
From: "Lars Aronsson" lars@aronsson.se
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry" rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove
it.
Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis
staff?
Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
"We" in this case has been me as well as a lot of other people who understand that the presence of copyrighted material in the Wikipedia database puts the project at some legal risk. We do our best to remove obvious violations of copyright while, in uncertain cases, giving people a chance to explain themselves.
It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and almost don't care about the other languages.
Well, this is inaccurate. We care very much about the other languages. But, not knowing other languages that I do know (with the possible exception of German) well enough to participate in the wikis in those other languages, we have left them to develop on their own. Recently, I set up the Intlwiki-L mailing list (cc'd) as a forum where issues shared by all the Wikipedias could be hashed out.
We've tried (with limited success so far) to accommodate the people working on a Polish wiki encyclopedia project (they have called themselves the "Polish Wikipedia"), and they might still move. (The last I know about that is that I've tried to send them an e-mail, which bounced. :-( )
I think it would help greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor ("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry, and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the role exists.
(No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
This is an interesting proposition, and it sounds like a good idea, but you know, anybody can, by force of intelligence and character, move a wiki in a positive direction. I'd agree with what Jimbo had to say about it: I'm not sure what it would mean to designate someone as official leader. We'd have to *give* it some meaning. In my opinion, one reason Wikipedia has worked has been the fact that it is associated, very loosely, with Nupedia, and people know that I am looking at, evaluating, and actively guiding the project. Moreover, it's important that I'm a Ph.D. philosopher who has gained much relevant experience from organizing Nupedia, as well as other academic projects as a graduate student. If there were some person who could be identified as an active ringleader, and for whom it would *matter* to others that they were considered the ringleader (i.e., someone whose credentials would command immediate recognition and prima facie respect), that might be a good idea. But we'd still need to know what sort of rights and responsibilities they have. It's not even clear what rights and responsibilities *I* have. :-)
Maybe what we need to do is, on http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.fcgi?action=browse&id=Non-English_Wikipedi as , as well as on intlwiki-l and Nupedia's interpret-l, add something to the effect that we strongly encourage particularly well-qualified people to get to work on the non-English wikis and try to speak as a voice of reason and authority (both, hopefully :-) ) on the wiki. Then, perhaps, we can identify and have a list of any of the de facto "leadership" of the Wikipedias, and make it official.
What do you think of that, folks? These are just idle thoughts. I haven't really thought a lot about it. I'm sure others could elaborate the issues involved!
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org