Hello,
We've released new version of our wikibooks pdf generating tool. Now it is named wikitype and has moved to http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype
New features: -- posibility to choose chapters -- gfdl license at the end of each book -- direct links to generate books like http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype?url=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Name_Of_... (e.g. http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype?url=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Sou...).
If noone minds we can attach some well-formatted PDFs, like Knowing Knoppix ( http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype/pdf-of-the-day/Knowing_Knoppix.pdf ), to wikibooks.org books and we would be glad if the authors do the same.
Looking forward to receive your feedbacks and comments.
Regards,
Robert
Hoi, If you assume that your tool is only to be used for GFDL content then fine, but what would you do if the license is a different one ?? You restrict the use of your tool if you assume GFDL. Given that it is not unlikely that everything in the WMF may go to the CC-by-sa, it is not that brilliant an idea anyway, Thanks, Gerard
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Robert Arustamyan robert@blogpaper.com wrote:
Hello,
We've released new version of our wikibooks pdf generating tool. Now it is named wikitype and has moved to http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype
New features: -- posibility to choose chapters -- gfdl license at the end of each book -- direct links to generate books like
http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype?url=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Name_Of_... (e.g.
http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype?url=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Sou... ).
If noone minds we can attach some well-formatted PDFs, like Knowing Knoppix ( http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype/pdf-of-the-day/Knowing_Knoppix.pdf ), to wikibooks.org books and we would be glad if the authors do the same.
Looking forward to receive your feedbacks and comments.
Regards,
Robert
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If you assume that your tool is only to be used for GFDL content then fine, but what would you do if the license is a different one ?? You restrict the use of your tool if you assume GFDL. Given that it is not unlikely that everything in the WMF may go to the CC-by-sa, it is not that brilliant an idea anyway,
Well, the license can probably be updated easily (even site-specific). And we're still GFDL, mostly...
What would be neat (and neccessary at some point): Incorporate the license information for each image used. Because /these/ can be different than GFDL.
You might be able to use my Commons API for this in the near future: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.php provided the images are on Commons. For images on the wikipedias, just include the image page.
Cheers, Magnus
Hi,
Hoi, If you assume that your tool is only to be used for GFDL content then fine, but what would you do if the license is a different one ?? You restrict the use of your tool if you assume GFDL. Given that it is not unlikely that everything in the WMF may go to the CC-by-sa, it is not that brilliant an idea anyway,
Gerard, thank you for the topic, we'll consider including other licenses in one of the next releases.
Well, the license can probably be updated easily (even site-specific). And we're still GFDL, mostly...
What would be neat (and neccessary at some point): Incorporate the license information for each image used. Because /these/ can be different than GFDL.
You might be able to use my Commons API for this in the near future: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.php provided the images are on Commons. For images on the wikipedias, just include the image page.
Magnus, it's a good idea to incorporate license information for each image. Thanks for giving opportunity to use your API.
Regards,
Robert
Hoi, When your way of printing information, information that looks utterly different because of this wish / urge to include all kinds of other information that cannot be seen on the screen, you create a white elephant.
Be assured that I will not hesitate to advise anyone not to use this tool when the page as seen on screen is not faithfully reproduced when printed. Be assured that this is not what you want. When the urge to be "politically correct" creates output in this way, you will effectively kill off open content and make it impossible to sell people the idea of Open Content.
Please THINK. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Robert Arustamyan robert@blogpaper.com wrote:
Hi,
Hoi, If you assume that your tool is only to be used for GFDL content then
fine,
but what would you do if the license is a different one ?? You restrict
the
use of your tool if you assume GFDL. Given that it is not unlikely that everything in the WMF may go to the CC-by-sa, it is not that brilliant
an
idea anyway,
Gerard, thank you for the topic, we'll consider including other licenses in one of the next releases.
Well, the license can probably be updated easily (even site-specific). And we're still GFDL, mostly...
What would be neat (and neccessary at some point): Incorporate the license information for each image used. Because /these/ can be different than GFDL.
You might be able to use my Commons API for this in the near future: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.phphttp://toolserver.org/%7Emagnus/commonsapi.php provided the images are on Commons. For images on the wikipedias, just include the image page.
Magnus, it's a good idea to incorporate license information for each image. Thanks for giving opportunity to use your API.
Regards,
Robert
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When your way of printing information, information that looks utterly different because of this wish / urge to include all kinds of other information that cannot be seen on the screen, you create a white elephant.
Be assured that I will not hesitate to advise anyone not to use this tool when the page as seen on screen is not faithfully reproduced when printed. Be assured that this is not what you want. When the urge to be "politically correct" creates output in this way, you will effectively kill off open content and make it impossible to sell people the idea of Open Content.
Please THINK. Thanks, GerardM
Now, now. No need to get enraged here.
I'm not sure what your point here is, Gerard. Someone wrote an online tool that can create PDFs from Wikipedia articles. It attaches the GFDL, as this is the current Wikipedia license requirement.
What exactly is wrong with that? How does that "kill off open content"?
If you would like to see it support other licenses and other sites, you're free to ask for that. You know, nicely. Neither threatening nor patronizing. I'm sure you will they'll be happy to extend the scope of the tool once it has been shown to work nicely with Wikipedia in practice.
Have some WikiLove :-) Magnus
Hoi, I already asked for other licenses, that received a willing enough answer. Question yourself though what it means from a "green" point of view; how much paper, ink and energy will be wasted as a result.
The issue I have is with adding license information to pictures. When this is to be done, it means that with the pictures license information has to be added with the picuteres. This will disturb the looks of pages. This is not acceptable; I will inform people that this tool is not acceptable as a result as I indicated in my post.
As to my emotions, I am not enraged, I am bemused that people do not consider practical implications. I am totally happy when people act stupidly, it is their right, sometimes I am even willing to point this out. So consider this a public service:) To point out one other common fallacy; MediaWiki is not only used for Wikipedia not even within the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When your way of printing information, information that looks utterly different because of this wish / urge to include all kinds of other information that cannot be seen on the screen, you create a white
elephant.
Be assured that I will not hesitate to advise anyone not to use this tool when the page as seen on screen is not faithfully reproduced when
printed.
Be assured that this is not what you want. When the urge to be
"politically
correct" creates output in this way, you will effectively kill off open content and make it impossible to sell people the idea of Open Content.
Please THINK. Thanks, GerardM
Now, now. No need to get enraged here.
I'm not sure what your point here is, Gerard. Someone wrote an online tool that can create PDFs from Wikipedia articles. It attaches the GFDL, as this is the current Wikipedia license requirement.
What exactly is wrong with that? How does that "kill off open content"?
If you would like to see it support other licenses and other sites, you're free to ask for that. You know, nicely. Neither threatening nor patronizing. I'm sure you will they'll be happy to extend the scope of the tool once it has been shown to work nicely with Wikipedia in practice.
Have some WikiLove :-) Magnus
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I already asked for other licenses, that received a willing enough answer. Question yourself though what it means from a "green" point of view; how much paper, ink and energy will be wasted as a result.
Not much, in the grand scheme of things. Consider how much energy we can save by turning off the Wikimedia servers and the computers of those using it! Now there's a worthy goal - let's declare war on the server farm! ;-)
I, for one, like that they offer ebook reader format, as I own one. It's not environmentally friendly either, but it's cool! ;-)
The issue I have is with adding license information to pictures. When this is to be done, it means that with the pictures license information has to be added with the picuteres. This will disturb the looks of pages. This is not acceptable; I will inform people that this tool is not acceptable as a result as I indicated in my post.
Ah, OK. I didn't get that. But they are not adding any image license at the moment, right? So, did they say the licenses will go next to the images? I was thinking more along the lines of an appendix with image licenses, authors, etc. that refer back to the page(s) in the document. Maybe with a little thumbnail. Or am I missing something?
As to my emotions, I am not enraged, I am bemused that people do not consider practical implications. I am totally happy when people act stupidly, it is their right, sometimes I am even willing to point this out.
Again, calling people stupid, especially if you want something from them, is neither helpful nor nice. Please stop that. Thanks so much.
So consider this a public service:)
It is usually considered trolling. I don't think that is your intention here, though.
To point out one other common fallacy; MediaWiki is not only used for Wikipedia not even within the Wikimedia Foundation.
I don't think anyone disputed that. If someone writes a tool that /could/ be used for all MediaWikis but only supports Wikipedia in the first iteration, that's OK. It is certainly /not/ a reason to insult people.
Magnus
Magnus,
Thank you for the support :) You also got things right, we weren't going to add the licenses next to pictures, we're thinking about more handy ways of attaching them to the books.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I already asked for other licenses, that received a willing enough answer. Question yourself though what it means from a "green" point of view; how much paper, ink and energy will be wasted as a result.
Not much, in the grand scheme of things. Consider how much energy we can save by turning off the Wikimedia servers and the computers of those using it! Now there's a worthy goal - let's declare war on the server farm! ;-)
I, for one, like that they offer ebook reader format, as I own one. It's not environmentally friendly either, but it's cool! ;-)
The issue I have is with adding license information to pictures. When this is to be done, it means that with the pictures license information has to be added with the picuteres. This will disturb the looks of pages. This is not acceptable; I will inform people that this tool is not acceptable as a result as I indicated in my post.
Ah, OK. I didn't get that. But they are not adding any image license at the moment, right? So, did they say the licenses will go next to the images? I was thinking more along the lines of an appendix with image licenses, authors, etc. that refer back to the page(s) in the document. Maybe with a little thumbnail. Or am I missing something?
As to my emotions, I am not enraged, I am bemused that people do not consider practical implications. I am totally happy when people act stupidly, it is their right, sometimes I am even willing to point this out.
Again, calling people stupid, especially if you want something from them, is neither helpful nor nice. Please stop that. Thanks so much.
So consider this a public service:)
It is usually considered trolling. I don't think that is your intention here, though.
To point out one other common fallacy; MediaWiki is not only used for Wikipedia not even within the Wikimedia Foundation.
I don't think anyone disputed that. If someone writes a tool that /could/ be used for all MediaWikis but only supports Wikipedia in the first iteration, that's OK. It is certainly /not/ a reason to insult people.
Magnus
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Regards,
Robert
Gerard,
Hoi, When your way of printing information, information that looks utterly different because of this wish / urge to include all kinds of other information that cannot be seen on the screen, you create a white elephant.
Be assured that I will not hesitate to advise anyone not to use this tool when the page as seen on screen is not faithfully reproduced when printed. Be assured that this is not what you want. When the urge to be "politically correct" creates output in this way, you will effectively kill off open content and make it impossible to sell people the idea of Open Content.
I suppose that you don't have idea about how we're going to implement the image license handling. No white elephants, no zoo at all. You're free to advise people not to use the tool if you don't like it but no necessity to talk about things that do not exist yet.
As to my emotions, I am not enraged, I am bemused that people do not consider practical implications. I am totally happy when people act stupidly, it is their right, sometimes I am even willing to point this out.
So am I ;)
Be happy!
Robert
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org