Should the name of HomePage be changed, I would strongly argue for "Main Page" over "Home Page". Most people think of "Home Page" as the place where the browser goes when you start it up, and others use the term as in "personal home page", i.e. where you put the pictures of your kids.
Axel
If you go to http://meta.wikipedia.com, which looks like what wikipedia will look lige in a month or two, you'll see there's already "Main Page" in place. Won't make much sense changing it to anything else than "Main Page", except we agree on something else for my script.
Magnus
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Axel Boldt Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:40 AM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Layout of Wikipedia pages: "Wikipedia" missing
Should the name of HomePage be changed, I would strongly argue for "Main Page" over "Home Page". Most people think of "Home Page" as the place where the browser goes when you start it up, and others use the term as in "personal home page", i.e. where you put the pictures of your kids.
Axel
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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
Kurt Jansson wrote:
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?
One thing you should do in such a case is a Google search.
Kurt Jansson wrote:
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.
We can't be certain. But it's my butt on the line, legally speaking, and I think that under the DMCA as a provider of Internet services, my obligation only extends so far as to take down material when there is a complaint. I'm actually much more proactive than that, in that we take down anything for which there is a suspicion. This is partly because I believe that it is wrong for us to take materials.
Opinions on copyright differ, but even those who are opposed to the legal situation with copyrights will tend to agree that taking people's work without appropriate permission and credit is unethical, or at least unprofessional.
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.
Your English is at least as good as many Americans on Usenet, my friend. :-)
Anyhow, our policy should be that whenever we suspect that something has been used without appropriate permission, we should get rid of it ASAP. This is partly to save me from legal troubles, but more importantly, it should be a point of pride with us that we created the encyclopedia from scratch, ourselves, using only our own minds, or the work of people who gave permission for us to use it.
Hi everyone,
I haven't been doing much more than skimming the list but I do have a question about copyrights and Wikipedia. What if someone posts their own article as a Wikipedia topic? I posted one of my articles which I also gave to a garden site and posted in my own column at BackWash. I'm the only one who has a copyright to the article. Was that ok to do?
Hope 2002 is working out great for you,
Laura
PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've snuck into the boys room. ;)
, "", "==", http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html "==", "==", "--" ,---, \ _) (_ Now Open... ldb ` [__INK__] http://www.hercorner.com
"Laura T." ldb64@midwest.net writes:
What if someone posts their own article as a Wikipedia topic? I posted one of my articles which I also gave to a garden site and posted in my own column at BackWash. I'm the only one who has a copyright to the article. Was that ok to do?
Yes. It should be noted though that (print) publishers often retain exclusive rights to articles/books published through them. One should always check the specific agreement or contract. See URL:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/authors_note.html for one horror story.
I think web publishers are less notorious about this.
PS- Are there no other women taking part in this?
I'm quite positive you're not the first/only woman working on Wikipedia. They are definitely in the minority, though. Let's hope this situation gets better over time.
I feel a bit like I've snuck into the boys room. ;)
This seems part of the reason -- so every new female on board helps double.
Enough speculatin' ...
Laura T. wrote:
I haven't been doing much more than skimming the list but I do have a question about copyrights and Wikipedia. What if someone posts their own article as a Wikipedia topic? I posted one of my articles which I also gave to a garden site and posted in my own column at BackWash. I'm the only one who has a copyright to the article. Was that ok to do?
It's o.k. to do, but by doing so, you're releasing the article under GNU FDL, which means that anyone can redistribute it and edit it to say anything they like. If that's o.k. with you, and presumably it is, then it's great!
PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've snuck into the boys room. ;)
:-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis writes a lot on the Wikipedia. I'm not sure if they are on the mailing list, though. Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.
--Jimbo
At 01:16 PM 1/14/02 -0600, Jimbo wrote:
Laura T. wrote:
PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've snuck into the boys room. ;)
:-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis writes a lot on the Wikipedia. I'm not sure if they are on the mailing list, though. Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.
And me.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've snuck into the boys room. ;)
:-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis writes a lot on the Wikipedia. I'm not sure if they are on the mailing list, though. Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.
Let's not forget JHK, --April, and Dreamyshade, to name three of the more hard-working females. There are quite a few others, too. Wikipedia is definitely male-dominated, though, which I agree is regrettable.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org