[Foundation-l] Re: Re: wikinews and other stuff (Tim Starling)

[Robin Shannon]

Okay, first off sorry if i sounded negative, i wasn't trying to be, i
like the idea of the idea of both wikinews and wikiversity,  i just
don't know if i like the idea itself yet (if that makes any sense to
anyone).


> It's not necessary to quote the GFDL inline with the text, you just have
> to have a short license note and a link. You don't see the full text of
> the GFDL in each of our articles on Wikipedia do you?
> 
> A printed version would presumably have to have the full license attached.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. i think it will be a real
impediment to recognition by the mainstream press, since most of that
has a printed version, and it is unreasonable to expect that any press
group will waste expensive space with the gfdl.

How  does the gfdl apply to photos and video? how could you include a
video clip from wiki news on TV? does anyone know? i don't think the
gfdl was really written with this purpose in mind.

as for creating a wikimedia license as has been suggested, wouldn't it
be impossible to move all the old gfdl articles to wfdl (or what ever
the name is) IANAL so i dunno, thats just what i would seem like to
me.

> The major difference is that Wikicommons is for images and Wikisource is
> for text.

again thank you for the reply, but correct me if I'm wrong a) people
have been talking on this list (or maybe en.wikipedia, the two lists
get all mixed up in my mind) putting text in commons. b) the two
different projects seem like useless repetition c) I'm doing the
typical thing of not knowing all the history, and presuming i have the
right to go throwing my weight around

> Whose bright idea was it? Rephrase your question please. MediaWiki was
> written by volunteers in their spare time for the benefit of people like
> you. Be thankful there is a wiki at all.
> 

Yes perhaps my question was a little blunt, but the point stands, and
so does my question, was it a limitation in the software, a decision
by the board, or did no one think about it and its just too late now?

> It's spelt "parentheses".
> 

to some ppl perhaps, to others like myself, spelling is as dynamic as a wiki

> It can't offer pracs and class discussions, the proponents were very
> clear on this. There's no need to be so negative about it.
> 

again sorry if i sounded negative, but i dont see the difference
between the two projects and i would like clarification. i think that
it would be interesting to try and create a real sense of community,
and have proper classes that go thru a year together just like in real
uni, but i don't know if a wiki would be the appropriate forum

> >sixthly, there is no sixthly.

there remains no sixthly for obvious reasons

> A method for easy translation has already been implemented in EmacsWiki, see
> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/MultilingualExperiment
> 
> The author of that feature (Mattis Manzel) has promoted potential
> applications for Wikimedia, especially on meta.
> 

sounds good, i hope it will get in there

> Don't bother with the RFC, just post PHP.

the gauntlet has been thrown down, so i will now try to pick it up.

> 
> -- Tim Starling

paz e amor,

the bellman

-- 
robin.shannon.id.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons 
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/