[Wikipedia-l] Metadata report solicited

[manningbartlett at emcglobal.com]

Hmmm... this would be my area of expertise I think...

I'll think about it and draft a initial report by the weekend. I'm kinda tied 
up in income-generating activities at present, unfortunately - I'm doing a 
remarkably similar (!) report for the Australian Taxation Office at present.

Manning

> What we've got to do is solicit (OK, I'm hereby soliciting) a
> *report*--not just a mailing list-style rant or collection of opinions,
> but an intelligent, long, organized, clearly-written, in-depth
> *analysis*, about the issues involved in our maintaining various kinds
> of metadata.  This report would (intelligently) answer the following
> questions:
> 
> What kind of metadata does our license require us to maintain, if any?
> What sort of metadata would be particularly useful for us to keep track
> of?
> What sort of metadata can be maintained *automatically* (and
> accurately)?
> What are the problems associated with maintaining certain kinds of
> metadata by hand?  Is there *any* metadata at all that we should expect
> each other to maintain by hand (and which can only be reliably, if at
> all, be maintained by hand)?
> 
> I vaguely recall we have an expert or two about this sort of thing on
> board!
> 
> Larry
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave McKee" <d.n.mckee at durham.ac.uk>
> To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:51 AM
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue
> 
> 
> > I feel that some sort of 'Sources' namespace would be a good way of
> > ensuring the information about the article has proper attributions.
> > Whether it's personal knowledge (and therefore adding your name as
> > someone personally knowledgeable about the subject) or lecture notes,
> a
> > paraphrasing from a reference or text book or copying wholesale from a
> > public domain source, it'd be good to know.
> >
> > Perhaps we could have a third entry box for sources used when
> > creating/editing an article, which appends to the 'Sources' namespace
> > for quick entry, whilst still allowing the editing of the Sources
> should
> > the whole entry require judicious destruction / major rewriting.
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>