[Wikipedia-l] ebabylone and wikipedia content

[Anthere]

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:24:13 -0700
From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
Anthere wrote:
>Some editors estimate that according to GFDL'S, 
>there should obligatorily be a link to the original 
>article, to preserve the access of the history, to 
>check the authorship of the article.  Is this true?

In the absence of an actual list of authors, yes. It
looks like they 
are using 
the printable version of fr.wikipedia's articles in
their near real 
time 
feed. If that is true then all one of our developers
has to do is make 
the 
URL text into clickable hypertext. That is something
we should do 
anyway 
since it makes it easier for people to use our content
while at the 
same time 
following our interpretation of the GNU FDL.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

-----

Thanks for the answer Mav.

Yes, the webmaster is using wikipedia real time for
now. The search feature is ours (note that should he
have a lot of traffic, this would directly sucking up
our resources). The retrieval for display is done real
time as well from what I can guess. I think it wrong
:-) rather parasitic behavior. But he mentionned he
was currently working to install our database directly
on his site.

If I understood well, you say the local link or adress
to each article should be displayed. You say it is our
"problem" if the urls of each article are badly
displayed and broken. So we can't complain about that.

I will remember that point for further cases. In this
one, I think the webmaster is well meaning. Each
article displays a link to each article (even if
broken), mentions the GFDL, and now added direct and
working link to wikipedia on the main encyclopedia
access page on his website.

Thanks



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com