Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> While there may very well have been widespread fraud, that alone
>> wouldn't be enough to explain away a 29 percentage point spread. A
>> strong line of national security scare-mongering is always good source
>>
Samuel Klein wrote:
> There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source
> researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having
> wikisource entries, translations, &c.
>
> Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public
> domain texts, with page scans and the
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins
> wrote:
>
>> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
>> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
>> preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as bonehea
Samuel Klein wrote:
> I agree this is important, to the projects and to the progress of flagged
> revs as a concept (which is still one step of a long journey). It is worth
> a quick thread on f-l for that reason if not for general interest.
>
>
I was so taken aback by the conceit that the adop
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> A bot or bots calling up massive amounts of data at high speed can have a
> negative effect on a server. While I doubt the bot we use would have the
> power to take down a Google server, the speed of the requests and the
> constant number of requests will definitely be
A bot or bots calling up massive amounts of data at high speed can have a
negative effect on a server. While I doubt the bot we use would have the power
to take down a Google server, the speed of the requests and the constant number
of requests will definitely be noticeable, possibly leading to
Brian wrote:
>> Where does it forbid them?
>
>
> 5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by
> any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google,
> unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement
> with Google. You speci
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins wrote:
> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
> preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as suing
> a party who reprin
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it
> falls under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
>
Malicious software or overloading servers goes well beyond ignoring a
ToS. Why should downloading whole books from Go
Evil I tell you. Evil!
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything?
> >
>
> I don't know about any policy, but I think it should still be
> discouraged. For me this has less to do with predatio
Anthony wrote:
> Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything?
>
I don't know about any policy, but I think it should still be
discouraged. For me this has less to do with predation on other sites
than with our inability to keep up with the volume of data that would
2009/6/20 Ray Saintonge :
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> I've got the first report. There are no information that something
>> happened to any Wikimedian.
>>
>> Take a look at [1]. I don't expect bigger scale problems in Iran, but
>> not just because of that analysis. Except theocratic structures,
>> pre
If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it falls
under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
From: Ray Saintonge
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:35:52 PM
Subject: Re: [
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> While there may very well have been widespread fraud, that alone
> wouldn't be enough to explain away a 29 percentage point spread. A
> strong line of national security scare-mongering is always good source
> of votes in the less educated
Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> IMHO the role of Commons is not so clear and this discussion confirm
> it to me. We can identify two roles:
>
> * support and passive role for other projects
> * independent and active role to describe and collect media files
>
> We can discuss for long time, but a role i
Brian wrote:
> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>
> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin t
Milos Rancic wrote:
> I've got the first report. There are no information that something
> happened to any Wikimedian.
>
> Take a look at [1]. I don't expect bigger scale problems in Iran, but
> not just because of that analysis. Except theocratic structures,
> preset situation in Iran reminds me a
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Where does it forbid them?
5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by
any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google,
unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agree
Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Brian wrote:
> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>
> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
> can do about it except complain to them. Whic
Brian wrote:
> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>
> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin
Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as suing
a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v.
Rural (t
For Supreme Court cases, would it be possible to have a bot pull the audio
decisions from Oyez, and convert them into text?
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:41:45 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog
For some reason, I am reminded of a Supreme Court case about the information in
telephone directories. Maybe because of the insanity of trying to put public
domain material under copyright.
From: Brian
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, J
That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin to
their intellectual p
So the bot just has to run at human speeds so it does not get banned, it
still won't get tired or make unpredictable mistakes. And you can run it
from different IPs to parallelize.
--Falcorian
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Brian wrote:
> Not likely. I've been banned from Google's regular se
Easier than scanning, though :)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Brian wrote:
> Not likely. I've been banned from Google's regular search at least a dozen
> times during semi-frenetic search sprees in which I was identified as a
> bot.
> There is no doubt that if you try to automate it you will
Not likely. I've been banned from Google's regular search at least a dozen
times during semi-frenetic search sprees in which I was identified as a bot.
There is no doubt that if you try to automate it you will be quickly shot
down.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Brian wrot
Brian wrote:
> Unfortunately the only way I've found to download the full text of a public
> domain book from Google is to flip through the book a page at a time,
> copying the text to your clipboard.
> There are roughly 2-3 million public domain books in Google Books.
That's easy to fix :)
I've got the first report. There are no information that something
happened to any Wikimedian.
Take a look at [1]. I don't expect bigger scale problems in Iran, but
not just because of that analysis. Except theocratic structures,
preset situation in Iran reminds me a lot to the situation in Serbia
This has reminded me to complain about Google Books. Google has the world's
best OCR (in virtue of having the largest OCR'able dataset) and also has a
mission to scan in all the public domain books they can get their hand on.
They recently updated their interface to, as they put it, "make it easier
There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source
researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having
wikisource entries, translations, &c.
Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public
domain texts, with page scans and the best available OCR [and
transl
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/19/using-wikisource-as-an-alternative-open-access-repository-for-legal-scholarship/
Interesting. How well does this fit with what Wikisource does?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikim
Thanks, Milos... i was concerned about Mardetanha because of my
connection to him on Elec Comm, good to know he's well. Now let's see
what we can find out about the rest of our folks!
Thanks.
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Good question. I just know that Mardetanha (a
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, philippe wrote:
> Just wondering whether anyone's had a check in from any of our
> wikimedians in Iran? Any safety reports on our folks?
Good question. I just know that Mardetanha (a steward) is physically
good and frustrated with election results. But, he is not
Just wondering whether anyone's had a check in from any of our
wikimedians in Iran? Any safety reports on our folks?
Philippe
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
35 matches
Mail list logo
