This is an excellent idea - a kind of searchable sandbox where articles
could eventually be promoted into the main site or simply used as in
depth backing for a Wikipedia One article. It would need to have some
high level sort mechanism to make it easier to access articles within a
geopolitical
On 3/15/2012 3:10 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Local events in western countries are pretty easy to cover within
wikipedia's rules. A mix of local news and the local history mob
usually sees that there are plenty of sources.
On the other hand writing about Odek (Joseph Kon
I don't think it is pity to reduce an 800 word article down to under 200
words. Instead of something readable you end up either with a Who's Who
entry - filled with insider abbreviations and obscure wording that must
be decoded or something so bland it has no value to anyone intrested
enough to
Why did the articles in Brittania keep getting shorter? Because printing
on paper costs money. Storage on the Internet is free by comparison. -
So why do our editors insist on reducing what might be an interesting
article down to something so brief it might as well be on paper in a
book that w
Well, I'm not an active academic, but I have been given to understand
that the quality of the peer review process varies greatly. About 10
years back, I was briefly involved in an attempt to develop an online
peer reviewed publications infrastructure. This was one of our concerns
- is it better
I think you have inadvertently hit upon something essential.
Content has some relative value. Someone has always had to put energy
into creating content. More importantly for our current discussion,
someone has always had to make a decision to invest in the REPRODUCTION
of content. Printing (o
On 2/19/2012 8:19 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:12:09 -0300
From: Sarah
To:mnemo...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
(from the Chronicle) +
Thank you all for your support. The editors involved stirred up the pot
and learned something in the process. One of them had already been
warned about deleting content just for the fun of it, so this was
instructional for all. In looking through the threads, one of them
found one of my effort
It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems
to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted
unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually
infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so
why act as though it
Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are
in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than
attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the
content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it?
Isn't WP
On 10/31/2011 7:18 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 10:09 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> > Robin McCain, 31/10/2011 17:20:
>>> >> We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a
>>> >> litt
On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>> > Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
>> > Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?"
>> > thing. Off the t
On 10/27/2011 6:43 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On 26 October 2011 14:15, Anthony wrote:
>> > And apparently that's fine, if you are making a faithful reproduction
>> > of the image in its original context. ?But tagging an image PD does
>> > not imply "you may only make
On 10/25/2011 2:57 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there.
>
> Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But
> when there is a dispute, it makes no sense for people who don't even
> know what a derivative wo
On 10/14/2011 9:17 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> However archiving is rather different from what we are dealing with
> which is more focused on books and other mass market material rather
> than say old planning application maps and minutes of the union of
> postal workers 1
On 10/4/2011 9:04 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>>> issue of originality.
>> >
>> > The Qimron case is completely irrelevant with regard to the copyright
>> > of the images. ?It is a case about the*text*.
> If WMF wants to copy*the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone
An entertaining discussion - let's see if I understand the essence of
the thread...
Facts:
High resolution photos (of the Dead Sea Scrolls) were recently released
under an Israeli copyright.
(Obviously this does not constitute copyright of the scrolls themselves.)
A great deal of technical and c
is up.
This is why we do the best due diligence we can BEFORE we use material.
Rights specialists are cheap compared to the chance of litigation with
teeth, however small.
On 8/17/2011 2:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 08/17/11 10:33 AM, Robin McCain wrote:
>> As for litigation -
because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete.
> It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of
> actual injury occurred.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robin McCain
> To: Wjhonson
> Cc: foundation-l
> Sent: We
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of
> injury in your suit.
> And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which
> there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
> For example unfair trade
g/wiki/Plagiarism mentions copyright infringement
as a related issue to plagiarism...
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Robin McCain
> To: foundation-l
> Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
>
> On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wr
igation was considered.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robin McCain
> To: foundation-l
> Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
>
> On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM,wjhon...@aol.com <mailto:wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
> exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright
> protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your
> work.
>
> C
On 8/16/2011 5:00 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> A couple of months ago three admins of Aceh Wikipedia decided that it
> is not acceptable that they participate in the project which holds
> Muhammad depictions. By the project, they mean Wikimedia in general,
> including Wikim
On 8/16/2011 2:13 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> One suggestion for archiving would be to have a complete set of projects
> filed with the copyright office and other key depositories quarterly.
>
> This could also address a potential long-term copyright problem. This
> has l
Good point - risk management isn't just about technical disaster -
geopolitical issues are actually a much greater long term risk
On 8/15/2011 2:04 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> The primary value of a fork(s) is not financial or technical, but
> epistemological. We are th
Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global
NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches
are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of
knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be
helpful - what not t
On 8/8/2011 6:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> fwiw, the Wikisource portal lists all languages, inc. the languages in
> the Wikisource incubator.
>
> http://www.wikisource.org/
That's actually a good shortcut and it appears amongst the Wikimedia
buttons at the bottom of the
On 8/8/2011 12:41 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> The problem with Incubator: An interactive
> journey
Written by geeks for geeks...
If you are truly serious about enabling new languages & dialects, it is
almost mandatory to include a link at the very top level of Wiki
I've been following this with some interest and I think I'm beginning to
see how this is like nesting dolls. In the kernel is the actual
interview in the native language - the primary source(s) which is
actually a video or audio recording. The next layer is the interviewers
transcription laye
Yes, there are big differences between IMDB and YouTube rightswise.
IMDB requires that every submission be reviewed for accuracy and content
before acceptance. They are trying to compete with Baseline and want to
be seen as an equal - so they (perhaps overzealously even) require that
new indie
Why can't we setup a meta server sandbox that allows these experimental
things to be rapidly activated in the sense of giving each a virtual
server slice. That way there is room to play and if something takes off
it can then be allocated some serious resources. The ones that die on
the vine won
Back in the 1980's BBS sysops validated new users on some of the more
abused dial-up BBS systems via snail mail. The person had to provide a
real address in order to receive their login password - just as many
systems use email addresses today. The big difference between these two
mechanisms is
If I might interject, it seems that the sole purpose of the snail mail
described is to link a physical person to a login name in such a way
that there is some accountability for one's actions that is acceptable
to the organization. Is it really necessary to copy an identity
document? Could a do
It seems silly to proliferate so many wikis when many of them focus on
related issues. It becomes the nightmare of having to visit the web site
of every user group every few hours vs having all the new posts sent via
email to one address so you save time. The real question to me seems to
be ho
35 matches
Mail list logo
