Here is a WikiBlame tool that serves as a demo:
http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php
I've come up with an algorithm to speed up the search when you don't know
the article title (a case this doesn't handle) but you can't get around
needing a monster index.
The easiest way to do this is to m
But here's the virtue of contributing to Wikipedia in the first place:
anyone anywhere who wants to see who did what, will go to the actual
Wikipedia and will find your credited contributions, regardless of the
details in subsequent reproductions--as long as they know it's from
Wikipedia.
On Tue,
One thing that has not been brought forward yet in this discussion,
and which I think is important, is that 'author' does not equate
'editor'. It seems many here do go from that assumption in trying to
get the authors of an article. Suppose, an article has the following
edit history:
A starts the
But since most of the contributors to Wikipedia are anonymous, this is
one thing we do not and will never know, regardless of licensing. so
to the extent Wikipedia has any authority it's precisely from the fact
of community editing on a non-personal basis.
Yes, within Wikipedia it's valuable to kn
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in the
>>> statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
>>> Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant t
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in the
>> statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
>> Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
>> divine rights of kings.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:> As for how sharing
> > your name is better for everyone, I think it's fairly clear that a work
> of
> > non-fiction is better if you know who wrote it, and further I think it's
> > also clear that when someone creates a great
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> We are discussing all kinds of "arguments" around the license change from
> GFDL to CC-by-sa. I am not impressed at all by the quality of the arguments.
> It seems to me that there are two trains of thought. There are the people
> who want T
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston :
> Nothing's impossible - where there's a will (and clearly there is[1])
> there's a way. Mozilla managed to relicense to GPL years ago[2] (they
> had an FAQ too[3])
"We have sought and obtained permission to relicense from almost
everyone who contributed code to Mozilla up
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, geni wrote:
> I'm not talking about needs I'm talking about legal rights.
>
> Remember you can't use presumed consent in this situation so if you
> wanted to shift the credit to wikipedia you would need to track down
> and get agreement from every author (and whoev
Sam Johnston wrote:
> It is clear that there is a small but vocal minority intent on spreading
> 'important' FUD and in my opinion these people can't see the forest for the
> trees. Fortunately it seems the leadership has a good grasp on community
> sentiment and sanity will prevail, with any luck
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston :
>
> False. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the [edits of
> the] minority who choose to disrupt the community will be quickly and
> efficiently purged from it (albeit wasting resources in the process that
> could have been better utilised elsewhere).
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, geni wrote:
> > So far I have not heard any arguments why the CC-by-sa cannot do this.
>
> It can but can only do this when everyone agrees. Since wikipedia currently
> has 282,180,603 edits by people who have not agreed such a change is
> imposible.
False. The n
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:23 AM, geni wrote:
> Very few articles require a page's worth of credit. Remember even the
> German has an average of 23.65 edits per page and the midpoint is
> likely much lower.
True. Although as a caveat remember that people aren't going to be
publishing/printing a bu
2009/2/1 Gerard Meijssen :
> So far I have not heard any arguments why the CC-by-sa cannot do this.
It can but can only do this when everyone agrees. Since wikipedia
currently has 282,180,603 edits by people who have not agreed such a
change is imposible.
>I
> have only heard a lot of FUD that I
2009/2/2 phoebe ayers :
> Which is fine if you're reprinting the whole article, but what if
> you're just reprinting the lede, or some other section of an article?
> Should a reuser still be required to reprint 2 pages of credits for a
> paragraph of article? That seems onerous. Note that just repr
2009/2/1 Sam Johnston :
> I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that we remove attribution
> altogether, just that we attribute Wikipedia as a whole for the sake
> of everyone's sanity, and in consideration of the extremely limited
> (if not negative) value that such mass attributions provide.
2009/2/1 Sam Johnston :
> By way of example, I am currently working on a short (8 slide), clean
> presentation, to be licensed under a free license. It contains a slide
> with 8 thumbnail photos of generic pictures (a house, a building, a
> government chamber, a few racks in a datacenter, etc.) and
Robert Rohde wrote:
> So where do things stand?
>
> By my rough count, the relicensing discussion has generated over 300
> emails in the last month alone. At least within the limited confines
> of people who read this list, I suspect that everyone who has wanted
> to offer an opinion has done so.
So where do things stand?
By my rough count, the relicensing discussion has generated over 300
emails in the last month alone. At least within the limited confines
of people who read this list, I suspect that everyone who has wanted
to offer an opinion has done so. While, I mean no disrespect, m
Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
>>>
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
>>> In any case, I find it hard to see how,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
>> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
>> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
>> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
>
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> This is an important point. It is precisely why it is not a good idea to
> remove attribution.
I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that we remove attribution
altogether, just that we attribute Wikipedia as a whole for the sake
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
>> believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
>> value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
>> it. How does
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
> narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
__
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
>> narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
>
> No, they don't. Please,
Hoi,
We are discussing all kinds of "arguments" around the license change from
GFDL to CC-by-sa. I am not impressed at all by the quality of the arguments.
It seems to me that there are two trains of thought. There are the people
who want THEIR attribution and who will come up with every conceivabl
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>
>> Not that that helps us much, since it is clear
>> we are at the cusp of _creating_ the standards for what will
>> be "customary" for attribution in such quite novel enterprises
>> as Wikipedia.
>>
>
>
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
> >> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
> narcissism.
> >>
> > In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
> > coul
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston :
> Exactly. There is nothing 'customary' about massively collaborative
> development of works.
Just about every film of any significance. TV series. Computer games.
Heh just about every bit of major software. Maps of large areas can
rack up very large numbers (depending on a
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Not that that helps us much, since it is clear
> we are at the cusp of _creating_ the standards for what will
> be "customary" for attribution in such quite novel enterprises
> as Wikipedia.
Exactly. There is nothing 'customary' about
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
> believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
> value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
> it. How does knowing that you produced something m
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
>> commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
>> material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
>> users of "his" mater
Again, right at the top, I apologize for replying to a week old
posting, and one I replied to at the time, besides... but
perhaps my motives will be clear.
Anthony wrote:
> Now, personally, the way I read "reasonable to the medium or means You are
> utilitzing", I think it means "what is reasona
Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
>> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
>>
> In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
> could be proud of your work but not at least prefer your name to be
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
>
You should probably clarify what it is you're calling "narcissism". For
that matter, you should probably clarify what you mean by "narcissism" in
the first place.
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
> narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
__
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
> narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
> Thanks.
>
People may be contributing for narcissistic reasons, but
nobody has suggested any restrictions be impo
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
> commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
> material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
> users of "his" material unwittingly respect a copyright t
Hoi,
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
Thanks.
GerardM
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >
> > 2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski wisely remarked:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You say that as if
On Sunday 01 February 2009 09:15:28 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
> ?
How come?
> 2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski
>
> > On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
> > > I am proud of my work, not of my name being on m
>
> 2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski wisely remarked:
>
>
>
>>
>> You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if
>> work
>> they do is useful?
>>
>>
Gerard Meijssen top-posted:
> Hoi,
> Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
> ?
>
Hoi,
Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski
> On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
> > I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
> narcissism.
>
> You say that as if it
On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if work
they do is useful?
___
foundation-l mai
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in the
> statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
> Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
> divine rights of kings. Common law countries have been loath t
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
>
>> My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
>> and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
>> rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
>> the sense that the material cou
David Goodman wrote:
> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
>
It is a bit ego-centric to only care about how one self only
views ones work as mattering. It is wise and pragmatic
to acknowledge that not every individual thinks as one
thinks themselves. That
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> David Goodman wrote:
>> > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
>> >
On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
> > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
> > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
> > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
David Goodman wrote:
> My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
> and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
> rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
> the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. W
Delirium wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
>> moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
>> rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
>> do.
>>
> The problem is
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Requirements like that (the US used to
>> require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
>> burden on authors.
>>
> I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
> ones to make sure that the no
Michael Snow wrote:
> Requirements like that (the US used to
> require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable
> burden on authors.
I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the
ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
>>> to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
>>>
>> I have made some studies, a
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
> > to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
> I have made some studies, and it appears this last
> sentence is in fact complete bol
First, right up top (not top posting; but noting something intentionally
at the top
of this posting), let me acknowledge that responding to one of ones own
postings is considered bad form. But in my defense I will note that I am
genuinely
not doing so in order to prolong a thread well past its sa
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> > cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >>
> >>> As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads
Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>
>>> As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
>>> highly medium specific.
>>>
>> [snip]
>> However, if what you say ha
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
> > highly medium specific.
> [snip]
> However, if what you say happens to in fact be correct
> (never mind if it
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>
>> So at the very minimum, it would well serve us to know what the
>> established standards are within CC-BY-SA, in particular focusing
>> on the "BY" part.
>>
>
> As others have pointed out on this
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> WMF used to really be a (choose a heavy-weight designation) pound
> gorilla in the GFDL users pool.
>
> When we transition to the Creative Commons universe, we will
> never again regain that status, and a combative stance will
> do us
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
>
>
>> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
>> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
>> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
>> list.
>>
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
> > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
> > rights of the contributors. We cont
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
> and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
> rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
> the sense that the material c
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Delirium wrote:
> For what it's worth, Mike's position, that there are no pre-existing
> moral rights outside those granted by laws and society, is also a
> legitimate one
I certainly disagree that this is a legitimate position. And in fact, if
this is true, th
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all
explicitly agreed there
I can prove what I wrote :)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
> > I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
> legally
> > right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> > 2001 were wiped out, any
Anthony wrote:
> My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
> moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
> rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
> do.
>
The problem is that moral rights in your sense
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/24 Anthony :
> > Mike took us off on a tangent when he insisted that the concept of "moral
> > rights" was a purely legal construction, but up until then I thought
> things
> > were going well.
>
> Or you went off on a tangent when you
2009/1/24 Anthony :
> Mike took us off on a tangent when he insisted that the concept of "moral
> rights" was a purely legal construction, but up until then I thought things
> were going well.
Or you went off on a tangent when you started talking about moral
rights in a more general sense that was
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Chad wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, The Cunctator
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
> > legally
> > > right, since once edit histories for any
2009/1/24 Chad :
> This list, in the same way it overreacts to pretty much everything.
>
> "The sky is blue!"
> "No it's not!"
> "I can see it outside"
> "We need a poll."
> "Polls are evil."
> "Maybe an unofficial straw poll then?"
> [random CIA conspiracies about polls]
> Etc.
>
> I've found this
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, The Cunctator
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
> legally
> > right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> > 2001 were wiped out, any
2009/1/24 David Gerard :
> 2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
>
>> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
>> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
>> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
>> list.
>
>
Also, I doubt that anything remains of those articles to dive credit for.
2009/1/24 Thomas Dalton
> 2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
> > I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
> legally
> > right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> > 2001 we
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
> list.
Who i
2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
> list.
The switchover is an opportunity to
2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
> list.
True, but since it is unlikely anyon
2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
> list.
If you take out the subthreads of
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
list.
___
foundation-l mailing li
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
>
>> A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
>> their context in Wikipedia.
>
> Apropos of which, a thought. We have spilled a good bit of ink over
> whether or not it is appropriate for the reuser to attribute
> "Wikipedia users"
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
>>> That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in "the section
>>> entitled
>>> History", and it clearly states that a "section "Entitled XYZ" means
>>> a named
>>> subunit of the Document..."
>>>
>> So is cu
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
> > I think it is useful to note that even in countries where
> > moral rights are inalienable, there is a requirement of
> > "originality" and "creative effort".
>
>
> It is n
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> I think it is useful to note that even in countries where
> moral rights are inalienable, there is a requirement of
> "originality" and "creative effort".
It is not strictly true that all countries require "creativity", some
jurisdi
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/23 Andrew Gray :
> > 2009/1/23 Andre Engels :
> >
> >>> I wonder - would it be possible to get some kind of script set up to
> >>> take, say, a thousand of our most popular articles and tell us what
> >>> the "cite all named authors wh
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski :
>
>
>
>> Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650
>> bytes
>> (or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an
>> encyclopedic format, the article would take some more than ten pages, and the
>> l
2009/1/23 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/23 Andre Engels :
>
>>> I wonder - would it be possible to get some kind of script set up to
>>> take, say, a thousand of our most popular articles and tell us what
>>> the "cite all named authors who make nontrivial contributions" result
>>> would be like? This mig
2009/1/23 Andre Engels :
>> I wonder - would it be possible to get some kind of script set up to
>> take, say, a thousand of our most popular articles and tell us what
>> the "cite all named authors who make nontrivial contributions" result
>> would be like? This might be a useful bit of data...
>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski :
>> Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650
>> bytes
>> (or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an
>> encyclopedic format, the article would take some more th
2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski :
> Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650 bytes
> (or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an
> encyclopedic format, the article would take some more than ten pages, and the
> list of authors would take 10 rows, i
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> A vast number of pseudonyms below have no meaning except for
> their context in Wikipedia.
Apropos of which, a thought. We have spilled a good bit of ink over
whether or not it is appropriate for the reuser to attribute
"Wikipedia users" either alone or in addition to t
On Thursday 22 January 2009 01:11:15 Erik Moeller wrote:
> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
> that attribution needs to b
Anthony wrote:
>
> Now, personally, the way I read "reasonable to the medium or means You are
> utilitzing", I think it means "what is reasonably necessary to provide
> proper attribution", not "what is reasonably necessary to maximize reuse".
> Erik seems to be pushing for the latter interpretatio
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad :
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> >> left to laymen, not lawyers.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for u
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad :
> > The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
> > the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
> > is in fact reasonable.
>
> I know the human-readable summary of the license says t
Mike Godwin wrote:
> geni writes:
>
>
>> In any case vagueness has it's uses since any attempt to try and
>> define everything will tend to result in the license either failing
>> or behaving in a very unhelpful manner under certain conditions.
>>
>
> I like to think Kurt Gödel had some im
Sam Johnston wrote:
> You're right, which is another great reason *not* to link to the history
> page URLs (which are as ugly as sin) but to the article directly (which is
> *significantly* more useful for the reusers' users). While I find it very
> hard to believe Wikipedia will cease to exist, t
2009/1/22 Chad :
> The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
> the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
> is in fact reasonable.
I know the human-readable summary of the license says that, but when I
looked I couldn't find anything in the license pro
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
> that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entir
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Chad :
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> >> left to laymen, not lawyers.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for u
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
