Robert rkscience100 at yahoo.com
>Wikipedia should be a community where all people,
>including all Christians, should be comfortable
>participating.
You are so right Robert. Perhaps we should have chosen
that dove as a logo in truth. Or perhaps a little
branch of olive tree (eh ! what about a new logo
contest ? I got a new idea !).
Now, I must admit this must be very embarassing for
you indeed, and I concur with your distress.
Seriously.
And, since most articles you are interested in, turn
protected more often than not (and more and more often
actually), what are you gonna work on next ? This is a
serious problem. I am worried.
Yours
Anth�re
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I know that everything that is submitted to the Wikipedia proper (English
or otherwise) is released under the GDFL... what about everything we write
on this (or any other Wikimedia) mailing list?
Since the mailing list is archived on the 'pedia does that mean that by
writing this email I'm releasing its contents under the GDFL?
Either way, the status of this list should probably be more explicit both
during list sign-up and in the monthly password reminder.
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Ops, sorry,
I realize that this was not posted to the list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com>
To: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> To: "Alex T." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com>; "English Wikipedia"
> <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL
>
>
> > Who decides if they were fair use? Do we have a US Federal District
> > Court judge who can render binding fair use opinions? Do we have
> > someone who can even say what is a copyright violation? It is all
opinion.
> >
> > Well, observance of law is a duty of citizens, most of whom have limited
> > access to legal expertise. However being regularly engaged in a
regulated
> > activity as our editors are, results in gradual development of expertise
> > which is "good enough" for our purposes.
>
> This is exactly my point about collaboarative process. It gradually
develops
> into something more cogent, so why would anyone want to use some
> old out of date version of a page?
>
> > Even if one of regular contributors was a US Federal District Court
judge
> > and they chose to share their expertise with us it would not serve as
that
> > would be the opinion of only one judge in one jurisdiction in a
> complicated
> > field with diverse authority.
>
> You are now misquoting me. I did not state that Wikipedia needed a US
> Federal judge to be give his opinion but render a legally binding decision
> on copyright law. Also you do not seem to know the basics
> of copyright law and fair use. It is an American concept and all of
> Wikipedia
> is published in the United States, so even French pages on the French
> Wikipedia written by French contributors is under US copyright law.
> It is all published in the good ol'USA. That's a fact.
>
> > What we have to do is in good faith do our best.
>
> And my point is that good faith applies to our collaboration on articles
> and the use of those articles and the contribution of others.
>
> > These and discussions on talk pages are a vital part of our
self-education
> > and our program for compliance.
> >
> > It is of course, opinion, but we need to form opinions which are
> sufficient
> > for our purposes, which are to appropriatly apply fair use and avoid
> > infringement and possible litigation.
>
> So on one had you think we need to work together, but only when dealing
> with legal issues, not when dealing with content. This seems
contradictiory
> to me. You want to gain the benefit of collaboration only when it suits
> you,
> otherwise you want to discard collaboration when it doesn't.
>
> This does not bode well for the future of some formal structure that
> you are suggesting that "we" are part of. the whole point of being in
> an organization is that you surrender your personal point of view to the
> collective whole so that the whole can function. If everyone wants to
> allow people to use old versions of pages, that does not seems to support
> the idea of the Wikipedia being more than just a rough compendium of
> randomly pooror incomplete pages.
>
> Alex756
>
Ops, sorry,
I realize that this was not posted to the list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com>
To: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL
>
> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
>
> > How is it collaborative, open or free content to allow others to
> > ignore the contributions of our co-contributors?
> >
> > Part of collaboration in an open content context is the opportunity to
> > discard material that is wrong or not useful.
> >
> > Fred
>
> With all due respect Fred, where does it say that? And how can
> you assume that material that is contributed to Wikipedia is wrong
> or not useful? This seems like a dangeous way of looking at the
> kind of collaboration that we are undertaking. What you
> are essentially saying is that if someone uses the internet to
> develop open content that even that process of development can
> be bastardized. I think that is too literal reading of what open content
> means. Even open content has to have the right to be developed.
>
>
> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mascot (re)vote
> I propose that we have a mascot vote similar to the
> logo vote, possibly (but not necessarily) starting
> over. The current mascot frontrunner (the centepede)
> was voted over the course of six months, but not
> many
> people have voted for any of the mascots the mascots
> (at least compared to the logo vote). Many people
> voted before the Miwiki project was started and
> didn't
> see how well it would turn out.
>
> We don't need to start all over for the mascots, we
> just need to publicize it more to get more entries
> and, more importantly, more votes. When voting on
> variants for the elected logo, it seems that Mav
> vetoed all miwiki variants because the centepede is
> winning by 3 votes (or was it for some other
> reason?).
> I don't think that's enough of a margin. I think
> that
> the mascot should be on the logo some way or
> another.
> I think to get more people to vote on the mascot,
> all
> we need to do is publicize it on the main page and
> set
> a deadline. If you don't want a mascot, that's fine,
> but then we need to say that we don't want a mascot
> and not have this ongoing vote.
> LDan
My feeling over that mail
1. People are really tired of voting right now
2. I think we really have more urgent issues right
now. Actually, the little speed that we could gain
from *not* uploading mascot testing images would be
valuable for some of us.
3. You suggest that the mascot should be included to
the logo, while at the same time ml is buzzing about
complaints of people who already find the logo too
complicated
4. Several people are getting active in trying to find
a way to have a multilingual democracy, and suggest
that for example, discussions are held in several
languages. I can't help putting this in perspective
that very few wikipedias have translated the
instructions for the current vote. Between the first
and the second vote, I had to correct about 10 french
votes, mostly because people who did not understand
how to vote, did not set their meta user page
properly, along the guidelines. And this was an easy
vote. Choice on pictures only. Note though that most
discussions on logos pages were held in english. Not
translated. Any other multilingual votes will really
require more effort of multilingual translations and
discussions.
As Tarquin suggested, we should have had guidelines of
size, weight... If we learn from this, we should do
the same for the mascot
Then all the guidelines must be translated.
What do I see that you propose here ?
A vote suggestion
On an english page
With the suggestion of advertisement on the english
main page
Suggestion made on the english mailing list
Apologies for not being very enthousiastic right now.
Please come back in 3 months Dan :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
LDan wrote:
>....
>When voting on variants for the elected logo,
>it seems that Mav vetoed all miwiki variants
>because the centepede is winning by 3 votes
Wrong. First I can't veto anything, but I did complain on procedural grounds
(I was the first person to vote for the leaf-cutter ant, BTW). Second, when I
did complain the Wikipede was about 10 votes ahead.
>....
>I think that the mascot should be on the logo
>some way or another.
Logos and mascots are separate things.
>I think to get more people to vote on the mascot,
>all we need to do is publicize it on the main page
>and set a deadline.
And have all this fun again so soon?
I say we choose both the Wikipede and Miwiki as our mascot; Miwiki could
simply be the pet of Wikipede.
-- mav
I am happy to report that I have reached a cooperation agreement with
EUObserver.com. This is one of the few websites that does original
reporting on the European Union, in news style and reasonably neutral. The
terms of the agreement are as follows:
1) EUObserver.com agrees to put the text of the first paragraph of each
story (the part which is shown on the frontpage) in the public domain.
That paragraph usually provides a good summary of the story.
2) We agree to cite EUOBserver.com as a source for each of these copied
summaries (as we already do with all stories reported on "Current
events").
We can of course choose which stories to put on Wikipedia -- we will not
want to run commentaries or human interest stories, for example.
The agreement enters a trial phase now and we will review our cooperation
after a month. Text put in the public domain of course remains there. And
as usual, we can re-edit the summaries as we wish.
Details and discussion on [[Wikipedia:EUobserver cooperation]] and its
talk page.
While I am not a fan of the idea of a Wikinews spinoff project (primarily
because I think that news and encyclopedia are very closely linked), I do
believe that this could be the beginning of an expansion into the news
area, and similar agreements might be reached with other publications.
It's a fair deal: They give part of their content to the public, we
provide them with a steady stream of traffic to their site -- without
advertising it, simply by citing it as a source. I'm sure some other
independent news websites might be interested in such a deal.
Regards,
Erik