Hello,
I've just discovered that a website called called "Malaspina Great Books"
has "adapted" hundreds of our biographical articles and included them in
their database. They claim copyright of this database ("This database is
maintained by Malaspina Great Books 1995-2003") and make no mention of
having released any of it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License. Clearly they are infringing the terms of the licence. What should
we do about this?
The Malaspina website is at:
http://www.malaspina.com/
See also [[Talk:Galileo Galilei]], which is where I first noted the fact.
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
The site has taken wiki material. Within no time at all I found myself reading my own text.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Erik wrote:
>...
>If we call our sifter sister "Gnupedia" they
>will be constantly on our back and watching
>that we don't do something that's not
>compatible with the GNU way of life. Will
>Richard Stallman send us threatening mails
>to withdraw his support and create
OK fine. The "g" is too much of a potential political hot potato. I guess "Nu"
is close enough to "GNU" for the purposes of symbolism without making an
explicit political statement (or simply confusion on who really is running
the project). Nupedia it is.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Cprompt said:
If you apologize
He must have missed the dozen posts in which I apoligized so let me say again:
I apoligize unequivocally. I am sorry.
He then said: Whether you are or are not Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] means little.
He almost certainly missed the several nasty emails I received regarding my name, as well as the numerous comments on talk pages.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
First of all "Adam", I am a bit confused to as how to address you. What would you like me to address you as?
Second, I have personally posted messages to this mailing list under 3 names:
root
webmaster
Michael Becker
I have heard few complaints about this (even though root and webmaster could be confusing).
Certainly, no one has asked for me to be banned for it!
So, if someone has in the past complained about your name without good reason, please post links to the list, and address that person asking them what there problem is.
It is my personal belief that we are all people who can talk to each other and work things out (unless said person doesn't want to work things out). I have had anumber of arguements/confrontations with other users, but I have worked all of them out through thoughtful and civil conversation. Remember, it is easy for people to misunderstand you when you words carry no conotation. I find it very common for heated arguements to start on wikipedia over a simple miscommunication. Also, remember, people are more critical of you when you treat others badly and generally have a past of breaking the rules.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a Mbecker
a.k.a MB
I am just now reading over the e-mail's from the list over the past 4 days, and I am delighted to see that someone beat me to it. I was going to suggest the same thing. I have no experience with the wikipedia code, or server, but I would be more than happy to work on a script that would automatically update these pages (I would require some assistance or at least developer access. Which reminds me, I have reqested developer access via sourcefourge so that I can start work on a wikipedia API in python, but no one has replied to my request (although I still have about 40 more unread e-mails to read so maybe someone has :))
If anyone is interested in working on the wikipedia API in python, no knowledge of python is needed (I personally have never written anything in python, this is sort of an excuss to learn it.), although programming experience is a must. I plan on creating a sourceforge project sooner or later for the python API, but for now, if you want to join the current team of 4 programmers, just e-mail me at wikipedia(a)jumpingjackweb.com.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a Mbecker
a.k.a MB
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Benjamin Esham <bdesham(a)iname.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:08:13 -0400
>On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 11:49 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> webmaster wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, I have seen multiple requests for pages that were once
>>> autimatically updated, like Orphaned pages, to be updated. It is my
>>> understanding, that the automatic updating of these pages was turned
>>> off because the server was running slowly. Since then, we have
>>> gotten a second server. So could someone please turn these services
>>> back on?
>>
>> They're still very slow and take the wiki to its knees for minutes at
>> a time.
>>
>> These functions need to be rewritten in an efficient manner before
>> they'll be reenabled on the big, slow English wiki.
>
>What if we cached each of the pages (as we do now), updating the cache
>each day during the times of lowest traffic? That would keep the pages
>reasonably up-to-date, while at the same time adding only a little to
>the server strain.
>
>--
>Benjamin D. Esham { http://bdesham.net
>bdesham(a)iname.com } AIM: bdesham 1 2 8
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I think right now we need to focus on publicity. But as pointed out on [[Wikipedia talk:Press release: Wikipedia surpasses Britannica]], we shouldn't do that until the wikipedia foundation is open for donations. So...
...What's being done about this? What can I do to help? I know there is a website for a company somewhere that will do donation transactions for non-profits for free (I'll go look into that now.) Anyhow, who is working on this, and what can I do to help move it along?
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a. Mbecker
a.k.a. MB
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:21:00 -0700
>Is it true that GNU/Linux is to MS Windows as Wikipedia is to MS
>Encarta? A reporter from Wired Magazine asked me a similar question
>the other day, except regarding Britannica. (Mav was making a more
>subtle point here, the reporter was just asking about our competition
>with traditional proprietary products.)
>
>My answer was that unlike an operating system, in which there is a
>significant learning curve and significant network externalities that
>prevent people from switching, there is basically no cost for users of
>Britannica to switch to a GNU-free alternative of equal or better
>quality.
>
>Here I am a total linux and free software geek, and yet, I have two
>computers on my desk -- one is Linux for actually doing work, and one
>is Windows because, as a businessman, I'm always getting proposals and
>contracts in Microsoft .doc format, and people are always asking me to
>put together spreadsheets in Excel format.
>
>None of those kinds of considerations apply to texts. The field of
>competition is much more level for upstarts, because there are very
>low costs of switching.
>
>Consider our textbook initiative. There's a small cost to professors
>or teachers to switch from existing proprietary texts to our new texts
>(which don't exist yet, of course), but it's pretty darn small. In my
>experience, they already undergo those costs from time to time anyway
>as department heads or administrators change to the latest new
>textbooks from a competing publisher.
>
>So, unlike the software world where entrenched use is slowing the
>adoption of free alternatives, there's really nothing standing in our
>way of "World domination. Fast."
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Christopher Mahan wrote:
>I would just put a link to:
>
>The Wikipedia is operated by the
>Wikipedia Foundation. Find out how
>you can help.
Seems a bit wordy ; just a one or two word normal link would do. Also don't
you mean to say Wikimedia Foundation?
--mav
wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org schrieb am 06.07.03 22:34:14:
> Speaking of code, would you mind finishing the article categorization code
> before starting a new project? ;-)
Not at all, but I encountered a freakish bug in PHP (that is PHP, *not* the script!) which is rather vital to the category feature. So, instead of waiting for PHP to heal itself, I thought I'd just do something else...
Magnus
> >Toby Bartels wrote:
>
>I guess that I just want the system be clear and above-board.
>Even if only Jimbo, Brion, and mav (all of whom /I/ universally respect
>^_^)
>are the only people with access to the witch-huniting software,
>I still think that any hunting that they do should be publicly logged.
>Exactly what this entails would depend on the system, of course.
>Maybe I don't grasp what you're thinking of in enough detail?
>
I agree. It needs to be carefully organised, not haphazard. The reason why I
suggested Jimbo, Brion and Mav was because Jimbo . . . well in his case the
reason is obvious, Brion is our number 1 software guy and Mav is someone
widely respected who has shown on the whole great tact, is a consensus
builder and is someone whom from what I have seen is not likely to have a
'head the posse' approach but would approach the issue demanding a high
level of proof. And having three rather than one or two allows for occasions
when someone is off wiki or on holidays. It is unlikely that all three would
disappear from wiki at the same time.
I would disagree with the description of what I am suggesting as
'witchhunting' software. The whole idea is to avoid witchhunts and allow for
three of the most responsible people on wiki to quietly keep an eye on the
IP range associated with Michael, DW or a similar character. Both Michael
and DW tend to leave 'footprints' both in their editing style and in their
treatment of other wikipedians. DW in particular is a serious threat to
wiki; from raising possible serious legal difficulties over copyright
photos, to threatening to sue anyone who 'outs' him, to scaring off newbies
and not so new-bies with his behaviour.
The rules should be:
/Only/ multiple banned users will a history of causing actual or potentially
serious damage to wiki should be capable of being checked out;
If evidence is found when examining a suspicious user's behaviour that they
are
(a) editing in the style and manner of a banned user;
(b) acting towards wikipedian in a manner consistent with the behaviour of
the multiple banned user;
(c) come from the IP range of that banned user
then a report detailing the transgressions of the user and the strong
suspicion as to the identity of the user, should be brought to general
attention, along the lines of - 'this is the evidence we have found. Your
opinions sought on the next step'. That could be done on the wiki list,
along the lines of - 'please express your opinions. If there are serious
doubts, please express them within next 48 hours'. Unless it is clear that
the consensus opinion on the list is not to do anything and let the issue
drop, the information would ''go live'' on a special wiki page. So the whole
process should operate on three stages: quiet check, list discussion, full
public debate on wiki, with at each stage acting as a system of checks and
balances to protect the innocent and require a high standard of evidence. So
if Jimbo, Brion and Mav find no evidence, the issue is dropped. If they have
strong suspicions but the list says 'no' the issue is dropped. If
Jimbo/Brion/Mav and the list think 'there is something serious happening
here' then the details go on /full/ public record on wiki, for a time
limited debate and a decision by everyone.
All that would be the 'active' stage. As a protection, there would also be
the 'archive' stage, where all wikipedians could find out whether checks had
been going on, etc. So a /public/ record should be kept of all 'checks'.
That record should be accessible to all users. But it should be time
delayed. The last thing we need is DW to check the revelant page to see if
he has been rumbled and is /currently/ being checked. So a report on each
month's checks should be put into the open one calendar month after a
particular month' searches. So searches carried out in June, for example,
would be posted on 1st August, July on 1st September. That time delay would
ensure that whatever searches were carried out will have ceased and won't be
ungoing (though if one was, a note could be put saying that an ongoing check
was continuing and the details will be posted as soon as it reaches a
conclusion).
The odds are that most of the time there will be no checks of any sort. But
in the event of a serious problem arising, wiki should have a team in place
with access to additional software so that they can review suspicious
behaviour of the sort that seems to be orchestrated and if not caught could
damage wiki and all our work. A system of checks and balances should exist
to halt the process at any stage if the consensus was that the suspicions
are wrong or the evidence doesn't add up. And transparency would be achieved
by having details of all checks available, though with a time delay to
enable checks to be carried out in the first instance in privacy and so
avoiding witchhunts or letting DW or whomever know they are being checked
out, so allowing them to play cat and mouse by changing IPs, changing
identities, or disappearing for a few days until the coast was clear.
Personally I don't think we need to be told " [[User:Slugman]] checked
out'', simply ''a user within xyp IP range was checked out amid suspicions
that they were a multiple banned user. No evidence was found to substantiate
the suspicion."
This process would not replace the standard hard banning procedure. It would
simply add another line of defence for dealing with /the/ most extreme
behaviour of the sort we have /enjoyed/ from DW and which we can no doubt
expect to experience on occasion from him and others in the future. It might
also act as a defence which wiki can use if someone as DW did starts
throwing around legal threats, given that the process would have plenty of
checks and balances; 3 people doing the preliminary work, its approval on
the list and its discussion on wiki. So they could not claim they were the
victim of a witchhunt but of a careful process of examination and thorough
review involving three different parts of wiki.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail