"The ministers or the saints of God are called by God Himself through
dreams and visions and then the chief pastor is led by the Lord to lay
hands on each person and seperate them for this ministry. All the
saints are not married. They stay single prepared for the Kingdom of
God and for Zion. They will havo to go through certain periods of
traning to be qualified as pastor or center pastor or sister/brother
in-charge. Holiness is most preffered and a life of seperation for
each servant of God. "
(From [[Pentecostal Mission]])
> The following is more likely to be US-specific.
[...]
> Any joint copyright holder can grant a non-exclusive license
> (such as CC-BY-SA or the GFDL) to anyone, for any reason, but
> the joint copyright holders must share any financial gain they
> derive from exclusive use of the work.
In case common sense and a US-specific answer do not satisfy, you can appeal to
the Berne convention, in force in pretty much everywhere. If your cameraman has
any claim at all (!) he is an unidentifiable author. You are deemed to represent
him.
> But some Wikipedians like to cross their Ts and dot their Is, and they
> even like to force other Wikipedians to do so. So in some sense it is
> useful to think about this for the case of those Wikipedians, just to
> get them off our backs.
Vigilance against copyvio is good, but I would have some concerns about
excessiveness in this respect. I guess this follows the same pattern as
vigilance against vandalism.
Regards,
Dan
>
> On 9/11/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
> > And then there's the related case of photographs taken "under
> > direction" (my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button).
> > This has a sort of "work for non-hire" feel to it, and I'm sure
> > it's been discussed at length, too.
>
> I don't think it has been discussed, and such images have been deleted
> in the past - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Minneapolis_meetup_2005.jpg
>
> I guess such images are fair use if you never asked the person using
> your camera to license the image.
>
Hang on, hang on, wait a second. It is yours. I'm assuming you asked someone to
take your picture, that person did so, and then handed the camera back to you.
With the sole copy of the "work" inside it.
Without comment.
The understanding is obvious, by common practice. The "release" is given. No?
Really, are we going just a bit overboard here?
Dan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_Patrol
Shortcut: [[WP:BLPP]]
There's a talk page with lots and lots of discussion. I've just added
to WP:BLPP an outline of the simple patrolling process we've been
discussing on WP:BLPN and on wikien-l. I've broken it down into:
1. Simple edit patrolling (like RC patrol/vandal patrol, except for
living bios) - catch suspect unreferenced changes - "related changes"
on [[Category:Living people]] runs about 10 edits/minute.
2. Simple category maintenance (making sure every living bio in en: is
in [[Category:Living people]] and has {{WPBiography}} on the talk
page), so as to make 1. easier.
3. More difficult cases (possible problematic content it would take
too long for a patroller to deal with on the spot)
1 and 2 could benefit from software assistance (hence this being cc'd
to wikitech-l) - the edit patrolling could likely use similar tools to
present RC/vandalism patrol, and a bit of javascript to add the
category and template with one click would be useful.
Any ideas? Does this look good/bad?
On one end I haven't time to patrol and on the other I'm not a coder,
but I have an interest in that this comes up in *every* media contact
I've had recently ... so getting something effective into place that's
simple enough to be workable would be very good for us and our
readers!
- d.
About a week ago, [[User:JHunterJ]] revised [[Wikipedia:Manual of
Style (disambiguation pages)]] and then began making sitewide changes
to articles on human names based on his revisions:
"People who happen to have the same given name should not be listed on
a disambiguation page for that name unless they happen to be very
frequently referred to simply by the given name (e.g., Beyoncé,
Regis). If the name is uncommon enough for such a list to be
maintainable (and if it would otherwise meet the WP:LIST guidelines),
consider creating the page [[List of people named Title]] instead."
I have found that a few name pages I monitor with lists of people by
name are magnets for occasional vanity additions, and more common
names will have very long lists. However, such lists seem useful and
interesting for causal readers, so I'm wondering what people think
about balancing utility (especially for causal readers) and page size?
Right now the lists are being removed entirely instead of being moved
to [[List of people named___]]. This has led to protests by some
editors, and he's only part way into the A names (actually, I just
checked and he's now into B names).
My concern is that a lot of information is being removed when he
implements these changes. Sometimes he's adding {{Lookfrom}},
sometimes not, but many of the articles with lists had explanatory
information, not just a list. At the very least, I'd like to see that
information moved to another page rather than deleted outright. I have
asked him to hold off until a few more people had a chance to weigh
in, but he has decided to continue.
Thoughts?
> In this variation, stubs/new articles/obscure articles that a few
> people read each year all get shown at the latest version, because
> nobody will have bothered to mark a particular revision with the flag;
> it's only on higher-traffic pages -- which, for the most part, would
> be the ones where vandalism is more prevalent -- that the use of the
> flag would come into play.
Vandalism may occur more often on higher-traffic pages, but then again, I doubt
it is anything near to the majority of defacement. I think "Bob si a fag0rt"
actually gets fairly widely distributed, and most of that crap would still go
live immediately under this proposal. Perhaps that is not a problem, if we are
mostly concerned with higher-traffic pages.
> Will this fragment Wikipedia? Will there be different rules for
> Japanese, French, Polish, Dutch.... and the rest?
It seems to me there already are. I don't believe fr.wp restricts anon page
creation, for instance.
> > Damnit.
> >
> > There ought to be a way to review inappropriate MfD closures like this.
>
> Apart from DRV, right?
No, DRV was what I had in mind. I suppose I could have added a smiley, but
smileys make [[Kibo]] cry, you see. Like so:
;-(
> Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's
> chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people
> were strongly in favour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion…
Damnit.
There ought to be a way to review inappropriate MfD closures like this.
On 9/8/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep
> > > track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then start
> > > raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
> >
> > I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded
> > that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0
> > which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
>
> The Creative Commons Sharealike license might not require attribution
> of the author, but Wikipedia requires that the source of the images be
> provided so that we can verify the license.
How do you verify the license? If I put my grandmother's name as
author are you going to look up her phone number and call her or
something? Part of the whole point is that the people who made these
images don't want to be bothered by this crap.
> I can add you to
> OrphanBot's do-not-notify list, but that will just mean that the
> images are deleted without you ever knowing about it.
>
Not now. I'll have to think about this further.
Part of me thinks the best solution is to just create a sockpuppet for
each person and upload the images under that, claiming authorship on
them. Another part of me thinks I should make some trivial, yet
copyrightable, modification to the work, claim authorship of the
derivative, and upload them with myself as author. Yet another part
of me thinks I should just turn off the notification and let y'all
delete the damn images, because it's not worth bothering with.
So far I've just been removing the tags, mentioning that the source is
anonymous, and I think most of the images have survived.
Anthony
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/reviews/observer/story/0,,1868812,00.html
A review of a quasi-operatic piece about Libya's Col. Gadaffi, done by
the English National Opera and the Asian Dub Foundation. How's this
paragraph strike you:
"Accentuate that word 'attempt', for the piece signally fails to
answer the questions it raises. The many conflicting sides to the
intriguing figure of Gaddafi are serially presented, uniform by
uniform - liberator, ideologue, religious zealot, mass murderer,
whacko - but the end-product fails to take a position. The first half
is an inert Wikipedia guide to the Libyan leader, a dictator painted
by numbers, and the more animated second a confused morass of
suggestive set-pieces, sending us back into the night to sort it out
over dinner."
I'm struck that en:wp apparently has enough of a perceptible style
that it can serve as a reference point for dullness in an opera
review. The pain of neutrality!
- d.
