A group of editors set off to remove links to YouTube, requiring that
before they went back in we clarified the copyright status and
encyclopaedic merit of the links. This met with some resistance. There
appear to be two camps now, which might be summed up as follows:
* those who believe that YouTube links should go in unless you can
prove they are violating copyright
* those who believe that YouTube links should stay out unless you can
prove they are ''not'' infringing copyright
Guess which group I'm in. The argument rages at [[Wikipedia:External
links/Identifying copyrights in links]], [[Wikipedia talk:External
links/YouTube]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de
Mimsy-Porpington]] and various other places. It's been moved out of
[[WP:EL]]/[[WT:EL]]. Latest from Berberio is this revert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AExternal_links%2FIden…
with the summary: "Puts too much Burdon. For instance, we can assume
that the YouTube link on Adam Buxton's article is okay, since it's to
his own user account on youtube, no need for further licencing
information." This case is already covered higher up, since we know
it was uploaded by the copyright holder, so is not actually relevant
to the clause under discussion.
So the default-in version is:
* Does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with
permission of the copyright holder or could it be rationally assumed
to be hosted with permission of the copyright holder? For example, it
is published with a user account known to be the copyright holders, or
published on their own website.
and the default-out version is:
* Does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with
permission of the copyright holder or can it be established to be
hosted with permission of the copyright holder?
The problem I have is that assumptions are not really good enough if
push comes to shove. [[WP:COPYRIGHT]] makes it clear that
''knowingly'' linking to infringing material is contributory
infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad). Given
that many YouTube vids are copyvios, we can be argued to *nkow* that
violation is likely, and looking the other way and whistling
innocently does not seem to me to be exercising due diligence. I
don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright
before adding, but there is this committed group who are insistent
that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I
think.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Steve Block wrote
> Bogdan Giusca wrote:
>
> > Maybe I spent too much time editing history articles, where the source
> > credibility matters, but accepting blog/forum/usenet posts as valid
> > sources would be a great mistake, IMO.
>
> Go tell it to the Oxford English Dictionary then.
The OED does English language usage; we do reference material. Comment has no merit.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Dear All,
When an obscure term is used in a body of text that has no Wikipedia article
associated with it, the author of the article, at the moment, has to include
the meaning of the word in the article itself. Would it not make sense to
have a way of quickly making links to look up a word in Wiktionary,
something like {{define|miscellany}}.
Conrad
I'd like to download Spoken Wikipedia articles to my MP3 player so I can learn
stuff without being stuck at a computer. At present I cannot, because my MP3
player doesn't play Ogg Vorbis, and cannot be made to support it. Further,
MP3's are not permitted on Wikipedia because of the lack of legal free players:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html
Our policy is motivated correctly: Wikipedia needs to be free, and that
includes the technology which is required to access it.
However, is there any problem with having a rule along the lines of: "MP3
format can be used by Wikipedia only in those cases where the same material is
also available in Ogg in equal or better quality"? That way, Wikipedia audio
content can always be read by legal free players AND by devices which do not,
and maybe cannot, support Ogg.
(As usual, feel free to point me to wherever this has been beaten to death
already, if that's the case)
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
We want to quote some contents of a specific term from the wikipedia,
and will put a full link to wikipedia page.
I want to ask:
1. Are there any limit on the words that we can quote?
2. Any specical things we need to take care of?
Thanks.
> > Yes. I have an essay somewhere which uses Eric Moussambani as an
> > example. As losing finalist in a single Olympic swimming event we
> > would delete the article.
> It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Minus the context, this particular one fails the "but I coulda done that" test.
In fact if someone just posted something like "Olympic swimmer who did the 100m
in 1:53" I'd probably think it was a hoax.
Dan
> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Thousands of *awful* articles on websites
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <dfd0b40701030958l119eb62dgd51274d0013cce4a(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> It's a perfectly fine, non-biased article that is hurting NOONE by
> its existence and represents real effort by the contributors. Why
> does it need to be deleted? WHY?
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
Why do these people get so much pleasure from deleting articles
that are doing nobody any harm and are potentially helping
someone? Do they squash ants for fun too?
Zero.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > Should be noted that deletionists are now pro-encyclopedists and
> > inclusionists are pro-content
>
> I can't agree to that definition. "Encyclopaedic" content is simply
> content presented in a particular style. IMO, one can write an article
> on a Pokemon character or a high school in an encyclopaedic manner.
>
Of course you won't agree, unless you're Pro-It. That's the point.
Still, I think "pro-encyclopaedic" is not sloganiferous enough. How about
Pro-Content vs Pro-Quality?
Thoughts BAD, slogans GOOD,
Dan
On 1/4/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste(a)dapyx.com> wrote:
> Thursday, January 4, 2007, 3:47:10 PM, The wrote:
>
> > How would it appear on a pinball machine? Electronic displays started
> > appearing on pinball machines in the 1970s (if Wikipedia is to be
> > trusted), the same era as the introduction of video arcade games.
>
> But you don't need an electronic display for that: all you need is a
> small lightbulb behind a coloured glass: when the game is over,
> the light bulb lights up.
>
> These "electromechanical" pinball machines have been made from the 1930s
> until the advent of electronics.
>
True enough. Do we have any examples of that existing so we can fix
the [[Game over]] article?