> The software appears to have one error: When you make a new page,
> all links to that page will not appears as links, but stay as
> though the page didn't exist yet (i.e. with a clickable question
> mark that lets you edit the page.
This happens in the English pages as well; sometimes I am able to
cure it by making a minor but substantive change to the page and
saving it (saving it without making actual changes doesn't work).
There may be caching issues here too.
> Whenever you are trying to use a German umlaut (ä ö ü ß) in a link,
> Wikipedia doesn't make it a link. I know this is not really a bug,
> but it is quite annoying and will lead to numerous complications.
You can create links like [[ Goedel | Gödel ]] and [[ Schloss |
Schloß ]], and use the real characters in the text all you want, but
the page titles will still be Anglicised. There are different
technical solutions to this problem; all of them require software
changes.
0
Hi!
I'm trying to write some stuff for deutsche Wikipedia, but have run into some
trouble:
- The software appears to have one error: When you make a new page, all links
to that page will not appears as links, but stay as though the page didn't
exist yet (i.e. with a clickable question mark that lets you edit the page.
The text you entered before will still appear, though). Editing existing
pages still works, but hey, there are only a handful at the moment.
- Whenever you are trying to use a German umlaut (ä ö ü
ß) in a link, Wikipedia doesn't make it a link. I know this is not
really a bug, but it is quite annoying and will lead to numerous
complications. Is it possible to create some sort of auto-conversion for
that, or do we really have to tell everybody to avoid using umlauts (which is
quite frustrating, as they are used regularly)?
Bye,
A.f.
hi all.
I have a bit of a moral dilemma here: some articles on wikipedia seem to
pop-up non-wikified and written slightly 'too well'. It seems obvious that
it is a copy/paste job from another source. What should we/I do in such a
case? Delete it? It could be from a free source or someone's work for
work/uni/school that he just wishes to share with the community... Plz help
me out on this one.
regards
WojPob
ps. who subscribes to this list anyway? could mailman give us a list of
members?
----
Wojciech Pobratyn
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
mailto:wojciech.pobratyn@wu-wien.ac.at
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming"
H.P. Lovecraft
"Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle and quick to
anger"
The fact that you would consider an honest and concerned post
personally insulting to you is absurd, and is itself insulting to the
original poster who was obviously sincere and interested in solving a
real problem, and didn't mention any names (in fact, I'm almost
certain I know who he _was_ referring to, and it wasn't you--and I'm
not going to say more than that).
The problem itself (of discovering and removing copyrighted material)
is real, serious, and needs to be dealt with. Sure, you and I may
copy and paste only from our own or public domain material because we
understand the law, but many people on Wikipedia HAVE copied
copyrighted material, and that's a problem.
There is no such thing as an "administrator" in Wikipedia in the
sense of someone responsible for its content, nor should there be.
Nupedia has those (and should); Wikipedia just has us, and we are
just as responsible for its content as anyone else. It does have a
few folks to set policy, but even they have been very respectful of
the community process of content creation and not tried to subvert it
by establishing "control" or "ownership". Further, it is obviously
impractical to have an infintely scalable content-creation method
with non-scalable editing and expect to keep up. Wikipedia CANNOT
work unless EVERYONE is an editor and administrator as well as an
author.
The suggestion of looking for phrases on the web is useful; it does
often turn up the copyrighted source of a cut-and-paste job. I would
further suggest that when you find the source of the material,
document it; i.e., make a talk page or editing comment along the
lines of "Delete copyrighted material from ...", so that everyone
else benefits from your research and knows why it was deleted.
But if you can't find the source, I think you do have to give an
author the benefit of the doubt--especially logged-in authors. If
the work _is_ copyrighted, removal upon notification by the copyright
holder is sufficient to avoid legal penalties.
0
Members and Mr. Crocker,
I was responding directly to the post by Mr.
Pobratyn. He said:
I have a bit of a moral dilemma here: some articles on
wikipedia seem to pop-up non-wikified and written
slightly 'too well'. It seems obvious that
it is a copy/paste job from another source. What should
we/I do in such a case? Delete it?
I take plagiarism extremely seriously and many
members of Nupedia, at least, know that. For the same
reason, I take an unsupported claim of plagiarism
extremely seriously and consider it a dangerous move.
Mr. Pobratyn cited as the basis for his suspicions,
articles that appear, I guess, full-blown, unwikified,
and written "too well."
I reacted to this, because I have posted articles
that way, although I usually wikify them, somewhat. As I
said, this is because they are literally copied from my
own work.
On a more general level, these symptoms in an
article or entry are not a basis to delete them. This
requires proof that the entry has been "borrowed" from
a copyrighted source.
If you gentlemen have some particular author/s in
mind, I suggest you put your heads together and try to
find the source. But to delete them out of hand,
implying they are plagiarised, to me. is assuming guilt
until one proves oneself innocent. I think a better
approach, and the one that supposedly prevails in the
U.S.A., is to assume someone is innocent until proven
guilty.
As far as my insulting the original poster, I say
them let him speak for himself. I really prefer not to
get involved in what you, Mr. Crocker, think that the
original poster feels. Only he can say whether he found
my post insulting. C'est ca.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> The fact that you would consider an honest and concerned post
> personally insulting to you is absurd, and is itself insulting to the
> original poster who was obviously sincere and interested in solving a
> real problem, and didn't mention any names (in fact, I'm almost
> certain I know who he _was_ referring to, and it wasn't you--and I'm
> not going to say more than that).
>
> The problem itself (of discovering and removing copyrighted material)
> is real, serious, and needs to be dealt with. Sure, you and I may
> copy and paste only from our own or public domain material because we
> understand the law, but many people on Wikipedia HAVE copied
> copyrighted material, and that's a problem.
>
> There is no such thing as an "administrator" in Wikipedia in the
> sense of someone responsible for its content, nor should there be.
> Nupedia has those (and should); Wikipedia just has us, and we are
> just as responsible for its content as anyone else. It does have a
> few folks to set policy, but even they have been very respectful of
> the community process of content creation and not tried to subvert it
> by establishing "control" or "ownership". Further, it is obviously
> impractical to have an infintely scalable content-creation method
> with non-scalable editing and expect to keep up. Wikipedia CANNOT
> work unless EVERYONE is an editor and administrator as well as an
> author.
>
> The suggestion of looking for phrases on the web is useful; it does
> often turn up the copyrighted source of a cut-and-paste job. I would
> further suggest that when you find the source of the material,
> document it; i.e., make a talk page or editing comment along the
> lines of "Delete copyrighted material from ...", so that everyone
> else benefits from your research and knows why it was deleted.
>
> But if you can't find the source, I think you do have to give an
> author the benefit of the doubt--especially logged-in authors. If
> the work _is_ copyrighted, removal upon notification by the copyright
> holder is sufficient to avoid legal penalties.
0
Members,
I have a number of pages that were
cut/pastes ...but from documents written by myself. This
covers Japanese Language, Linear algebra, Mathematical
Groups, parts of the ADA (the rest of public law) and
more.
These are subjects that I would not be happy just
tossing up. I don't think anyone should remove a page,
until they can show it was a cut/paste from someone
else, not free domain. Further this is an
administrators' job, it would seem. I think members
should report such problems to an administrator.
I find this whole post insulting, whether you are
referring to my work or not.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> hi all.
>
> I have a bit of a moral dilemma here: some articles on wikipedia seem to
> pop-up non-wikified and written slightly 'too well'. It seems obvious that
> it is a copy/paste job from another source. What should we/I do in such a
> case? Delete it? It could be from a free source or someone's work for
> work/uni/school that he just wishes to share with the community... Plz help
> me out on this one.
>
> regards
>
> WojPob
>
> ps. who subscribes to this list anyway? could mailman give us a list of
> members?
>
> ----
> Wojciech Pobratyn
> Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
> mailto:wojciech.pobratyn@wu-wien.ac.at
>
> "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming"
> H.P. Lovecraft
>
> "Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle and quick to
> anger"
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l