>>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>Jimbo wrote:
> >
>>It may just be me, but I think at this point we
should just wait
>>a couple to a few weeks for the more inclusive and
exciting-sounding "one
>>third of a million" milestone. The number of
non-English articles should also
>>outnumber the English ones by then, so we could also
announce that.
>>
Good idea.
> >
>>What do others think? This could be something we
>allow each Wikipedia version
>>to decide on its own
>
>The press release was worked on as a cross-language
>thing -- I think it
>should stay as such.
I can read this only with a lot of pain. The press
release was not only written to be a cross language
thing, but it was also written to announce what it is
announcing today.
Either the site is ok (perhaps in a couple of days)
and we send the release
Either it is not, and we just abandon the proposition.
For me, one third million does not speak any better
than 300 000. I would even say it does not sound as
good, as the reader does not see jackpot numbers on
front of his eyes.
I try
COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE : WIKIPEDIA atteint 300 000
articles
versus
COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE : WIKIPEDIA atteint un tiers de
million d'articles
sorry, that is ugly
in any case, if technical limitations are an argument,
33000 more articles are not.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
> From: Gutza <gutza(a)moongate.ro>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sometimes, there is every
> reason to be
> >Btw, many romanian people speak french, don't they
> ?
> >
> >
> Uh-oh, "you got me started" alert, combined with
> "I've got too much free
> time on my hands" alert! :)
Well, perhaps your wife then ? :-)
> There was a very strong trend towards speaking
> French until the end of
> WWII (quoting from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romania):
>
> "Carol was crowned as the first King of Romania
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Romania> in
> 1881
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1881>.
>
> "The new state, squeezed between the great powers of
> Ottoman,
> Austro-Hungarian, and Russian empires, with Slav
> neighbors on three
> sides, looked to the West, particularly France
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France>, for its
> cultural, educational,
> and administrative models."
>
> After the communists came to power however, Romania
> stopped "looking to
> the West, particularly France", and instead started
> looking to the East,
> particularly USSR. :(
>
> So, nowadays there aren't so many French speaking
> Romanians left,
I know several Romanians who emigrated in Belgian or
France. Especially scientists who could not find
necessary resources to go on with their research about
10/15 years ago. Two of them live 6 months there, and
6 months in Antwerpen now.
One of my co-worker wife is also from there. She is
currently struggling with paperwork :-(
And of course, we had many poor people who came to
France in the 90ies. I do not know really if they
succeeded to stay and find their way, or if they were
sent back :-(
Usually, they manage in french.
>Incidentally, my wife speaks impeccable French, she
>works at Radio
>Romania International (http://www.rri.ro), the French
>branch. Maybe I
>would've spoken better French than I can, hadn't I
>married her: a
>couple
>of years back we went to Paris for three weeks, and
>she did all the
>talking, the only French words I said being "Une
>blanche!". :)
Well, that is an important word :-) Along with "ou
sont les toilettes s'il vous plait" :-)
Cough, cough
Could not your wife write us a couple of article on
Romania ?
Look : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roumanie
This is *absolutely* shameful given the long
relationships between our two countries.
Don't you think ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
material on Wikipedia
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:51:22 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200310051651.22290.maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
Status: RO
X-Status: Q
X-KMail-EncryptionState:
X-KMail-SignatureState:
Alex wrote:
>...
>Can I make a complaint to the arbitration committee about that?
As our pro-bono lawyer, why don't you set up a PayPal account so that people
can send a few bucks your way in appreciation of your effort? I would if I
could, but I'm slatted to be laid off by the end of the year so money is
tight (I work for the state of California and our current governor is a
moron! I can't wait until Larry Flynt takes office. Even Gary Coleman would
be better than Grey Davis. ;).
-- mav
Why is the adress www.wikimedia.org redirecting to the
english wikipedia ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Alex756,
> > The history is not a great concern. It's
> Since we can't know for sure that rationale
is:" probably" better to delete "potential" copyright infringements <
If the article had gone through many revisions and much of it was not infringing it would be less clear that deletion was a good course. Losing the history with a delete and creating the article from the pieces which didn't infringe would lose the history of the non-infringing gradual construction of the page and risk losing that defence against a bogus infringement claim based on accidental resemblence to some other document. Not such an issue in this case because the history is insignificant. I don't want to see delete as the method for all cases, though.
To see how Google handles this, take a look at http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=… and follow the convenient link they provide to the takedown notice, which includes the content they have been asked to take down, effectively making it available again. That's approximately what the history pages here do, though I agree with your archive argument and suggest also that the history is a working document and not part of the current publication, which is the Wikipedia itself, not the history of every page in every version. That's well illustrated by the many sites making the Wikipedia but not the history available.
Sounds as though you and I and Google agree that it's not likely to be problematic (you wrote "probably no damages or no infringement or both") and the only potential disagreement is in how far to go to reduce the chance of a suffering a lawsuit which will fail on its merits but still cost money. Personally, I'm inclined to think that anyone taking action against the Wikipedia will generate strongly negative publicity for themselves and that the risk of that will significantly inhibit baseless legal action. Besides, it might be cheap publicity as long as its settled in the very early stages ... AFTER the Wikipedia press release and Jimbo Wales TV appearances about it.:) Settlement offer along the lines of "$1 as far more than your demonstrable losses and you don't have to explain to the court and the ethics committee why you're wasting the resources of the court".
Still, if Jimbo is more comfortable with a delete, he's the one other than the contributor who is most likely to be hit by legal action and his comfort level matters so long as that remains true.
It might be useful to downstream users to keep a clear log of what we've acted on to deal with actual copyright infringement notices, to help them know tha thtey have pages which are likely to attract legal attention. We're also lacking, so far as I know, a page listing the people we've contacted for permission and what the result was, so we can avoid making repeated requests for the same thing. Think its worth creating them?
Yes, I've read the history page discussion. I generally agree with the view expressed by Brian Vibber, that anyone may choose to use any revision of the Wikipedia they wish, or any combination of revisions and derivative works based on them. That's not inconsistent with the intent to have the current Wikipedia as the currently published document. The history is really just our working document available as part of the process of constructing the actual work.
Where I disagree is in cases like abuse or personal information about themselves which private people contributing to the Wikipedia (rather than public record about public figures) want removed. While it's true that they were once published that way, it's socially good to assist people with removing such things, including ceasing to make them available through the history. Yes, someone could have the page and it would be GFDL, but it's still socially good for Wikipedia to stop distributing it, to inhibit further distribution. Our removal also makes it a bit easier for them to pursue a right of privacy action against whoever is harassing them, though I wouldn't like to speculate on their chance of success.
I don't agree that talk pages or the mailing lists need to be under the GFDL. I think that gets in the way of frank discussion and isn't necessary. A narrower licence, "GFDL but only within the Wikipedia project and for the purpose of that project", suffices for them and doesn't get in the way of researchers, who have ample fair use rights for the purpose.
Brion wrote:
>The server pulled its usual crashing trick some hours ago,
>and came back up after rebooting but without the database
>partition mounted or the mailing lists activated.
>
>Everything should be fine now, for a definition of "fine" that
>means "could crash again at any time and going to have to
>handle the full English webserving load as well as the database
>and all other languages until we get both servers fixed".
Hey Brion, Jason, et al - thanks for trying your best to fix this problem. I
have no idea how hard it would be to perform a triple bypass in the
battlefield but I'm sure you guys are getting a taste of it.
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
The server pulled its usual crashing trick some hours ago, and came back
up after rebooting but without the database partition mounted or the
mailing lists activated.
Everything should be fine now, for a definition of "fine" that means
"could crash again at any time and going to have to handle the full
English webserving load as well as the database and all other languages
until we get both servers fixed".
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I wrote:
>Many of us know a lot about certain controversial things
>that we may be /way/ to biased to write neutrally on. I for
>one, find it very difficult to write neutrally for articles on
>homosexuality even though I know a lot about the subject
>(from biased sources, of course), so I tend to stay away
>from making substantive changes to those articles.
Just to clarify: IMO, RK's POV over the past year has been expressed not in
actual blatant POV writting, but in scaring off or otherwise antagonizing
people who have POVs in opposition to his own. The articles, therefore, have
an Israeli-POV bent to them.
Sorry, I know this is the wrong list....
--mav
JT wrote:
>1. Abe made a very useful and thought-provoking point about
>the useful of having RK on wiki, if only because his virtual
>waging of war on anyone who disagreed with him tended to
>lead people to be restrained in what they wrote on the Israel-
>Palestinian issue. Unfortunately RK went way to far. Far from
>being a useful restraining force he became a destructive
>individual who scared people away from wiki.
>...
I tend to agree. My first bad experience, in fact, with another user on
Wikipedia, was with RK over such an article. Luckily I was already hooked on
this crack pipe otherwise known as Wikipedia, so I just dealt with it (Larry
also helped to defuse the situation by neutralizing the disputed article -
which I thought was hopelessly POV against Palestinians). Since that time I
have refrained from doing any substantial work on these articles other than
reverting vandalism or fixing really bad formatting/organization.
It would still be a real pity if RK never came back; when he actually worked
in his area of trained expertise (biology) we made excellent to superior
contributions.
Many of us know a lot about certain controversial things that we may be /way/
to biased to write neutrally on. I for one, find it very difficult to write
neutrally for articles on homosexuality even though I know a lot about the
subject (from biased sources, of course), so I tend to stay away from making
substantive changes to those articles.
I wish RK could do the same thing with Israeli-Palestinian articles....
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)