problems than they prevent. Better is case-by-case action, with
justification necessary. The establishment of common law based on precedent,
if you will.
> --In response to the obvious question, Cunc (because I know you worry about
> this type of thing), my assumption is that it would work this way. I would be
> involved in (or witness -- I wouldn't feel comfortable locking a page without
> consulting anyway, but that's just me) an interminable edit war. I would say
> to myself, "Self, I can see no contributions here, only angry reversions, I
> think this should be locked till tempers cool and people have something
> constructive to offer." I would then write a note to the list "Attention
> sysops: there is a flame/edit/revert war going on at article x. I think it
> needs locking for a bit. What do you think?" Then, I would wait to see
> responses. I wouldn't know in advance who would respond. The second person
> to agree (unless someone disagrees) would perform the lock.
I'd just say we should never lock such articles. That makes the
decision-making process much easier.
something through Google I'd like to find out what Wikipedia knows
about the given subject.
Would it be difficult to :
* implement Wikipedia toolbar
* prepare Wikipedia entry as a search engine for the Mozilla sidebar
Regards,
kpj.
(Of course, TeX is not known for being user friendly either.
But is there really a user friendly alternative?)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
But I think that in many cases the most natural wiki syntax
will simply be to copy directly the syntax of the HTML tag.
This will primarily be when the tag is reasonable to use
and has no security issues but will be used rarely.
If it's used often, then it's time to look for something simpler.
This is exactly what we're doing now on SourceForge for <table>
and on Jan's page for <var>, <sup> and <sub>; that's good.
But lack of < and > isn't inherently simpler;
any idea needs to be judged on its own merits.
And we shouldn't stop supporting a markup method that appears on our pages
(except when we're no longer supporting the HTML that it rendered as).
>As comfortable as all of us are with HTML, /we/ aren't the kind of
>people we want editing articles (except maybe those on computer
>subjects). We want Bridge players writing about Bridge, and cat
>breeders writing about cats, and campers writing about camping--the
>kind of people who have never even heard of HTML are the kind of
>people we want most to attract and make use of. We computer nerds
>are used to dealing with special syntaxes; it is we who should adapt
>to them, not the other way around.
I've argued that <b> is marginally better than '''
because more newbies (including some bridge players) will already know it.
Without that, I see minor arguments for both, but think that they're even.
(OTOH, I admit that '' is better than <em> when you ignore that
more people already know it, since <em> is hard to guess the meaning of.)
But I still don't see why it's wrong to have both,
written up on [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] for the uninitiated.
(And I wouldn't breathe a word of HTML on that page, BTW --
the origin of the markup used is of no relevance to the end user.)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
> 2) The number of 'sysop's is rapidly rising, and the chances of
> somebody accidentally (or maliciously) performing a slow, complex
> query that tied up the database for a long time would increase.
It's pretty hard to do that with a SELECT, and it's only temporary.
I think it's handly for sysops to be able to find things out like how
many users use a certain skin, how many page titles contain a certain
word, etc., without having to provide special pages for every
possible query.
Select "Display" from list of Categories; then for "Transparency Type:"
select "Light Checks" or "White only" or whatever you fancy.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
"Open content text and media are licensed by the copyright holder, Bomis,
Inc., to the general public, permitting anyone to redistribute and alter the
text free of charge, and guaranteeing that no one be able to restrict access
to amended versions of the content. "
concerning the "copyright holder" part:
Please, can someone tell me this is outdated nonsense based on the previous
OPL license? As I have come to understand the wikipedia copyright issue,
everything contributed is released under the GNU FDL, PERIOD. I never once
agreed to reassign copyright of my contributions over to Bomis or anyone else
for that matter. That is part of the power of this project (So I thought?) --
everyone who contributes owns their material and agrees to release it under
the terms of the GNU FDL -- making a non-free fork almost completely
impossible (since everyone who ever contributed would have to agree to the
change in license). Furthermore, the "guarantee" part read in context seems
to imply the Bomis is the one granting the privilege to freely modify or
redistribute all the material. Of course, if this wording is correct, then
Bomis can also revoke that right to future versions (i.e. a non-free fork).
Specifically, if Bomis is claiming ownership then they can, on a whim
overnight change the license to anything they want. Not that I believe Jimbo
Wales would do such a thing, but car accidents happen all the time and
liquidators don't care didly about the project. Yeah, I know; all the older
versions of the 'pedia would still be under the FDL. But one of the reasons I
contribute is because I have the knowledge that what I do here will forever
be free and there will never be an unfree version. I really don't know if I
would continue contributing without this knowledge. --maveric149, Wednesday,
April 10, 2002
LDC replies to maveric:
I'm sure it's just outdated. From the discussions we've had about the topic
here and on the mailing list, it's clear that the intent is that Bomis hold a
collection copyright on Wikipedia as a whole, but that individual articles
are still copyrighted by their original author(s), who grant use of them
under the GFDL to Bomis and to the public. Further, Bomis grants license to
use the collection under the GFDL as well. Yes, there need to be clearer
statements of these legal positions here. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
maveric then replies:
Thanks for the assurance LDC. BTW, I don't have much of a (if any) problem
with Bomis having a "collection" copyright und the FDL -- it is their right
for forking over the dough to pay the bills and providing a place for us all
to contribute (so long as individual articles will forever be free). I would
like to take this issue to the wikipedia mailing list though... Just so we
can all be clear on this issue. --maveric149
Jimbo what is the official position so the the text can be updated?
BTW, what, if any, plans are there for licensing the "collection" of
articles? Could this be done with a dual license that would enable a future
non-free publication of the collection of articles (although the articles
themselves would still be 100% free -- if this is can be done, then one
couldn't amass more than a certain percentage of the articles in any one
publication without permission - not sure if that is even legal with the FDL,
let alone practical)? Last two questions have no intent or direction behind
them.... just interested.
maveric149