A more proactive approach would be very welcome where it comes to featured
pictures. WMF photographers have occasionally discovered their work reused
without credit in commercial advertising.
-Durova
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should
complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?
I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
several people ask
2009/6/29 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should
complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?
I think actively asking nicely would be a good
2009/6/29 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/6/29 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/6/29 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK
PHOTOS just give credit and
2009/6/25 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
We give people a lovely pre-made citation on each and every page!
Every major style manual includes explicit directions on how to cite
websites! Every academic paper ever published about Wikipedia has
grappled with this problem and come up with
Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
and thought damn, doesn't work that way, and then just went ahead.
Particularly ironic given the title and perhaps subject of the book.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Any suggestions what to do about this?
After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL
Steve Bennett wrote:
...
And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
issues this as an
2009/6/25 Siobhan Hansa helens...@gmail.com:
Steve Bennett wrote:
And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
gratification of your name in
2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
Option 2 is more readable, but requires a redirection by the reader if they
want full bibliographic detail, and adds pages (and weight and cost) to a
book. Another option is to use an adaptation of Option 1: standard
long-then-short Chicago without
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
[[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
how to cite Wikipedia?
I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's fine
for Twitter in the short term, but what happens when they go under and
Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
[[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
how to cite Wikipedia?
I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's
fine for Twitter in the short term, but
There's an importance to this which needs to be communicated better, and
quickly. Most of the world's image archives are not openly accessible. As
some of them open their doors, Flickr is competing with Commons to become
the primary point of deposit. We risk a situation where WMF loses out on
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Andrew Gray wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewoldid=6042007
can be rendered as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
the DOI playbook,
I want to remind everything that the issue as to why the URL's weren't
included *supposedly* wasn't that the standard URL is too long, but
rather just that one side wanted the timestamp as they say, and the
other didn't. Personally it sounds to me like they are completely
fudging the
2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
the DOI playbook, and set up something like:
http://[site]/wp:en/6042007
So the oldid's are globally unique (among a language subdomain)? If that's
the case, the answer to Charles'
pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from
Wikipedia in New Book
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Durova wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg
This file says its in the public domain.
[[
Permission
(Reusing this image)
Public domain
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewoldid=6042007
can be rendered as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
Can we make that even more succinct?
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
goes.
I did not know that, that's great.
On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Joe but.
Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their
source.
They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying
source.
This normally implies I actually went to the source and viewed the
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Reaglerea...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
shortened anymore which would remove information
It's hard to imagine someone thinking I bet no one will notice if I just
paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article. At the same time, some
users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
just what exactly is meant by free encyclopedia. And not to his credit
Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from
Wikipedia in New Book
On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Joe but.
Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their
source.
They lifted
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Any suggestions what to do about this?
After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
alone respect,
Steve Bennett wrote:
And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It's hard to imagine someone thinking I bet no one will notice if I just
paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article. At the same time, some
users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, William King williamcarlk...@gmail.comwrote:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/
Chris Anderson, the
2009/6/24 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit.
Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration?
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
William King wrote:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/
Chris Anderson, the author, summarized the situation in two words: Mea
culpa.
Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
Slight correction. It was Time Magazine that ran my Brandeis restoration
uncredited. The one Wired ran uncredited was the San Francisco Earthquake
of 1906.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0418
Wired gives sole credit to the original source:
*Image: H.D.
Well, taking a first stab at this. Here's my letter to Wired:
Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized
content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media
work of mine that Wired has reproduced without credit.
...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying
from Wikipedia in New Book
Well, taking a first stab at this. Here's my letter to Wired:
Per the recent New York Times
2009/6/24 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
Well, taking a first stab at this. Here's my letter to Wired:
Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized
content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media
work of mine that Wired has
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Durova wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg
This file says its in the public domain.
[[
Permission
(Reusing this image)
Public domain
]]
[[
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of
the United States
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
and thought damn, doesn't work that way, and then just went ahead.
Particularly ironic given the title and perhaps subject of the book.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/24 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
Well, taking a first stab at this. Here's my letter to Wired:
Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized
content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media
work of
38 matches
Mail list logo
