On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
contract Wikimedia has
The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last
posts and your responses. Providing a direct link is a bit too much
work this far from my computers.
I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred,
and ready for whomever would accept them. Have for
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
But since half the people involved complain about not being able to get
anything done on Wikipedia now we can politely explain to them that they
are a part of the problem.
Nathan
Sorry to jump in so late in the thread... At
I discussed this matter at some length with User:Danny a while back.
He was, of course, the point man in JSTOR's fight with the foundation
over [[JSTOR]], so his perspective might've been skewed, but we never
could come to an agreement as to whether JSTOR was doing this or not.
The user agreement
If I were representing JSOR in this, I would be reluctant to do
business with people who plan in advance how far they will succeed in
finding legal justification for violating the intent of the contracts
they enter into. Publishers normally negotiate in good faith: they are
aware that there will
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last
posts and your responses. Providing a direct link is a bit too much
work this far from my computers.
I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred,
and ready for whomever would
On 12/27/08, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could be to make better
use of the systems we've already developed on our own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange
I think there are a lot of
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still
have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
community.
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
On 12/25/08, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
There are plenty of things which people
Agreed, including Philosophical Transactions, a journal that started in 1665:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions
Though to be fair, the digitisation only seems to go back to the 1800s so far.
This was interesting...
http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/royalsociety/
OMG...
THIS is what you are screaming about?
Silly silly silly boy.
They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
*Throws up hands*
Next non-issue please.
You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the text obviously.
Will Johnson
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
---
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you.
Yes. Though I'm not the one screaming here. :-)
Carcharoth
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
OMG...
THIS is what you are screaming about?
Silly silly silly boy.
They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
2008/12/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you.
I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence.
So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas !
Now let's see some
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, folks, can we keep this civil please? I'm sure both of you can
frame statements like I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious
copyright and
In a message dated 12/26/2008 11:33:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mbimm...@gmail.com writes:
I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious
copyright and Could you elaborate on this and supply a specific
example? could be
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
OMG...
THIS is what you are screaming about?
Silly silly silly boy.
They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
*Throws up hands*
Next non-issue please.
You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image. That does NOT give me a
copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged. If I take a
picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I David am not the one who threw WTF in the face of a serious contributor as
if I was a complete idiot.
I do not appreciate that type of hostility, to a serious point of
contention, for which no evidence was produced, and will respond with equal
hostility
when
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image. That does NOT give me a
copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged. If I take a
picture of the
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
IF I take a photograph, or even digitize (scan) a print document, I own
the copyright to what *I* have done.
Careful here. I'm pretty sure that to successfully assert copyright,
you need to have contributed some reasonable degree of *originality*;
and then at
Alec Conroy wrote:
Either way, this entire issue is moot.
We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or
actually
asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
Exactly. If a text is under copyright it can't be on Wikisource. If
it's PD, it can be.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still
have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
community.
WTF? =-O
We seem to be labouring under some
This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
But since half the people involved complain about not being able to get
anything done on Wikipedia now we can politely explain to them that they
are a part of the problem.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
But since half the people involved complain about not being able to get
anything done on Wikipedia now
Nathan wrote:
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of
This is probably how some contributors do good work.
They subscribe to a commercial information service, whether it be databases
or whole electronic archives of past issues. And, then they crib from it,
and they know how to defend results, because they saw details in the
experiment, transcript,
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 12/21/08, Thomas Larsen wrote:
I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
forbid, _misunderstood_.
My experience
2008/12/24 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great
motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image. It's comparable to the oil
industry's perception of global warming.
It's worked for Britannica and Brockhaus! Oh, wait.
- d.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
All this talk about copyright on public domain Text is moot.
You cannot copyright something already in the public domain.
You can say you are, but your declaration has no power.
There are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
2008/12/24 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2008/12/24 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great
motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image. It's comparable to the oil
industry's perception of global warming.
It's worked for
2008/12/25 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Brockhaus never really tried and Britannica is pretty half hearted to
the point there not even really the go to people when the media want
an anti-wikipedia comment any more.
Yes, I've noticed it getting ad-hoc.
No academic publishing has a
highly
2008/12/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
At this point the prudent move for us is to do nothing and continue to
exist. Which has actually worked out surprisingly well for us so far.
We've never run into anyone significant who's first reaction is to run
to PR people and lobbyists. The PRC is
Hi Ray,
Thomas's position smacks of traditional elitism: Why inform the public
when the public can't understand what you say? You can't expect informed
consent for medical procedures if the public doesn't understand what the
doctor is saying, so why say it in the first place?
I think you've
2008/12/25 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2008/12/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
At this point the prudent move for us is to do nothing and continue to
exist. Which has actually worked out surprisingly well for us so far.
We've never run into anyone significant who's first reaction is to run
I hate to pop into this, but have we thought about the question of
reader access. By this I mean as it currently is with most of our
sources, our readers are able to verify the articles themselves if
they wish to. If we start to use sources that only certain people can
access, that closes off the
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
sure
In a message dated 12/23/2008 12:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we
always reinvent the wheel?
-
Please provide
My experience is 100% to the contrary. By and large, we're not
exclusively laypeople-- often we ARE the experts. Our math articles
are written by math experts, our chemistry articles are written by
chemists, our physics articles are written by physicists.
I think this is definitely true
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I comment as a professional academic librarian. I was the cochair of
princeton's collection development committee on electronic resources
from the day it started.
The typical budget today for e-resources for a major
2008/12/21 wjhon...@aol.com:
As Todd mentions, some of us already subscribe to various online services.
*IF* the WMF could negotiate a group rate, that could be a win-win situation.
I would also come down on the side of established editors versus
Admins. We are trying to ease the
In a message dated 12/21/2008 1:39:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Your problem would be getting a big enough group to make it
worthwhile. Fairly few wikipedians are going to be interested in any
given journal and searching them effectively is quite a trick.
I
The idea is a good one, the idea of accessing material online came out of
something I suggested (and I seriously doubt I'm alone in doing) in
suggesting we find volunteers who could be trusted to verify the content of
books being used as references in the case of more contentious and
potentially
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Larsen wrote:
Hi,
This is an interesting idea indeed. However, I'm not sure it would
fly, for two reasons:
1) I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
understand them well enough.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
JSTOR also claims ownership over a great deal of indisputably public
domain works. I'd hate to think that a penny of my donations to the
WMF would be going to support such organizations.
If it were a big concern,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
FT2 wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell
gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
JSTOR also claims ownership over a great deal of indisputably
public domain works. I'd hate to think that a penny of my
donations to the WMF would be going to
I think here, the most good we could probably do is in getting access
to journals that your average public library won't offer. I do get
access to some research resources through the regular public libraries
here, and that's pretty standard. Maybe we should survey what those
offer, to get a better
This would be a wonderful, wonderful thing. We're at the point in a
lot of articles now where access to scientific and historical
peer-reviewed journals is an absolute prerequisite to intelligently
improving articles. Most of us are affiliated with institutions that
have access to these sites,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, FT2 wrote:
The following idea is based on a suggestion someone just came out with. A
number of users were discussing BLPs and the point that verification of
written sources and journals was not that easy in many
I doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
which is often as high as $40 per article. (that's what this amounts
to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a
Wikipedia account.
On 12/20/08, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
which is often as high as $40 per article. (that's what this amounts
to) -- or for a flat rate
54 matches
Mail list logo
