Дана Saturday 21 March 2009 01:52:06 Erik Moeller написа:
> 2009/3/20 Nikola Smolenski :
> >> The fact that they may or may not be logged in is completely
> >> irrelevant if the terms and conditions clarify that their username has
> >> nothing to do with the option of supplying an Original Author n
Дана Friday 20 March 2009 23:11:17 Michael Snow написа:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:59:35 Michael Snow написа:
> >> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> >>> It is just your opinion that they have over-attributed; my opinion is
> >>> that their way of attribution is reasonable.
>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The change tracking history section has nothing to do with
> attribution, as I've noted before.
However, you're quite inconsistent on that point. As one example among
many, you said earlier "Indeed, the only way in which contributors are
c
2009/3/20 geni :
> Now that argument is flawed on a number of grounds but I think I'll
> take the easy option. Where is the link of the following pages:
Try the edit pages.
>> 1) Authors contributed acknowledging that they are licensing their
>> edits under the GFDL;
>> 2) The GFDL has an "at lea
2009/3/21 Erik Moeller :
> Well, I'm glad that we've cleared up that CC-BY-SA and link-back
> credit aren't irreconcilable after all.
Well I suppose that confirms you haven't really been paying attention.
> Now we're apparently moving on
> to the new topic: Do site-wide terms of use matter when d
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 10% doesn't sound at all reasonable to me.
In one of the previous emails I described that 5 very active
contributors were not happy with the situation at sr.wp at the time
when there were ~40 very active contributors. I don't think that sr.w
2009/3/20 geni :
> Your suggestion that wikipedia:copyrights has any baring on what
> people have agreed to have done with their work simply doesn't hold
> water.
Well, I'm glad that we've cleared up that CC-BY-SA and link-back
credit aren't irreconcilable after all. Now we're apparently moving on
2009/3/21 Erik Moeller :
> So let's step back for a second. There is a claim that the legal code
> of CC-BY-SA cannot be reconciled with the notion of attributing via
> URL-linkback only. Do you agree that this claim is false? If the claim
> is false, then surely it is possible to create terms and
2009/3/21 Milos Rancic :
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> I think the percentages given as plausible, but do we really have 10
>> million contributors? The English Wikipedia apparently has 9,237,657
>> registered users, but I believe a very large proportion of them hav
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think the percentages given as plausible, but do we really have 10
> million contributors? The English Wikipedia apparently has 9,237,657
> registered users, but I believe a very large proportion of them have
> never made an edit, an even l
2009/3/20 Nikola Smolenski :
>> The fact that they may or may not be logged in is completely
>> irrelevant if the terms and conditions clarify that their username has
>> nothing to do with the option of supplying an Original Author name as
>
> But the terms and conditions do not clarify that, anywh
geni wrote:
> 2009/3/20 David Gerard:
>
>> This is what I mean when I say this is not a game of Nomic, and the
>> law is squishy. Does anyone actually think they could stop someone
>> from doing this? (If so, you're too batshit crazy to be listened to in
>> this discussion.)
>>
> DMCA take
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> Pascal's Wager involves infinite gain/loss - this is just basic risk
> analysis and has nothing at all to do with Pascal's Wager.
It's true that Pascal's own version of Pascal's Wager involves the risk of
infinite loss, but it's commonly
2009/3/20 Mike Godwin :
>> If we have, let's say, 10.000.000 of contributors and 1% of them
>> (100.000) is not happy with Wikipedia because of any reason and 1% of
>> them (1000) want to sue WMF or whoever and 1% of them can do it, we'll
>> have 10 big problems. We may fail in just 10% of the case
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> As Wikipedia is becoming more and more a regular part of our
> civilization, we may expect more and more regular behavior. We already
> had malicious legal attacks in UK, Germany and France (I remember
> those three issues).
I'm aware of
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I disagree that there is a "huge" probability of legal exposure with regard
> to this question. I follow moral-rights jurisprudence reasonably closely,
> and I have yet to see any reason to believe that the risk of legal action
> against the
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:59:35 Michael Snow написа:
>
>> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>
>>> It is just your opinion that they have over-attributed; my opinion is
>>> that their way of attribution is reasonable.
>>>
>> Just because one method is reasonable do
2009/3/20 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/18 geni :
>> 1 person on this list. The rest of the opposition comes from the
>> foundations unlawful and ill thought out proposed TOS.
>
> For the record, our legal reasoning for the attribution terms under
> consideration is as follows (as reviewed by Mike).
>
>
Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:58:02 Erik Moeller написа:
> 2009/3/19 Nikola Smolenski :
> > Of course, if an author doesn't supply a name, then an URL is all that
> > remains. But most of our authors have not excercised this possibility:
> > they do supply their names, or pseudonyms.
>
> The fact th
Milos writes:
>
> Again, personally, I don't have problems with it. However, I think
> that the present construction of the attribution issue is far from
> well defined and that it leaves WMF projects in extremely vulnerable
> position. Just a small group of malicious persons may make a real mess
Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:59:35 Michael Snow написа:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > It is just your opinion that they have over-attributed; my opinion is
> > that their way of attribution is reasonable.
>
> Just because one method is reasonable does not mean that all others are
> unreasonable.
H
2009/3/20 David Gerard :
> This is what I mean when I say this is not a game of Nomic, and the
> law is squishy. Does anyone actually think they could stop someone
> from doing this? (If so, you're too batshit crazy to be listened to in
> this discussion.)
>
>
> - d.
DMCA take down notice. Ebay wi
2009/3/20 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/20 Ray Saintonge :
>
>> A copy of Wikipedia text is frequently used in eBay descriptions of
>> books. The attribution is simply to Wikipedia, and does not progress so
>> far as to say "[...] et al." That's about as much as anyone could
>> reasonably expect, no ma
2009/3/20 Ray Saintonge :
> A copy of Wikipedia text is frequently used in eBay descriptions of
> books. The attribution is simply to Wikipedia, and does not progress so
> far as to say "[...] et al." That's about as much as anyone could
> reasonably expect, no matter what the licence says.
Th
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/19 Milos Rancic :
>> This kind of construction makes one copyleft license in practice just
>> a little bit stronger than public domain.
>
> Um, no. The power of copyleft is in preserving freedom to re-use on
> derivatives. Can you point
See also http://www.kiwix.org/index.php/Main_Page,
http://openzim.org/Main_Page.
shantanu choudhary, 20/03/2009 11:21:
>- My python parser to create html out of wiki-text if not perfect, i can
>replace it with something which is better and existing, but am yet to find
>that.
What abo
On 20 Mar 2009, at 17:03, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>>
>>> Is this problem really exclusive to online references? I'd
>>> guess there is plenitude of author references to "[...] et
>>> al." (or none at all) out there that cannot
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>
>> Is this problem really exclusive to online references? I'd
>> guess there is plenitude of author references to "[...] et
>> al." (or none at all) out there that cannot be resolved
>> without access to a catalog or the so
Hello Shantanu
You should really look at the work I did about offline wikipedia.
The presentation:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-January/040812.html
Some samples:
http://www.wiki-web.es/mediawiki-offline-reader/
*Same kind of compression, based on bzip2 blocks, but with th
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 3) Part 3: Is such an attribution model consistent with the past
> practice under which authors have contributed to Wikipedia and other
> projects?
>
> Answer: Yes. This is evident through the current site-wide copyright
> terms, e.g. http:/
On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> The issue, from my point of view*, is that they do "suddenly become
>> devoid of meaning" as soon as those links stop working. This can
>> happen for a number of reasons, including article moves, deletions,
>> and ( forbid
Hello all,
I am working on this project from past few months
http://code.google.com/p/offline-wikipedia/, i have presented a talk related
to this in freed.in 09 too.
My aim with this project is:
- To create DVD distribution for English wikipedia up to the standards
that it can make match to
Michael Peel wrote:
>> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at
>> all" in
>> an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not
>> suddenly become devoid of meaning just because you're using a medium
>> where you can't follow a hyperlink. I could just as soo
33 matches
Mail list logo
