Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing.
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying.
2009/9/16 Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org:
Just FYI, I know people had talked about this before in the context of
using reCAPTCHA on wikipedia. The consensus, if I remember correctly,
was that while it was open source, they required you to use their
servers which would be an unacceptable
Actually a point I felt was missing from NYB's talk, which took
privacy as general theme, was this: as we know from WP:NOT, Wikipedia
is not concerned with indiscriminate information. This ought to
provide some clear blue water between us and popular journalism, which
actually uses
Don't fully pretend to understand this, but given there was stuff about
a WikiJournal on the list recently, I thought this article might be of
use to some of the participants:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/last-fm-mendeley-victor-keegan
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Don't fully pretend to understand this, but given there was stuff about
a WikiJournal on the list recently, I thought this article might be of
use to some of the participants:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/last-fm-mendeley-victor-keegan
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
seller did. It even says The right to use this work is granted to
anyone for any purpose, without any
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
..
A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a
long time. Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after
five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the
2009/9/17 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor. Extensive staining and
chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
his face. It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an
arbitrator no less--who
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/17 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor. Extensive staining and
chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of
his face. It is,
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at the salaries
paid to a painter and to a skilled image restorer.
Even if you can't do that, then the time involved
2009/9/17 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
seller did. It even says The right to use this work is granted to
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
There is a lot more skill than 'painting by numbers' involved. One way
to tell is to look at the market for such skills. Look at
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
wrote:
I personally think image restoration is more like painting by numbers
than
creative work.
It's like creating an Ikea bookcase: there is some *skill* involved but
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
snip
And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly
the ones that involve filling in missing material), but those can be
controversial.
Matter
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
A depressing number of people trying to argue their way around the
creativity requirement in US copyright.
Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
It's not a black-and-white copyright-only
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
snip
And in any cases, some aspects of restoration *are* creative (mainly
the ones that involve filling in
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
snip
Thanks for those examples. An excellent restoration. I'd love to
discuss the missing hand in more detail some time, as that is a good
example of something I think
2009/9/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Really, there should be a section for restoration notes. Shoehorning
them into the Other versions field doesn't really work for the cases
where you want to make clear what the work done was. Either it is
routine enough not to need crediting,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. Even though a restoration may not create a new copyright, it is
absolutely relevant to have full details on the restoration, and to
suggest reusers note the restoration (e.g. Sir James Foo, 1875,
photographed by Fred
This is a very valid point in terms of another way of approaching the issue.
(In evaluating the speech for completeness, do bear in mind that I only had
a certain amount of time and couldn't make every possible point, but I
should have found room for this one.)
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org
Date: 2009/9/17
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Beta edit toolbar disabled temporarily
To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
Due to compatibility problems on Internet Explorer after yesterday’s
code update,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The eBay reseller named at the top of this thread may (or may not)
have done something morally questionable, but I think it's a major
I'm not seeing it. They're printing public domain images sourced from
an open source
Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE ref tags in the text!
(Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Date: 2009/9/18
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Article metadata separation from main wikitext
To:
2009/9/18 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE ref tags in the text!
(Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
this is going to create issues with {{reflist}} no?
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/9/18 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/9/18 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE ref tags in the text!
(Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
this is going to create issues with {{reflist}} no?
_ There's always one, isn't there ...
Fixing
2009/9/18 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/9/18 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE ref tags in the text!
(Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
this is going to create issues with {{reflist}} no?
I've noted possible problems with {{reflist}} in
Maybe have something like this:
{{reflist|begin}} becomes references
{{reflist|end}} becomes /references
{{reflist}} says as references /
-X!
On Sep 17, 2009, at 7:55 PM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/18 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/9/18 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Hey kids! Sort out
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Soxred93 soxre...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe have something like this:
{{reflist|begin}} becomes references
{{reflist|end}} becomes /references
{{reflist}} says as references /
That's a bit ugly but doable. You might as well just make it
{{reflist-begin}}
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Soxred93 soxre...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe have something like this:
{{reflist|begin}} becomes references
{{reflist|end}} becomes /references
{{reflist}} says as references /
That's a
2009/9/18 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
More parameters to references / is probably the right way to go:
Undoubtedly. {{reflist}} has many thousands of transclusions; surely
enough to rate software support. Go file a bug, or just code it ;-)
- d.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Oic, it's actually {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}.
Or alternatively:
{{reflist|refs=
ref ../ref
}}
Learnt about this the standard way knowledge about wiki syntax
proliferates: diffs.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
As a general suggestion, you may find you have more success in having your
posts accepted if you present your larger point rather than making a pithy
comment that is out of context.
Yes...but if a post is neither accepted nor
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/MSixths.mp3
DATA 35,27,2,24,40,6,45,27,2,30,50,4
DATA 55,33,2,36,60,4,65,39,4,42,70,4,0,0,4
' How is it that the above numbers, which approximate the western scale,
' in stereo, in parts a constant major sixth (5:3) apart...
DATA 60,35,2,30,40,6,54,45,2,27,50,4
The phrase is a weasel wording. That is my problem with it. By whom is it
well known? Me and my immediate peers who did the orijinal research? Thirty
percent of people over thirty years old? {{who?}}
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:7c402e010909111625v7e288350h356c1f91f5e43...@mail.gmail.com...
Someone sent me this classic post from Jayjg:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html
BTW: It's a bit hard to tell how much of that diff is just
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:fbad4e140908241015w1a6aa836jcf34ca962e088...@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/24 Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
This is an approximation of what David Gerard has arrived at with his own
method,
I agree with Gerard on this. Textbooks are typically loaded with primary
sources, and the textbook is a secondary source, even if the author of the
textbook did some orijinal research to confirm what the primary source
said -- does not mean that research was reviewed. As far as private
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jay Litwyn
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/MSixths.mp3
DATA 35,27,2,24,40,6,45,27,2,30,50,4
DATA 55,33,2,36,60,4,65,39,4,42,70,4,0,0,4
' How is it that the
Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
(ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say Any other use
requires permission from the State Library of South Australia.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying. What are you trying to say,
exactly?
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
This would be another swipe at [Officer] - don't feed.
No, Charles, it was not a
40 matches
Mail list logo
