Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
Fiction articles do not deserve to be exiled into someones userspace. Them being in the article namespace is not disruptive as stub articles are not banned. If I am wrong in my assessment then all stub articles should be moved to someones userspace. I wager even the attempt of applying such a standard to all articles would face a serious resistance. Then again I may be wrong. Consensus can determine that and anyone can initiate such a discussion. If someone wants to hide certain articles in their search results they may use the minus tag on Google. For example searching "Topic" -anime -manga -movie -television would eliminate most of popular culture in your search results. Of course smarter search words can be chosen depending on what you are looking for. Here I am merely giving a general example. - White Cat On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > > I'm not thinking here of articles being rated to allow reader-side > filtering by setting a value, but of AfD having a userspace to send > grossly subpar articles to, rather then sending them to userspace. It > depends how often userfication is successful in producing an improved > and acceptable article. In many cases, bold recreation can work. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_(online_game) > > On the other hand, date context is still a remarkably hard skill to > knock into people's heads: > > "Threshold was, for three consecutive years, The MUD Journal's > highest-rated role-playing game." > > Quite why the article doesn't bother to say *which* three consecutive > years these were, I don't know. > > But getting back to the recreation aspect. Once you *see* an > acceptable article or stub in place on the ground (after the required > work has been done, and lots of work is often needed), then many > objections melt away. > > One pitfall, in your system and mine, is who decides when to move > articles from the incubation namespace to the main namespace (and vice > versa) and in your system who decides what the rating of a particular > article should be to fit the reader-set filtering? > > All hypothetical, as you say. At the moment, the best approach is > rigorously sourced stubs that can slowly grow over time - slower than > they would if it was just fans of the game or similar editors working > on it, but of better quality for being held to a higher standard. > > Carcharoth > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
Andrew Gray wrote: > [posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to > wikisource-l, perhaps?] > > I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping > those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a > given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. > > http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html In other words, location of first publication is important. Systemic bias ahoy! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/1/12 geni : > >>> I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping >>> those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a >>> given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. >> >> We don't use the copyright not renewed clause stuff and commons' >> general support for Must be PD in the country of origin as well as the >> US means we mostly dodge the issue. > > I'm not so sure that we don't use it - I can't cite chapter and verse, > but I've certainly seen it invoked here and there, usually with > good-faith due diligence to find renewals. > > Sometimes it seems like what we need is a quasi-intelligent "PD-old" > template - you plug in the known variables, date created and date > published and author and country and so on, and it spits out "is > therefore public domain because X and Y, under provision Z". Be > horrific to maintain, though. We have fairly complex templates similar to that, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-EU-no_author_disclosure There was, a long time ago, a big debate about some images such as: "File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg" There is a long history here, but none of it seems to have mattered once it reached Commons. There seems to have been no attempt in the Commons deletion debate to look at the previous discussions or anything. * 18:04, 1 August 2007 Nv8200p (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg" (Remove image per WP:IFD) (restore) * 00:45, 7 August 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs | block) restored "File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg" (11 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: Restored by DRV, to be relisted at IfD at editorial option) * 03:50, 23 November 2007 Jennavecia (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i8), was an image available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons. using TW) (restore) The debates at the time on en-Wikipedia were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_18#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_2 But a year later we have this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg Anyone here know what should be happening with this image? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
2009/1/12 geni : >> I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping >> those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a >> given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. > > We don't use the copyright not renewed clause stuff and commons' > general support for Must be PD in the country of origin as well as the > US means we mostly dodge the issue. I'm not so sure that we don't use it - I can't cite chapter and verse, but I've certainly seen it invoked here and there, usually with good-faith due diligence to find renewals. Sometimes it seems like what we need is a quasi-intelligent "PD-old" template - you plug in the known variables, date created and date published and author and country and so on, and it spits out "is therefore public domain because X and Y, under provision Z". Be horrific to maintain, though. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > rcasm> > That's a blog, so it doesn't count. > > > While we've discussed this, there are some new points, and I think the > canvassing problem is one of the worst. It ends up meaning that the people > who are affected by a change never get to participate in the decision, > because it's impossible to inform them witbhout "canvassing" or "meatpuppets". It's also a newbie problem. Some of the accounts in question are improving, on a steep learning curve. Others never came back or show little activity or interest in the rest of Wikipedia (normal behaviour for most new accounta). Such incidents also show the worst of how Wikipedia can treat newcomers. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
rcasm> That's a blog, so it doesn't count. While we've discussed this, there are some new points, and I think the canvassing problem is one of the worst. It ends up meaning that the people who are affected by a change never get to participate in the decision, because it's impossible to inform them witbhout "canvassing" or "meatpuppets". ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
Wikipedia's War on Gaming History and Threshold RPG Article by Michael Hartman (4,659 pts ) Published on Jan 10, 2009 Wikipedia is currently dominated by a powerful deletionist movement. MUDs and Gaming History are frequent targets, and Threshold RPG recently found itself in the Wikipedian crosshairs. Wikipedia has lost its way, and obscure, interesting content is constantly in jeopardy of disappearing. Tags: Wikipedia, rpg, threshold, mmo, mud http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows-platform/articles/22166.aspx ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
That was an interesting read. Will read the full version soon. Especially since I encountered some images a while ago where it was stated that the copyright was not renewed. For people interested (and I would be glad to have more opinions) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_December_25 and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_sitting.jpg. I hope they are indeed free, but sometimes it seems/feels too easy. Garion96 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list >centered around whether a certain Japanese >word was indeed mistranslated, and created >a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one >of the wikipedia mailing-lists... It was similar to the mud case: certain people have a certain idea of what they want in Wikipedia, and are trying to force the use of policies to get it to be that way, even though that's not what the policies are designed for and they're not being properly used anyway. There are anime fans who like the Japanese original, and anime fans who don't. And some of the latter category are rabid enough about it that they'll prioritize "use the American version" ahead of everything else, and therefore want to use it even if it's mistranslated. They'll misquote policy and edit policy just to get it done that way, with no regard for common sense. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
Oh, but in no part in the article I put that it was a translation, I just said it was an interview with Rockaxis. -- Alvaro On 12-01-2009, at 12:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Alvaro García wrote: >> It's a joke, right? >> >> >> -- >> Alvaro >> >> > > Sadly, no. > > I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list > centered around whether a certain Japanese > word was indeed mistranslated, and created > a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one > of the wikipedia mailing-lists... > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
On Jan 12, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Alvaro García wrote: >> It's a joke, right? >> >> >> -- >> Alvaro >> >> > > Sadly, no. > > I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list > centered around whether a certain Japanese > word was indeed mistranslated, and created > a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one > of the wikipedia mailing-lists... > To be fair, I was joking. The joke is, however, less funny given that there are people who actually hold that. But we shouldn't listen to them. -Phil ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
See? Even if I put the formalsource for my Waters interview, it would be put as "unverifiable" -- Alvaro On 12-01-2009, at 12:19, Philip Sandifer wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >> Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have >> reliable >> sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies >> on >> their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here >> from observation of the phenomenon. > > This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, > and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all > sincerity, the following. > > 1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" > 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no > evidence) that its author played the game in question. > 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be > submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games > submitted) > > And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD > where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, > asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources > it does have. That particular glory can be found here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)_(2nd_nomination > > ) > > Meanwhile, an actually promising proposal for fiction notability that > had multiple parties, both inclusionist and deletionist, onboard is > now being derailed by two or three people who are holding the "No > retreat, no surrender, no loosening of standards for fiction" line > with no willingness to compromise, openly saying they'd rather treat > each article as a battleground than loosen standards to something that > approximates the practical consensus on fiction. One person compared > the keeping of fiction articles by the community to Jim Crow laws. In > all seriousness. > > I have spoken of the toxicity of deletionists, but this is beyond > toxicicity. This is an active cancer - and one that the arbcom has, > historically, been too chicken to take on. > > Just how much commitment to removing content for the sake of removing > content needs to be demonstrated before we can say that it violates > policy and just block the idiots? > > -Phil > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
Alvaro García wrote: > It's a joke, right? > > > -- > Alvaro > > Sadly, no. I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list centered around whether a certain Japanese word was indeed mistranslated, and created a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one of the wikipedia mailing-lists... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable > sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on > their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here > from observation of the phenomenon. This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all sincerity, the following. 1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no evidence) that its author played the game in question. 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games submitted) And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources it does have. That particular glory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)_(2nd_nomination) Meanwhile, an actually promising proposal for fiction notability that had multiple parties, both inclusionist and deletionist, onboard is now being derailed by two or three people who are holding the "No retreat, no surrender, no loosening of standards for fiction" line with no willingness to compromise, openly saying they'd rather treat each article as a battleground than loosen standards to something that approximates the practical consensus on fiction. One person compared the keeping of fiction articles by the community to Jim Crow laws. In all seriousness. I have spoken of the toxicity of deletionists, but this is beyond toxicicity. This is an active cancer - and one that the arbcom has, historically, been too chicken to take on. Just how much commitment to removing content for the sake of removing content needs to be demonstrated before we can say that it violates policy and just block the idiots? -Phil ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
Because it's Wikipedia, they would go and say that the source isn't verifiable and that the magazine isn't known. Because anyway, I put "On an interview in the X/ Rockaxis edition, Roger Waters stated that..." -- Alvaro On 12-01-2009, at 4:08, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > The source is the magazine. > Why would you say there are no source, when you have a magazine as the > source? > > > > In a message dated 1/11/2009 9:35:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > alva...@gmail.com writes: > > Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine. > > **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just > 2 easy > steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De > cemailfooterNO62) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:14 AM, geni wrote: > We don't use the copyright not renewed clause stuff and commons' > general support for Must be PD in the country of origin as well as the > US means we mostly dodge the issue. We have in some cases used non-renewed that I've seen, but rarely. Only cases I'm aware of have been American books printed & published here and from American authors on American subjects; unlikely to be covered by copyright restoration which only applies to stuff first published abroad. Shows that we have to be careful about it, though. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
2009/1/12 Andrew Gray : > [posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to > wikisource-l, perhaps?] > > I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping > those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a > given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. We don't use the copyright not renewed clause stuff and commons' general support for Must be PD in the country of origin as well as the US means we mostly dodge the issue. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
[posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to wikisource-l, perhaps?] I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html Copyright Renewal, Copyright Restoration, and the Difficulty of Determining Copyright Status - Peter B. Hirtle, Cornell University D-Lib Magazine, July/August 2008 Volume 14 Number 7/8 "It has long been assumed that most of the works published from 1923 to 1964 in the US are currently in the public domain. Both non-profit and commercial digital libraries have dreamed of making this material available. Most programs have recognized as well that the restoration of US copyright in foreign works in 1996 has made it impossible for them to offer to the public the full text of most foreign works. What has been overlooked up to now is the difficulty that copyright restoration has created for anyone trying to determine if a work published in the United States is still protected by copyright. This paper discusses the impact that copyright restoration of foreign works has had on US copyright status investigations, and offers some new steps that users must follow in order to investigate the copyright status in the US of any work. It argues that copyright restoration has made it almost impossible to determine with certainty whether a book published in the United States after 1922 and before 1964 is in the public domain. Digital libraries that wish to offer books from this period do so at some risk." The minefield is even murkier than we thought, it seems. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
