On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
For comparison, I understand that Wikibooks are considered somewhat
owned by the person starting the book.
As an admin on Wikibooks I'd beg to differ. I'll point out this page which
sums up the project's opinion:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2011 16:08, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest, when you release your work under cc-by-sa you grant a
third party the right to reuse a (small or large) part of your work to
make a derivative
A fair comparision, though as with Wikipedia editions I think this
varies by language.
Even on en.wiki it is not always like that. The major contributors to
featured articles ate generally allowed more leeway on content ownership.
That's written into th guideline.
Tom
On 06/18/11 3:28 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
The fact that the truth is determined by consensus between experts and
unknowledgeable or between people with contrary ideas is a problem.
It is not a process that derives the truth since the truth is defined by the
many,
On 17 June 2011 16:08, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest, when you release your work under cc-by-sa you grant a
third party the right to reuse a (small or large) part of your work to
make a derivative work. The license in itself is not what determines
that the live
Ray, I agree with you. The trust metric is not meant to substitute critical
thinking.
What I try to do seems to me quite interesting.Google uses links between
pages to rank them. This metric uses links between people to rank pages. It
is intended as a search engine. What is more, links between
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
So, are we doomed to experience such things every once in a while? Or
does anyone have a bright idea about improving the balance between
ownership and wiki-ness?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 16:15, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/6/17 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 15:24, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I am not sure it is a valuable contributor who do not accept the base
of the
On 06/17/11 7:15 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
2011/6/17 Peter Gervaigrin...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 15:24, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
In such cases, as an Israeli saying goes, i am right, but i am not
clever. It hurts that person and it hurts the project, because that
person may
On 06/17/11 5:01 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
I am a bit biased since I have a project to add a trust metric on mediawiki
but I think that content ownership is important. It lets us evaluate the
content without reading it which is important to most of us who are only
experts on one
The fact that the truth is determined by consensus between experts and
unknowledgeable or between people with contrary ideas is a problem.
It is not a process that derives the truth since the truth is defined by the
many,
There are some technology changes that could make this much easier.
1) make it easy to see *your last version* of an article when you visit it.
2) provide a link to 'diffs since your last edit'
2.1) provide a way to comment directly on that diff, without having to
laboriously cut and paste
3)
The problem of content ownership hits any wiki at some point.
In the English Wikipedia it is governed by a policy called WP:OWN
[1]. There's a similar policy in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this policy
any different in other projects?
I am asking, because i agree with the English Wikipedia's policy
I think that such a policy could not be fundamentally different in
other languages, since they all have the same license. However, the
wording could be improved, for instance by explaining WHY one cannot
consider himself as the owner of an article: by accepting the CC-BY-SA
license, one gives up a
2011/6/17 Strainu strain...@gmail.com:
I think that such a policy could not be fundamentally different in
other languages, since they all have the same license. However, the
wording could be improved, for instance by explaining WHY one cannot
consider himself as the owner of an article: by
2011/6/17 Strainu strain...@gmail.com:
Think about a CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Theoretically, one
could only add content to that wiki, not edit what has already been
written.
Actually, I'm not even sure you could add content to articles on a
CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Would have to check with a lawyer...
I guess that Amir was rather referring to the cultural aspect than the legal
aspect. Even if you are legally allowed to change something, that doesnt
mean the original author likes it. I assume that all Wiki projects have this
culture in them, that nobody owns an article - this doesn't mean
On 17 June 2011 12:29, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
That could be a good
use case for a project like Knol, which was advertised as Wikipedia
killer once, but didn't grow much.
Minor note: as far as I know, *no-one* from Knol/Google ever claimed
it had anything to do
I've had a go at some basic editing to the [[WP:OWN]] page to try and
explain a bit better, rather than simply saying IF YOU EDIT, YOU DO NOT OWN
THE PAGE! It still needs considerable work. Eyeballs and improvements...?
FT2
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 13:56, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
use case for a project like Knol, which was advertised as Wikipedia
killer once, but didn't grow much.
Minor note: as far as I know, *no-one* from Knol/Google ever claimed
it had anything to do with WIkipedia. The entire
2011/6/17 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
I guess that Amir was rather referring to the cultural aspect than the legal
aspect.
You guessed correctly.
Amir, is there a specific background that you are thinking of which is why
you are asking this? Maybe that helps people answering your
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 15:24, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
In such cases, as an Israeli saying goes, i am right, but i am not
clever. It hurts that person and it hurts the project, because that
person may otherwise be a very valuable contributor and such things
often
2011/6/17 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 15:24, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
In such cases, as an Israeli saying goes, i am right, but i am not
clever. It hurts that person and it hurts the project, because that
person may otherwise be a very
On 6/17/11, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that such a policy could not be fundamentally different in
other languages, since they all have the same license. However, the
wording could be improved, for instance by explaining WHY one cannot
consider himself as the owner of an
I am a bit biased since I have a project to add a trust metric on mediawiki
but I think that content ownership is important. It lets us evaluate the
content without reading it which is important to most of us who are only
experts on one subject. Of course that poses the question why Knol didnt
25 matches
Mail list logo
