On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Brian wrote:
> It's hard to imagine someone thinking "I bet no one will notice if I just
> paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article." At the same time, some
> users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
> just what exactly is
Steve Bennett wrote:
> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
> pr
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Durova wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions what to do about this?
>>
>>
>
> After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
>
> No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
> alone respect, let alone fol
One would *hope* (although I'm not sure I expect it) that a writer at Wired
would know how to properly cite a primary reference through a secondary
citation.? I don't think this is an issue with our page, it is standard
practice when citing.? Some people are sloppy I agree, but when found out
It's hard to imagine someone thinking "I bet no one will notice if I just
paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article." At the same time, some
users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
just what exactly is meant by "free encyclopedia." And not to his credit
dir
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
>> this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
>> shortened anymore which would remove information about where
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
> this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
> shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
> goes.
I did not know that, that's great.
On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Yes Joe but.
> Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their
> source.
> They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying
> source.
> This normally implies "I actually went to the source and viewe
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=6042007
>
> can be rendered as
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
>
> Can we make that even more succinct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007
> I can
> see that much of the trouble people get into is due to a lack of basic
> orientation.
I see that too on new page patrol. I'll, through twinkle, put a
"you're article might be speedily deleted" temp on somebody's talk
page, and it'll be the first thing that they get on their talk page
"This file says its in the public domain."
Yes Joe but.
Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their source.
They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying source.
This normally implies "I actually went to the source and viewed the image
directl
2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle :
>> Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
>> the DOI playbook, and set up something like:
>>
>> http://[site]/wp:en/6042007
>
> So the oldid's are globally unique (among a language subdomain)? If that's
> the case, the answer to Charles' ques
I want to remind everything that the issue as to why the URL's weren't
included *supposedly* wasn't that the standard URL is too long, but
rather just that one side wanted the "timestamp" as they say, and the
other didn't. Personally it sounds to me like they are completely
fudging the situati
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Andrew Gray wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=6042007
>
> can be rendered as
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
>
> Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
> the DOI p
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Well, we could, as is done in online games, create a little school for
> people to go through and learn the ropes before we let them into the
> "game" itself. Not sure how we would set that up, certainly very
> paternalistic, but constantly
> 2009/6/25 Carcharoth :
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Steve Bennett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Fred Bauder
>>> wrote:
>>> > The Community Portal is semi-protected, so its not that vulnerable
>>> to
>>> > vandalism. On the skin I'm using it is in the sidebar on ever
There's an importance to this which needs to be communicated better, and
quickly. Most of the world's image archives are not openly accessible. As
some of them open their doors, Flickr is competing with Commons to become
the primary point of deposit. We risk a situation where WMF loses out on
va
Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> [[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
>> "how to cite Wikipedia"?
>>
>
> I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's
> fine for Twitter in the short t
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> [[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
> "how to cite Wikipedia"?
I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's fine
for Twitter in the short term, but what happens when they go under an
2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle :
> Option 2 is more readable, but requires a redirection by the reader if they
> want full bibliographic detail, and adds pages (and weight and cost) to a
> book. Another option is to use an adaptation of Option 1: standard
> long-then-short Chicago without URLs, which are
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Joseph Reagle wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> >
> >> My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
> >> the author thought (a) permalinks are uncoo
Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
>> the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
>> WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly coo
2009/6/25 Siobhan Hansa :
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
>> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
>> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
>> gratification of your name in cyberspace y
2009/6/25 Carcharoth :
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> > The Community Portal is semi-protected, so its not that vulnerable to
>> > vandalism. On the skin I'm using it is in the sidebar on every page under
>> >
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
> the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
> WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
> issues this as an apo
Steve Bennett wrote:
...
> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > The Community Portal is semi-protected, so its not that vulnerable to
> > vandalism. On the skin I'm using it is in the sidebar on every page under
> > "Interaction", so it's pretty
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The Community Portal is semi-protected, so its not that vulnerable to
> vandalism. On the skin I'm using it is in the sidebar on every page under
> "Interaction", so it's pretty prominently placed.
No way. I was over 5000 edits before I even n
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Durova wrote:
> Any suggestions what to do about this?
>
After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL requirement for
credit.
Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
>> and thought "damn, doesn't work that way", and then just went ahead.
>>
>
> Particularly ironic given the title and perhaps subject of
30 matches
Mail list logo
