Simon Kissane | 1 Nov 05:45 2001
Picon

Re: Article-a-day

--- lsanger@... wrote:
> I don't remember when the last time I saw an
> "article-a-day" article was, but I'm pretty sure I 
> didn't see one in the last few days.  What's the 
> reason for this?
> 
> Larry
I don't know, but I guess its just because no one has
added any new articles. Maybe one way to encourage
people to do so would be to add a link at the bottom
of each screen, that says something like "Think the
above article is good? Add it to the [[article a day
queue]]!"

Also, does the article a day software only send each
article to all of its subscribers once, or each
article to each subscriber once. (I.e., if I was to
subscribe today, would I get any of the earlier
articles it has already sent out?) -- SJK

[snip]
Simon.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Jimmy Wales | 1 Nov 23:25 2001

Re: Details of licensing -- should we bother?

Simon Kissane wrote:
> Which is why I propose we forget about the precise
> legal details of the FDL. Since the FDL is enforced
> through means of social pressure rather than legal
> proceeding, its spirit is more important than its
> letter. So lets just put the precise requirements of
> the FDL aside, and just concentrate on what would be
> the best solution.

I sort of agree with this!  I have to confess that this has been my
attitude from the start.  We just say "It is released under the GNU
FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details.  The 5
author requirement, etc. are puzzling.

I would actually prefer if we had a way to release under a
Wikipedia-specific license, but I think we need the instant "free"
credibility of the GNU FDL license.  It tells people immediately that
they can count on certain things.

And, so I think that as long as we're using the GNU FDL, we need to do
what we can to "get it right" for the more pedantic among us.  :-)

--

-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************

Jimmy Wales | 1 Nov 23:29 2001

Re: template & locking pages

wojtek pobratyn wrote:
> I don't really agree with locking pages, but that is another issue....

I don't agree with the way we're doing it right now, that's for sure.
If you want the password, you can just email me and I'll give it out
freely.  The only requirement is just that I'm aware of you in some
fashion.

I think that getting privileges on the homepage should be automatic,
transparent, and easy.  It's just that I don't find it very amusing
when some random kid surfs in and puts a giant spurting penis picture
there.

It remains to be seen what level of protection is really necessary,
but I really hope that only the most minimal protection is needed.

The success of wikipedia so far has been a great joy to me.  My faith
in the general goodness of human beings has been extended to a great
extent.  I would have thought that with 5,000 unique visitors a day,
we'd be getting at least 50 jerks trying to wreck something per day.
It's a lot less than that!

--

-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************

Lars Aronsson | 1 Nov 23:26 2001
Picon

Thoemmes Press

Thoemmes Press, a British publisher of dictionaries and works on
philosophy (on paper and online), just posted this surprise in their
newsletter, to which I subscribe.  It might be interesting for
wikipedians to check out.

Yes, they are commercial.  I have no affiliation with them.  It is not
my intent to spam the wikipedia list.  I honestly think this would be
interesting to many of you.  And I do think it is related to Wikipedia.

> ------------------------
> Free - Online Encyclopedia
> ------------------------
> 
> An online bibliographic data source containing entries on both minor and
> major philosophical figures from the 16th century to the present day, which
> we are delighted to offer FREE to all our users.
> 
> November's new entries include:
> 
> AMES, William (Latin name Guilielmus Amesius: 1576-1633)
> ANNET, Peter (1693-1769)
> BINNING, Hugh (1627-53)
> BROWNE, Peter (1664/5-1735)
> BURKE, Edmund (1729-97)
> CUDWORTH, Ralph (1617-88)
> HOOKER, Richard (1554-1600)
> KAMES, Henry Home, Lord (1696-1782)
> SWIFT, Jonathan (1667-1745)
> WOLLSTONECRAFT, Mary (later Godwin: 1759-97)
> 
(Continue reading)

João Mário Miranda | 1 Nov 22:38 2001

Re: Details of licensing -- should we bother?


Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I sort of agree with this!  I have to confess that this has been my
> attitude from the start.  We just say "It is released under the GNU
> FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details.  The 5
> author requirement, etc. are puzzling.

The problem of the 5 author requirement can be solved by a link
to the Wikipedians:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedians

--

-- 
joão
http://www.nonio.com

The Cunctator | 1 Nov 23:08 2001

Re: Details of licensing -- should we bother?

> I sort of agree with this!  I have to confess that this has been my
> attitude from the start.  We just say "It is released under the GNU
> FDL" and I didn't worry too much about the exact details.  The 5
> author requirement, etc. are puzzling.

This would be simple to resolve; the semi-official standard at Wikipedia
is no authorship; so we'd just have to state that officially.
We could state that's different for the Wikipedia commentary and
individual pages.

Problem solved. :)

> I would actually prefer if we had a way to release under a
> Wikipedia-specific license, but I think we need the instant "free"
> credibility of the GNU FDL license.  It tells people immediately that
> they can count on certain things.

Not only that, the license is pretty tightly put together; it's
marvelously specific about printed publications, which is crucial, and it's
still applicable to electronic publications, an area in which the
law is still vague and changing.

> And, so I think that as long as we're using the GNU FDL, we need to do
> what we can to "get it right" for the more pedantic among us.  :-)

I'm dead certain that the Free Software Foundation would be more
than willing to get their lawyer to help us get it right. My recommendation
would be for us to draw up a set of questions and proposed answers,
and present them to the FSF for review. They might even be willing to
do a conference call or some sort with Jimbo and Larry.
(Continue reading)

Simon Kissane | 2 Nov 09:10 2001
Picon

Re: Thoemmes Press

I was wondering, could we use their list of articles
as cross-check for topics we haven't covered yet?

SJK

--- Lars Aronsson <lars@...> wrote:
> 
> Thoemmes Press, a British publisher of dictionaries
> and works on philosophy (on paper and online), just 
> posted this surprise in their newsletter, to which I

> subscribe.  It might be interesting for wikipedians 
> to check out.
[snip]
> > ------------------------
> > Free - Online Encyclopedia
> > ------------------------
> > 
> > An online bibliographic data source containing
> > entries on both minor and major philosophical 
> > figures from the 16th century to the present day, 
> > which we are delighted to offer FREE to all our 
> > users.
> > 
> > November's new entries include:
> > 
> > AMES, William (Latin name Guilielmus Amesius:
> > 1576-1633)
> > ANNET, Peter (1693-1769)
> > BINNING, Hugh (1627-53)
(Continue reading)

Ian | 2 Nov 15:54 2001
Picon

Re: Article-a-day

The page to add the articals to is hard to find.

Ian Monroe

Hannes Hirzel | 3 Nov 12:24 2001
Picon
Picon

Re: The threat of forking and why it is good


On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Axel Boldt wrote:
> > We all agree that Bomis does an exceptional job in managing our little
> > project, in every respect possible. Still, I think a small but real
> > threat of forking is beneficial, even for our benevolent dictators.
> 
> Absolutely agreed completely.
> 
> > The current table form of the invariant section almost seems to be
> > designed to defeat any forking attempt. I would prefer a version which
> > makes forkers say "Ok, you could also contribute to the project at
> > wikipedia.com if you think they do a better job. No hard feelings."
> 
> Well, sure!  I agree completely.  I assume you aren't recommending
> that as a literal wording.  :-)
> 
> I would say that we should ask people to put the pretty table, but
> require them only to put the simplest possible link back.

I consider this to be a good solution.

Thanks

Hannes Hirzel

Anatoly Vorobey | 4 Nov 03:13 2001
Picon

disruptions

If any of the admins are reading this, it'd make a lot of sense to block
208.60.196.xxx from editing pages as soon as possible. See the Recent Changes
page for the explanation.

(it seems, though I'm not certain, that he's using a script to do the mass-scale
vandalism).

--

-- 
Anatoly Vorobey,
my journal (in Russian): http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
mellon@... http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton


Gmane