Wikipedia Outreach/archive
I'm flattered to be added as a Task Lead, but let me clarify…at this point, I'm only suggesting that a few of us try making some suggestions, in the course of "linkspam" fighting on Wikipedia. I don't really know how successful it will be, and I'm not comfortable evangelizing the project to other Wikipedia editors unless some kind of benefit has been demonstrated. (Of course if somebody else wants to do that, I have no problem with it.)
Also of note, I think that many people really do SPECIFICALLY want to have their site added to Wikipedia, which they regard as an "important site." Suggesting a site people have not heard of may often fall on deaf ears; which is another reason, I think, to take it one small step at a time, and see how things go. -Peteforsyth 15:45, 12 November 2007 (PST)
- I think this is exactly right, Pete. This level of energy and soft-sell seems perfect right now. And when we have more examples, we can then decide on next steps. peace, TedErnst | talk 20:44, 12 November 2007 (PST)
- I was talking with Simon on IRC tonight and he brough up the licensing issue. He says that we have incompatible licenses, so cannot simply move content over, even after it's been deleted from Wikipedia. Something to keep in mind. TedErnst | talk 23:48, 14 November 2007 (PST)
- Cool- sorry, I had missed these comments, I'd forgotten to add this to my watchlist. What is the difference between licenses? I doubt it would impact what I have in mind, which is mainly just lists of links on articles, not entire articles. But if you hve a link for the licensing difference, I'd be interested to see.
- Also, here's a link to the relevant project on Wikipedia: wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam -Peteforsyth 18:34, 25 November 2007 (PST)
New question
This Wikipedia editor recently created a article about his employer, the U of O's Department of Public Policy. The article has been, I think quite correctly, been flagged for deletion. I tried to create an AboutUs page, but AU doesn't seem to like subdomains. I feel ill-informed to make any suggestion to the editor about using AU for his department. Suggestions? -Peteforsyth 13:56, 3 December 2007 (PST)
- Pete, it's not that AboutUs doesn't like subdomains, it's that our bot doesn't know how to make the pages automatically. The page can be created manually, however. Let me know if you need help doing this. TedErnst (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2007 (PST)
- Got it, thanks for the quick reply. Not sure if it's just me, but the bot has been fairly uncommunicative lately…telling me it's doing something, when it's really not! I'll try to make a basic page, and encourage this person to enhance it. -Peteforsyth 22:16, 3 December 2007 (PST)
- Okay then, here's my attempt to ReachOut. Feedback? -Peteforsyth 00:49, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- Pete, that looks great. The only thing that seems missing is the link to the page you started on AboutUs. Maybe I just missed it? TedErnst (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- I actually caught that right away and followed up, I think I just posted the wrong diff above. Sorry! -Peteforsyth 16:46, 4 December 2007 (PST)
- Got it, thanks for the quick reply. Not sure if it's just me, but the bot has been fairly uncommunicative lately…telling me it's doing something, when it's really not! I'll try to make a basic page, and encourage this person to enhance it. -Peteforsyth 22:16, 3 December 2007 (PST)
steps to get to DoneDone
-
Do we need an affordance? Where Wikipedia admins can easily move the content to AboutUs and easily leave talk page messsages for the editor.- Ted, what's an affordance? I don't understand this question. -Peteforsyth 01:47, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- Even if we need one, we can't get one in the near-term due to other AboutUs development priorities. What you're doing by hand is perfect, Pete. I'm not clear on the definition of affordance myself, but maybe I can describe it? Mediawiki has UploadFile as a feature, yes? AboutUs then built an affordance UploadPortrait which is a special case, and makes it easier for the user in the specific situation of a person's photo for their PersonalPage. Things have shifted since this was written, so we can just remove this whole section, methinks. TedErnst (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- Ted, what's an affordance? I don't understand this question. -Peteforsyth 01:47, 20 December 2007 (PST)
Licensing concern
- There is some concern about licensing, that the Wikipedia and AboutUs licenses are not compatible or do not allow wholesale copying from WP to AU.(?) Simon and Ted were discussing. Seems to me that since WP content is available under the GFDL, and AU content is available under GFDL "and/or" CC, it should be OK. Can somebody clarify this? I am most definitely not a lawyer!! -Peteforsyth 01:47, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- My limited understanding of the problem is that WP GFDL requires any use of the content to be GFDL as well, while content on AU is also GFDL, people are allowed to take AU content and release it elsewhere under CC-only, due to the "or". If that was an "and", maybe this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully CC and Free Software Foundation will fix this incompatibility in our lifetimes. :-) TedErnst (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- Okay, that makes sense, at least somewhat! My take on this is that it might be a reason not to copy stuff from WP on a massive (read: bot) scale, but that in individual cases, where it's clear that somebody is trying to get the word out about their organization, it's fine to use one's judgment and copy the text over. This might result in the occasional complaint, in which case text can be removed; it doesn't seem plausible that it would lead to lawsuits. Thoughts? -Peteforsyth 12:48, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- I agree that we don't need to fear this. The person that initially posts on Wikipedia definitely can also post the same text on AboutUs without any problem, and in that spirit, others can probably move text that's going to be deleted, even if it's not meeting the letter of the law. And let's see what others say as well. TedErnst (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- Currently, our licenses do not match up, as we license our content in GFDL and Creative Commons; Wikipedia content can't be used on AboutUs besides for fair use. Ted is right though Wikipedia is working on a new license, once the AboutUs community has some time to look at that we can legally see if we can move stuff over; but, until then unless the person moving it over created the entire article we can't use the content. --Simon | talk 16:44, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- Thanks, Simon. Note: there's some more discussion of this from the December 1, 2007 section of Daily Buzz. (In the future see Daily Buzz/Archive 12 where this will probably be archived.) -Peteforsyth 17:03, 22 December 2007 (PST)
- Currently, our licenses do not match up, as we license our content in GFDL and Creative Commons; Wikipedia content can't be used on AboutUs besides for fair use. Ted is right though Wikipedia is working on a new license, once the AboutUs community has some time to look at that we can legally see if we can move stuff over; but, until then unless the person moving it over created the entire article we can't use the content. --Simon | talk 16:44, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- I agree that we don't need to fear this. The person that initially posts on Wikipedia definitely can also post the same text on AboutUs without any problem, and in that spirit, others can probably move text that's going to be deleted, even if it's not meeting the letter of the law. And let's see what others say as well. TedErnst (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- Okay, that makes sense, at least somewhat! My take on this is that it might be a reason not to copy stuff from WP on a massive (read: bot) scale, but that in individual cases, where it's clear that somebody is trying to get the word out about their organization, it's fine to use one's judgment and copy the text over. This might result in the occasional complaint, in which case text can be removed; it doesn't seem plausible that it would lead to lawsuits. Thoughts? -Peteforsyth 12:48, 20 December 2007 (PST)
- My limited understanding of the problem is that WP GFDL requires any use of the content to be GFDL as well, while content on AU is also GFDL, people are allowed to take AU content and release it elsewhere under CC-only, due to the "or". If that was an "and", maybe this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully CC and Free Software Foundation will fix this incompatibility in our lifetimes. :-) TedErnst (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (PST)
