User:Angela/Election questions 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Election statement 2005
User page - Talk page
Election statement 2004 - Questions 2004

about audio ...[edit]

How do you see realizable "the audio expansion" you talked on the Elections ? D.evil 06:03, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page I created at m:Wikisound has some of my initial ideas on this. The audio expansion is happening already with projects such as WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia on at least the English, German, Spanish, and Hungarian Wikipedias. Similarly, on Wikinews, this is happening at Audio Wikinews and WikiNews Network. Issues that I want to resolve soon are whether we can actually spare the bandwidth for some of these projects, particularly ones that will require streaming audio or video, and seek alternatives if we can't. I'm on the advisory board of Ourmedia, a grassroots media project that contains a lot of video files. These files are hosted at the Internet Archive, so I'm aware of the issues of hosting content outside of a project (such as not having full control over the deletion of files, not always seeing instant updates, and so on). I'm also working on a grant proposal for a project that would involve making Wikimedia content available on mobile phones, particularly in Africa. There are more details on this in the Audio Wikipedia by cell phone section of the report Erik and I made following a conference we attended in South Africa. Angela 18:21, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Book burning[edit]

How do you feel about people who destroy information, simply because the rules allow them to do that. How do plan to make WikiMedia serve it's aims rather than as a crutch for it's members.--JIrate 12:40, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It depends what the information is. Each Wikimedia project has goals that determine what information is suitable within that project. I don't see the removal of information that is not meeting those goals as a problem that needs to be fixed, but more as a demonstration of well-functioning community that is able to adhere to its shared goal. Angela 18:21, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about when the information is valid and is not of disbuted value, but the rules of WikiPedia allow it to be removed and encourage that it not be reinstated. Such as a blocked users contribution.--JIrate 19:42, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it's being removed, it does show it is disputed by at least one person (the person removing it). Banned users shouldn't be editing, so I don't see that as a point which can be argued against. Angela 20:10, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So you support the removal of valid data, if it is supplied by a person that is persona non grata. The person never has not desputed the content only the poster.--JIrate 20:49, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the person had valid data and managed it the way they should, then they would not have been banned. Logical flaws in your argument: Failure to understand why rules don't have exceptions. Example: It should be legal to shoplift, as long as you don't take enough money to hurt the company's earnings. Circular reasoning. Example: I'm correct because i'm smarter then you. And I must be smarter then you because i'm correct. And last, amazingly bad analogy. Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick, therefore, you can train a potato to dance. Book burning is in no way related to preventing known vandels from making edits. Coolgamer 23:36, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it is you that has totally failed to understand the case and have draw a totally false anaglogy. For the analogy to be correct the amount stolen would have to be zero. Which is not a crime and prosecuting as such would be malicous.--JIrate 00:02, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If banned users could still edit and add content, there would be little point in banning them. However, any decisions over how to deal with the content of banned users need to be made by the communities involved, and certainly not by the Board. Angela 01:22, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There a plenty of ways banned users can make edits. --JIrate 01:51, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest, GFDL[edit]

Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? For example, any ties to Yahoo, Google, Microsoft or other potential competitors or donors?

Also, what specifically were you referring to when you mentioned the GFDL? What are your opinions on licensing? Lunkwill 29 June 2005 07:59 (UTC)

No, I don't have any ties to Yahoo etc. The only potential conflict might be Wikicities, a site which hosts wiki communities that I co-founded with Jimmy Wales last year, but a policy I introduced to that site was that no wikis would be accepted if their main goal was to fork or duplicate any existing Wikimedia project, so any potential conflict of interest are much reduced by that.
With regards to the GFDL, talks are underway with various members of the FSF in the hope that version 2 of the license will be much simpler to use and understand. I am open to the idea of attempting a relicense if that doesn't happen, since the GFDL in its current form is almost impossible to adhere to, but that would be a major step which would need almost complete agreement from the community if it were to ever happen, and at this stage that is very much a last resort. For some projects, such as Wikisource and Wikiquote, I'm not at all convinced the GFDL makes sense. Wikisource is mostly made up of public domain texts, and we ought to be making clearer which texts there are more freely available than the GFDL makes them. Wikiquote is basically a collection of fair use quotes, so, although the GFDL might cover the collection as a whole, reusers shouldn't be misled into thinking that the content itself is GFDL. Wikinews is currently public domain, and the poll held at m:Wikinews/License straw poll has gained little attention so far. A decision needs to be made on this over the coming months to determine whether its PD status is permanent or not - something that should be part of the general move to bring that project out of Beta. For Wikispecies, and any future Wikidata-based projects, a PD-type license (not necessarily PD itself since its not always possible to grant work into the public domain) might be better if they really do focus more on data than other forms of content. This would allow the data to be used across all Wikimedia projects far more easily.
Angela. June 29, 2005 18:09 (UTC)
With respect to possible conflicts arising from Wikicities, if you draw an income from that project, what is the source of funding for your salary? Would it be paid for thru advertising, or is it supported by capital contributions from Wales or others? --Michael Snow 30 June 2005 05:43 (UTC)
Currently, the only funding is from advertisements but we are looking for venture capital or angel investment so that is expected to change fairly soon. Angela. June 30, 2005 10:26 (UTC)