Merging the APF into the Discworld/Pratchett lspace wiki
kelly.terry.jones
http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/index.html
merged into the Discworld/Pratchett lspace wiki:
http://wiki.lspace.org/index.php/Annotations
Is there a reason this hasn't been done? I'd be happy to do it myself,
but if there's a reason people aren't doing this, I want to make sure
I don't break any rules, etc.
Mark Foweraker
annotations are an edited (panel reviewed and compiled)document using
contributions provided for that purpose, which is not in the spirit of a
Wiki.
B-)Of course someone could populate a Wiki based on information in
another source if copyright allows.
Happy New Year
Mark Foweraker
annotations are an edited (panel reviewed and compiled)document using
contributions provided for that purpose, which is not in the spirit of a
Wiki.
B-)Of course someone could populate a Wiki based on information in
another source if copyright allows.
Also I understand that in the Wiki world there is talk of a site that
will take Wiki and authority review it to make a more definitive work!
Happy New Year
Sanity
There are a few issues. Mainly, the current APF has a certain license, the
Wiki another, and they are incompatible. Copying the whole APF into the
Wiki would mean the maintainers of the APF have to get permission from all
the people who have contributed so far. Some people might object.
Further issues are: the editing of submissions, which means there's a
certain quality and reliability that is more difficult to get on a wiki,
and the wiki is more difficult (or even near-impossible at this stage) to
convert to other formats. The APF isn't a website, it's also a PDF file, a
Latex file and Glod knows how many other formats, which makes it portable
and accesible in many ways. If the information is stored in a wiki, much
time will be consumed by converting it to other formats while this is now
an easy task.
There has been discussion before about this (since a wiki for annotations
seems one of the most logical things, as the mainstream information is
already available in the Discworld Companion), so for more reasons why to
put it in a wiki or not you might want to google group a little bit (wiki
and apf as keywords for alt.*.pratchett). A few earlier discussions:
(which reminds me that I haven't seen Leo or any other afpers in over a
year, so it's time for a meet.)
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, Planet AFP, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
| Afpers' blogs: http://planetafp.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Discworld & Pratchett Wiki: http://wiki.lspace.org/
kelly.terry.jones
>
> There are a few issues. Mainly, the current APF has a certain license, the
> Wiki another, and they are incompatible. Copying the whole APF into the
> Wiki would mean the maintainers of the APF have to get permission from all
> the people who have contributed so far. Some people might object.
Thank you, Sanity. I read your post and the earlier thread you pointed
me (dating way back to 2003!).
I wasn't suggesting Wiki-fying the APF per se. I was thinking of
making a copy of the APF in the Wiki, and letting the Wiki version
grow independantly of the official APF.
This would give us the best of both worlds:
1. A professional, multi-format, well-edited, thoroughly researched
APF that's released bienially.
2. A less professional, single-format, unedited,
not-necessarily-well-researched psuedo-APF that's up-to-date.
I realize this argument has already been hashed on the thread you
pointed me to, but it seems like a good one.
I also realize the primary argument the APF maintainer makes:
> if the Wiki has been out there for three months, and -- let's hope
> for the best -- a gazillion changes have been made to it, how do I
> incorporate those changes back into my master-version, without
> having to go through every sentence by hand?
> Wikis already automatically keep track of all updates, so my gut
> tells me that there should be possibilities there for incorporating
> that existing concept of history into the editing process of the
> 'plain' APF. But it's not going to be trivial.
is valid. Mediawiki does have a "diff between any two versions"
feature, but the diff could become large and unwieldy after only a few
months.
According to "http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copying-the-apf.html":
> Please feel free to distribute the text and PDF/PostScript versions
> of the APF to others by mail or in print, and to put them up on
> bulletin boards, archive sites or whatever other advanced means of
> communication you have available to you.
so it seems like populating a Wiki with the APF might be ok (if you
consider the first version placed on the Wiki to be an "archive
site"), although:
> If you want to translate a version of the APF into another language
> (or otherwise distribute a modified version of the APF), please
> first contact me at a...@lspace.org, and I will give you more
> information in email.
suggests that distributing a modified version of the APF isn't
automatically legal.
I also read:
http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copyright-discussion.html
which seems to suggest that publishing the APF for money would be a
bad thing, but that most/all people have contributed to the APF
knowing their words would be distributed/copied for free.
I know this is cheek [do British people still use that expression?],
but, leaving aside these sending-clacks-for-free legal issues:
If I were to Wiki-fy the APF and post it to the lspace wiki
annotations page, would the wiki/site maintainers delete my
contributions, remove my account, ban my IP address, and generally go
postal on me?
PleegWat
kelly.terry.jones says...
> According to "http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copying-the-apf.html":
> > Please feel free to distribute the text and PDF/PostScript versions
> > of the APF to others by mail or in print, and to put them up on
> > bulletin boards, archive sites or whatever other advanced means of
> > communication you have available to you.
>
> so it seems like populating a Wiki with the APF might be ok (if you
> consider the first version placed on the Wiki to be an "archive
> site"), although:
I disagree even just based on that paragraph. That paragraph suggests to
me it's OK to spread those files, or print them out and spreading those
copies, WITHOUT MODIFYING THE CONTENT IN ANY WAY.
The only mention of modifying the APF when spreading it is:
> > All I ask is that you (a) always distribute the APF for free, and in
> > its entirety
Meaning you're not allowed even to spread just part of the APF. Based on
the linked html page I'd say you're not even allowed to print out and
give to a collegue the page for only one of the book. That doesn't seem
what's intended but it is what it says.
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
Peter Ellis
>
> The only mention of modifying the APF when spreading it is:
>>> All I ask is that you (a) always distribute the APF for free, and in
>>> its entirety
> Meaning you're not allowed even to spread just part of the APF. Based
> on the linked html page I'd say you're not even allowed to print out
> and give to a collegue the page for only one of the book. That
> doesn't seem what's intended but it is what it says.
Not sure you understand what's meant by "distribution". What that means (I
believe) is that if you print out one page and give it to your friend, you
also have to be willing to provide him with (or point him to) the other
pages. You're not allowed to give him one page and say that's all there is.
In wiki terms, I think it means you're allowed to put it into the wiki, but
the pages would have to be non-modifiable. That kinda goes against the
spirit of a wiki, and I don't know if it's even technically possible.
Your best bet is to contact Leo directly and ask what he's happy for you to
do.
Peter
PleegWat
> PleegWat wrote:
> >
> > The only mention of modifying the APF when spreading it is:
> >>> All I ask is that you (a) always distribute the APF for free, and in
> >>> its entirety
> > Meaning you're not allowed even to spread just part of the APF. Based
> > on the linked html page I'd say you're not even allowed to print out
> > and give to a collegue the page for only one of the book. That
> > doesn't seem what's intended but it is what it says.
>
> Not sure you understand what's meant by "distribution". What that means (I
> believe) is that if you print out one page and give it to your friend, you
> also have to be willing to provide him with (or point him to) the other
> pages. You're not allowed to give him one page and say that's all there is.
Guess that makes sense. I'm not always aware of the full meaning of
words, especially in contexts like this. After all English isn't my
primary language.
Sanity
> If I were to Wiki-fy the APF and post it to the lspace wiki
> annotations page, would the wiki/site maintainers delete my
> contributions, remove my account, ban my IP address, and generally go
> postal on me?
The wiki maintainer is me. I generally don't go postal, however, I'd
consider it polite to await a comment from an APF maintainer here or, as
they probably have other things to do, a sign from you having contacted
the APF maintainers to discuss their point of view on this.
Mike Stevens
> kelly.terry.jones wrote:
>
>> If I were to Wiki-fy the APF and post it to the lspace wiki
>> annotations page, would the wiki/site maintainers delete my
>> contributions, remove my account, ban my IP address, and generally go
>> postal on me?
>
> The wiki maintainer is me. I generally don't go postal, however, I'd
> consider it polite to await a comment from an APF maintainer here or,
> as they probably have other things to do, a sign from you having
> contacted the APF maintainers to discuss their point of view on this.
I don't use wiki at all, but on general priciples I don't believe in
unnecessafry proliferation of documents on the Internet. If it's there in
one location, I feel that best thing is to link to it from other relevant
locations. Or do I musunderstand something about Wiki?
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
Leo Breebaart
> kelly.terry.jones wrote:
>
> > If I were to Wiki-fy the APF and post it to the lspace wiki
> > annotations page, would the wiki/site maintainers delete my
> > contributions, remove my account, ban my IP address, and
> > generally go postal on me?
>
> The wiki maintainer is me. I generally don't go postal,
> however, I'd consider it polite to await a comment from an APF
> maintainer here
Look no further, for I am he, for whomst thou seekest!
I'm at work right now, but if you guys can give me until this
evening, I will try to compose some proper responses to the
messages in this thread.
Also: Happy New Year, everybody.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Sanity
> I don't use wiki at all, but on general priciples I don't believe in
> unnecessafry proliferation of documents on the Internet. If it's there in
> one location, I feel that best thing is to link to it from other relevant
> locations. Or do I musunderstand something about Wiki?
No, you're completely right. It's rather pointless to copy the whole thing
over and then leave it. It can and will be edited. All that matters is
whether the APF maintainers (and contributors) are comfortable with that.
Len Oil
> Sanity wrote:
>> kelly.terry.jones wrote:
>>
>>> If I were to Wiki-fy the APF and post it to the lspace wiki
>>> annotations page, would the wiki/site maintainers delete my
>>> contributions, remove my account, ban my IP address, and generally go
>>> postal on me?
>> The wiki maintainer is me. I generally don't go postal, however, I'd
>> consider it polite to await a comment from an APF maintainer here or,
>> as they probably have other things to do, a sign from you having
>> contacted the APF maintainers to discuss their point of view on this.
>
> I don't use wiki at all, but on general priciples I don't believe in
> unnecessafry proliferation of documents on the Internet. If it's there in
> one location, I feel that best thing is to link to it from other relevant
> locations. Or do I musunderstand something about Wiki?
I think one of the main points about Wiki is that it allows links to
(and, yes duplication of) otherwise disparate information. And more.
Single-maintainer documents are good for consistency (at least as long
as you trust the maintainer, as I think we all do Leo).
Potentially, had we many Leos out there[1], each compiling their own
list, then a well-crafted Google search would provide access to the sum
total of their knowledge. But with inconsistencies in handling.
Wikis help in such a disparate information gathering endeavour. One
search in one place (beyond the problem of having multiple wikis, of
course, which is a matter that can handled by meta-wikiing) is all that
is needed, a single document and peer review (with all the advantages
and disadvantages that come with that) and near instant editing mean
that a combined effort can support the documented information.
And of course we all know the disadvantages. The fact that any idiot or
misguided individual or badly informed one can interfere with the smooth
running of such a project. That's why there are methods to 'lock'
articles, as well as classifications such as "Current Event, details
subject to change".
Not that I think any of this would necessarily occur in an APFWiki
project. I can see it working well, but at the same time a direct
transference of APF=>Wiki is hit by all the problems so far indicated.
I quite like the Wiki concept. I think I've contributed to (i.e. edited
small changes into[2]) a total of two articles on Wikipedia itself, and
possibly influenced articles on specialist wikis (but not done so
directly) which makes me feel I've been undercontributing, compared with
the masses of information I have (in full knowledge of the possible
intentional/accidental inaccuracies I could have been absorbing)
back-obtained from such resources. Perhaps that's because I don't
usually go to pages about things I consider myself an expert on. ;)
So, Wikis are hardly "unnecessary prolification of documents". Far, far
better than a lot of individual efforts distributed web-wide in this
regard. Still, for the time being at least, the current situation with
one acknowledged central resource works well, given the parameters of
the mechanisms involved in its maintenance.
[1] And I'm not saying we don't, at least /in potentia/, have 'N' Leos,
but for the purposes of this discussion let's define N as 1 without
conveying too much embarrassment. ;)
[2] And one of them was a grammatical rephrasing of otherwise accurate
information obviously written by someone without English as their first
language. I never kept track of whether my changes were left, reverted,
improved or superseded, though. ;)
Leo Breebaart
kelly.terry.jones wrote:
> I'd like to see the APF:
>
> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/index.html
>
> merged into the Discworld/Pratchett lspace wiki:
>
> http://wiki.lspace.org/index.php/Annotations
>
> Is there a reason this hasn't been done?
The technical issues outlined in the Usenet discussion from 2003
that Sanity linked to are mostly still current, I think.
Sanity wrote:
> There are a few issues. Mainly, the current APF has a certain
> license, the Wiki another, and they are incompatible. Copying
> the whole APF into the Wiki would mean the maintainers of the
> APF have to get permission from all the people who have
> contributed so far. Some people might object.
I may have been too cautious/paranoid about this aspect. Over the
last year or so, I have started to lean more and more towards the
idea, as far as this particular problem is concerned, to just go
ahead with e.g. a Wikification, and see *if* anybody complains,
rather than just do nothing out of worry they might.
> The APF isn't a website, it's also a PDF file, a Latex file and
> Glod knows how many other formats, which makes it portable and
> accesible in many ways.
All of these formats are generated semi-automatically from a
single ASCII source version (containing some simple 'invisible'
text-based markup).
If I am to continue to maintain/edit a version of the APF, I do
*not* want to give up this source format -- that is pretty much
non-negotiable.
> If the information is stored in a wiki, much time will be
> consumed by converting it to other formats while this is now an
> easy task.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about this as well, and I see
one technical solution to this problem. If there exists a Wiki
variant that actually ensures that its pages remain valid XHTML
(even with random people editing it), it should be possible (not
trivial, but possible) to write a program that is the inverse of
my current text-to-XHTML program, allowing me to convert any
version of the Wiki APF back to something I can edit more easily.
A second, more practical consideration is that perhaps I have
been too hung up on this "How do I get the edited information out
of the Wiki" aspect. Let's face it: the time between APF updates
is once again being measured in years -- this is really
frustrating for everyone. Perhaps it is better to just set up a
Wiki APF version, and let things diverge without worrying too
much about merging the two versions.
kelly.terry.jones" again:
> Mediawiki does have a "diff between any two versions" feature,
> but the diff could become large and unwieldy after only a few
> months.
Since 2003 I have gained a bit more experience with Mediawiki,
one of the most professional and reliable Wiki packages out there
(it runs friggin' Wikipedia, after all) -- and I am vastly
underwhelmed by its support for things having to do with history,
versioning, rollbacks, exporting, etc.
> According to "http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copying-the-apf.html":
>
> > Please feel free to distribute the text and PDF/PostScript
> > versions of the APF to others by mail or in print, and to put
> > them up on bulletin boards, archive sites or whatever other
> > advanced means of communication you have available to you.
>
> so it seems like populating a Wiki with the APF might be ok
No, that was not my intention. I was talking about distributing
as-is versions of the APF, not about setting up collaborative
editing environments.
> I also read:
>
> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copyright-discussion.html
This is a very relevant page, as it contains the most powerful
arguments against an open license for the APF I can currently
think of: how do you stop people from modifying Terry's words,
and how do you stop people from doing things that might have
legal (or even just social) ramifications (such as publishing or
selling it)?
I honestly do not think I have the *right* to make the decision
to give the APF a more open copyright license than it currently
has.
One way out of this dilemma is to compromise: don't open up the
APF to the world, retain the editor's copyright, and quite
specifically allow people to only modify the APF through the
Wiki.
That still doesn't solve the problem of keeping Terry's words
intact, however.
> If I were to Wiki-fy the APF and post it to the lspace wiki
> annotations page, would the wiki/site maintainers delete my
> contributions, remove my account, ban my IP address, and
> generally go postal on me?
All I can say is I really wish you wouldn't do that.
What I would like to see happen is first another 'monolithic' APF
release (i.e. done by just me), which I am working on already and
hope to have finished sometime before summer. Once I've gotten
that out of the way, there will *not* be another such version
until I've explicitly tackled the Wiki problem, one way or the
other, which in turn I am hoping to get to before the end of the
year.
I realise it's possibly a bit much too ask for twelve months
worth of patience, but on the other hand in the world of APF
development that is practically near light-speed...
Sanity wrote:
> The wiki maintainer is me. I generally don't go postal,
> however, I'd consider it polite to await a comment from an APF
> maintainer here or, as they probably have other things to do, a
> sign from you having contacted the APF maintainers to discuss
> their point of view on this.
No worries. Just for the record: Kelly did indeed contact me in
email before posting to abp, but because I was away for the
holidays I did not yet have a chance to answer.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Joe Bednorz
>
>No worries. Just for the record: Kelly did indeed contact me in
>email before posting to abp, but because I was away for the
>holidays I did not yet have a chance to answer.
Side note:
The TimeHunt link <http://www.timehunt.com/timehunt.html> on the
"Death and What Comes Next" page
<http://www.lspace.org/books/dawcn/dawcn-english.html>
goes to a fake "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Test Page" that has links
labeled as pornography. (Scroll down. They're in the lower
right-hand corner.)
The TimeHunt page has been that way since at least November 11,
2006.
--
Index to free SF: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>. The
Thunder Child's SF links to Project Gutenberg, Baen Free Library and
CDs, the Sci-Fi Channel's archive of classic & original SF & more.
All the best, Joe Bednorz
Len Oil
> kelly.terry.jones wrote:
>> If the information is stored in a wiki, much time will be
>> consumed by converting it to other formats while this is now an
>> easy task.
>
> I have been doing a lot of thinking about this as well, and I see
> one technical solution to this problem. If there exists a Wiki
> variant that actually ensures that its pages remain valid XHTML
> (even with random people editing it), it should be possible (not
> trivial, but possible) to write a program that is the inverse of
> my current text-to-XHTML program, allowing me to convert any
> version of the Wiki APF back to something I can edit more easily.
>
> A second, more practical consideration is that perhaps I have
> been too hung up on this "How do I get the edited information out
> of the Wiki" aspect. Let's face it: the time between APF updates
> is once again being measured in years -- this is really
> frustrating for everyone. Perhaps it is better to just set up a
> Wiki APF version, and let things diverge without worrying too
> much about merging the two versions.
How about:
1) Set up[1] an APF -> Wiki process.
2) Use this to populate 'static'/protected Wiki pages or elements of pages
3) Let other Wiki traffic flow around this format, with consideration
for additional comments and additional /items/ (which in turn may be
edited and commented upon).
4) Periodically, or at whim, executive judgement (yours and/or any other
relevant trustees of the wiki or sub-wiki involved) would plough the
commentaries and non-static contributions for further items to pull into
the base APF, much as you trawl [A]-tagged posts on A[BF]P.
5) Repeat ad nauseum... ;)
Naturally, I appreciate there are some (if not many) issues with this
idea, but I posit it as a possible solution[2] which maintains the
purity of the original and the Wikification being sought after.
[1] Yes, not necessarily as trivial as a mere two words suggest, but you
get the idea. ;) You, more than anyone else, know the exact format of
the 'core' APF, and could guide (if not do oneself) the creation of such
a tool.
[2] Albeit with multiple refinements and possibly some mighty hurdles
that are even taller than those you are already staring directly at with
your current conceptual plan...
Sanity
> How about:
> 1) Set up[1] an APF -> Wiki process.
> 2) Use this to populate 'static'/protected Wiki pages or elements of pages
> 3) Let other Wiki traffic flow around this format, with consideration
> for additional comments and additional /items/ (which in turn may be
> edited and commented upon).
> 4) Periodically, or at whim, executive judgement (yours and/or any other
> relevant trustees of the wiki or sub-wiki involved) would plough the
> commentaries and non-static contributions for further items to pull into
> the base APF, much as you trawl [A]-tagged posts on A[BF]P.
But that rather defeats the whole purpose of a wiki. I have thought about
this as well (wiki pages only modifiable by sysops/apf-editors with talk
pages for everybody to edit), and technically there's no problem
setting it up. The question is, what's the added value of a wiki then?
Len Oil
> Len Oil wrote:
>
>> How about:
>> 1) Set up[1] an APF -> Wiki process.
>> 2) Use this to populate 'static'/protected Wiki pages or elements of pages
>> 3) Let other Wiki traffic flow around this format, with consideration
>> for additional comments and additional /items/ (which in turn may be
>> edited and commented upon).
>> 4) Periodically, or at whim, executive judgement (yours and/or any other
>> relevant trustees of the wiki or sub-wiki involved) would plough the
>> commentaries and non-static contributions for further items to pull into
>> the base APF, much as you trawl [A]-tagged posts on A[BF]P.
>
> But that rather defeats the whole purpose of a wiki. I have thought about
> this as well (wiki pages only modifiable by sysops/apf-editors with talk
> pages for everybody to edit), and technically there's no problem
> setting it up. The question is, what's the added value of a wiki then?
I can't see the defeating factor in that. The Wikiness is there, with
its added value[1]. Otherwise it's just like (in fact, it just /is/)
locking quotes on a Wiki page while allowing the interpretations to flow
around them in the usual Wiki-manner (as with the addition of further
articles).
But I'm probably thinking at cross-purposes (see footnote), and Leo
knows better than anyone what he can/wants to do in the short term, at
least, so I'm going to assume you have a valid point I can't see.
[1] Must admit, I thought your original question was about what added
values do Wikis add to things (in general), sorry.
kelly.terry.jones
idea to me:
Copy the APF verbatim to the wiki and protect it so that no one can
edit/delete it.
Under each annotation, allow people to make comments about that
annotation. The comments section would NOT be protected, so people
could edit/delete each other's comments, just as they can with most
wiki pages.
At the bottom of each page (one page = one book), have an editable
section for additional annotations: those not already listed in the
APF.
Advantages:
Follows the spirit of APF's distribution, because it allows people to
annotate the APF + make suggestions, but not actually edit or delete
what's already there.
The protected verbatim APF can be displayed in a different style,
making it easy for Leo to distinguish between the original APF and
what's been added/suggested.
If the wiki concept works well, Leo will hopefully see
nicely-formatted, intelligently-worded, and well-edited annotations
and suggestions for changes, instead of having to do all the legwork
himself.
Annotation suggestions/changes will be publicly accessible to
everyone (not just in Leo's mailbox), so everyone wins.
Leo, would it be OK to copy the APF to the wiki under the conditions
above? Admittedly, there are a couple of minor disadvantages:
There are some technical issues in setting this up, but I'm will to
tackle them if you're OK with doing this.
The only way I can think of doing this using MediaWiki will make
adding/editing comments work a little oddly for the end user. I
believe we can add a note to each annotation page explaining this and
avoid most of the confusion.
Sanity
> At the bottom of each page (one page = one book), have an editable
> section for additional annotations
That's not possible. You can edit a page or you can't, there's no
possibility for an editable section. Any additions, comments, etc would
have to go on the associated Talk page.
kelly.terry.jones
You're correct in saying there's no clean way to do this. I believe
there is an ugly way, which may nonetheless be an acceptable
compromise in this case.
It'd described more fully at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Preventing_Access#Questions
under "I would like one or more sections of a page to be protected
while leaving the rest of the page unprotected and freely editable. Is
this possible?".
Essentially, the editable sections are separate pages that are
transcluded into the original, protected page. This makes editing them
possible, but a bit unusual. The nice thing is that the protected
page, itself, looks good, because all of the editable annotations
appear to be right there on the page itself.
Joe Bednorz
<kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm probably just rehashing what Len said, but this sounds like a good
>idea to me:
>
>Copy the APF verbatim to the wiki and protect it so that no one can
>edit/delete it.
>
Will this mean releasing the APF under the Creative Commons license?
That's the only change that could be difficult to reverse.
kelly.terry.jones
> On 4 Jan 2007 20:01:04 -0800, "kelly.terry.jones"
> <kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm probably just rehashing what Len said, but this sounds like a good
> >idea to me:
> >
> >Copy the APF verbatim to the wiki and protect it so that no one can
> >edit/delete it.
> >
>
> Will this mean releasing the APF under the Creative Commons license?
> That's the only change that could be difficult to reverse.
I'm not a legal expert (ie, a barrister or a solicitor), but could we
put something like this on every wiki page that quotes APF:
======== CUT HERE ========
The quoted sections of the Annotated Pratchett File are copyrighted
and reproduced with permission for annotation and reference purposes
only.
UNLIKE MOST OF THE CONTENT ON THIS WIKI, THE QUOTED SECTIONS OF THE
ANNOTATED PRATCHETT FILE MAY NOT BE EDITED, AND ARE NOT RELEASED UNDER
THE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE AND/OR UNDER ANY OTHER OPEN SOURCE OR
GNU-LIKE LICENSE.
Re-use and re-production of the Annotated Pratchett File is subject to
the terms described here:
http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copyright-discussion.html
The portions of this document that are not quoted directly from the
Annotated Pratchett File are editable, and are subject to the same
licenses as other content on this wiki.
======== CUT HERE ========
I believe even MediaWiki allows for pages/sections to exempt themselves
from
the general license governing the wiki.
Leo Breebaart
"kelly.terry.jones" <kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Copy the APF verbatim to the wiki and protect it so that no one
> can edit/delete it.
>
> Under each annotation, allow people to make comments about that
> annotation. The comments section would NOT be protected, so
> people could edit/delete each other's comments, just as they
> can with most wiki pages.
I have to confess I don't really believe this approach will be
very successful, but I find it difficult to articulate exactly
why.
> Follows the spirit of APF's distribution, because it allows
> people to annotate the APF + make suggestions, but not actually
> edit or delete what's already there.
Basically, you will be providing a web-based discussion forum for
the APF. So far, people have used afp/abp if they wanted to
comment on existing annotations or mention new ones. Enabling
that sort of thing on the Wiki might well be useful -- going to
Usenet / Google Groups is of course something only a fraction of
the people reading the APF will be interested in or comfortable
with.
> Leo, would it be OK to copy the APF to the wiki under the
> conditions above?
I don't think there's any real reason for me to object. Feel free
to give it a shot. I'll gladly link to it from the 'real' APF
pages.
(I do think that I may eventually come up with my own Wiki
version of the APF which I may or may not base on / integrate
with your version. I trust that will be okay.)
Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Copy the APF verbatim to the wiki and protect it so that no one can
> >edit/delete it.
>
> Will this mean releasing the APF under the Creative Commons
> license? That's the only change that could be difficult to
> reverse.
Yes, and that is precisely the difficulty, because I don't think
I have the right to put the APF under a Creative Commons license,
as discussed previously in this thread and on
<http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copyright-discussion.html>.
"kelly.terry.jones" <kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a legal expert (ie, a barrister or a solicitor), but could we
> put something like this on every wiki page that quotes APF:
>
> ======== CUT HERE ========
>
> The quoted sections of the Annotated Pratchett File are
> copyrighted and reproduced with permission for annotation and
> reference purposes only.
>
> UNLIKE MOST OF THE CONTENT ON THIS WIKI, THE QUOTED SECTIONS OF
> THE ANNOTATED PRATCHETT FILE MAY NOT BE EDITED, AND ARE NOT
> RELEASED UNDER THE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE AND/OR UNDER ANY
> OTHER OPEN SOURCE OR GNU-LIKE LICENSE.
>
> Re-use and re-production of the Annotated Pratchett File is subject to
> the terms described here:
>
> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/copyright-discussion.html
>
> The portions of this document that are not quoted directly from
> the Annotated Pratchett File are editable, and are subject to
> the same licenses as other content on this wiki.
Just having a summary of and link to this text fairly prominently
displayed somewhere in the header/footer/sidebar should suffice,
presuming that you've indeed solved the technical problem of
making the base APF text read-only.
Good luck!
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
esmi
> "kelly.terry.jones" <kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Under each annotation, allow people to make comments about that
>> annotation. The comments section would NOT be protected, so
>> people could edit/delete each other's comments, just as they
>> can with most wiki pages.
> I have to confess I don't really believe this approach will be
> very successful, but I find it difficult to articulate exactly
> why.
Possibly because a common concensus may be more difficult to arrive at
than people anticipate. Mass editing/deleting of previous comments may
result in an incoherent mass that offers little, if anything of value to
the overall document.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to comment on entries
or offer alternative viewpoints. It's the 'editing/deleting' other
people's views that doesn't quite sit well with me. Isn't that akin to
giving some authority to the one who can shout the loudest? And what
happens if you get two 'loudmouths' with opposing views?
--
esmi
A Brief Guide to alt.fan.pratchett:
http://www.blackwidows.co.uk/afp-guide/
Joe Bednorz
>on 07/01/2007 18:23 Leo Breebaart said the following:
>> "kelly.terry.jones" <kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>> Under each annotation, allow people to make comments about that
>>> annotation. The comments section would NOT be protected, so
>>> people could edit/delete each other's comments, just as they
>>> can with most wiki pages.
>
>> I have to confess I don't really believe this approach will be
>> very successful, but I find it difficult to articulate exactly
>> why.
>
>Possibly because a common concensus may be more difficult to arrive at
>than people anticipate. Mass editing/deleting of previous comments may
>result in an incoherent mass that offers little, if anything of value to
>the overall document.
Think of the worst trolls on Usenet with the ability to edit other
people's posts.
>
>I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to comment on entries
>or offer alternative viewpoints. It's the 'editing/deleting' other
>people's views that doesn't quite sit well with me. Isn't that akin to
>giving some authority to the one who can shout the loudest? And what
>happens if you get two 'loudmouths' with opposing views?
You get an edit war.
See here for the "Lamest Edit Wars Ever"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamest_edit_wars_ever>
Joe Bednorz
<kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
Instead of actually copying the APF to the wiki, just have a link to
the section under discussion.
Daniel Goldsmith
> on 07/01/2007 18:23 Leo Breebaart said the following:
>> "kelly.terry.jones" <kelly.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>> Under each annotation, allow people to make comments about that
>>> annotation. The comments section would NOT be protected, so
>>> people could edit/delete each other's comments, just as they
>>> can with most wiki pages.
>
>> I have to confess I don't really believe this approach will be
>> very successful, but I find it difficult to articulate exactly
>> why.
<snip>
> I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to comment on entries
> or offer alternative viewpoints. It's the 'editing/deleting' other
> people's views that doesn't quite sit well with me. Isn't that akin to
> giving some authority to the one who can shout the loudest? And what
> happens if you get two 'loudmouths' with opposing views?
For my 2p, now certainly devalued hereabouts - wikifying the apf would be
a disastrous idea.
The apf as it stands is a monument to the ineradicable curiousity of the
a.f.p. populace entire, and to the Hatted One. More than those, it is a
fantastic corpus of *editing*. The amount of work which must have been
put into it by Leo and Mike is, to this poor soul, mindboggling. It has
references, links to worthwhile material, acknowedgements,proper
pagenumbering.... I could go on but I won't.
Compared to the dross of even the almighty wikipedia, the apf stands as a
true testament to the original vision of the internet - a locus of proper
information, properly presented and properly available. To take this
material and subject it to the nonense ofthe 'edit war', the cheapness of
the unreferenced annotation and, of course, the masses of infantile
meanderings of the Hogwarts variety would be a grave loss.
If a wiki is so desirable, and to this day I still fail to see the point
of them, why not use the wiki as some sort of sounding board, where someone
without the wherewithal to send an annotation to the editor can post their
great idea - sort the wheat from the chaff sort of thing.
Of course, I admit all of the above wholly negates the presence of 'fun'
and 'social networking' which seems to be the arbiter of any thing being
done at all on the 'net nowadays, so feel free to file same to
/dev/curmudgeon if you so wish.
regards,
Daniel Goldsmith
Leo Breebaart
> > Possibly because a common concensus may be more difficult to
> > arrive at than people anticipate. Mass editing/deleting of
> > previous comments may result in an incoherent mass that
> > offers little, if anything of value to the overall document.
>
> Think of the worst trolls on Usenet with the ability to edit
> other people's posts.
I may be too optimistic, but to be honest I don't think a
Wiki-APF will attract that much attention from trolls, or spark
that many edit wars.
I'd be much more concerned (if the site were to get really
popular) about more generic attacks such as spam or
"because-I-can" vandalism.
Daniel Goldsmith <daniel.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The apf as it stands is a monument to the ineradicable
> curiousity of the a.f.p. populace entire, and to the Hatted
> One. More than those, it is a fantastic corpus of *editing*.
> The amount of work which must have been put into it by Leo and
> Mike is, to this poor soul, mindboggling.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable
accepting your praise if the APF had not, once again, been pretty
much static for the past two years and counting.
I sincerely think that an active, community-maintained APF may
have enough advantages of its own to offset the 'enhanced quality
assurance' aspects of the edited version.
(And of course, ideally, I'm still hoping for a solution that
will allow me to use the one as input for the other -- both
ways.)
> Compared to the dross of even the almighty wikipedia, the apf
> stands as a true testament to the original vision of the
> internet - a locus of proper information, properly presented
> and properly available.
Maybe, but without the hundreds of people submitting annotations
and corrections in the first place, it would be just as much
dross. Submissions and editing go together to make the APF what
it is. (Also, at least in the most recent APF release, *quite* a
bit of Wikipedia was used during the editorial process...)
(But I'll gladly accept and thank you for the "original vision of
the internet" accolade -- I am very proud of (and derive much
pleasure from, although I know it's not what most people notice)
all the infra-structural bits that go into making the APF
something accessible and appropriate to the entire Internet, not
just restricted to Usenet, or the Web, or a text file.)
> Of course, I admit all of the above wholly negates the presence
> of 'fun' and 'social networking' which seems to be the arbiter
> of any thing being done at all on the 'net nowadays, so feel
> free to file same to /dev/curmudgeon if you so wish.
Aw, now you're just being grumpy. The APF directly arose from the
discussions on afp, held by people busy having lots of fun and
building one heck of a social network in that one little corner
of the Internet.
These days they'll call it folksonomies and dress it up in
gradient-begraphicked Web 2.0 sites -- but the essential spirit
that causes things like the APF to happen can be just as much
present in, say, sites such as LibraryThing or Flickr as it was
on Usenet.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Alec Cawley
> (And of course, ideally, I'm still hoping for a solution that
> will allow me to use the one as input for the other -- both
> ways.)
First, of course, IANAL
In the front of several books I have seen, there is often a statement of
the form
"Every reasonable attempt has been made to trace the copyright owners of
the material in this book, but it as not been possible in all cases. If
the holders of any omitted copyrights will contact the publishers, their
copyright will be acknowledged in future editions."
If they can do this, I se no reason why you shouldn't.
Since the apf is derived exclusively from afp and abp, it seems that
reasonable to me that reasonable attempts would amount to a clear
announcement of your intention to publish in wiki form on afp, abp, and
afpa, perhaps repeated a couple of times, with the clear statement that
any copyright holder could have their contribution removed. Of course,
some of the contributors will have dropped off, but I think most will
accept that "that is life".
If you do so, I think that most people will agree that you have acted in
good faith. Of course, acting in good faith does not exonerat you from
the breach of copyright - but I would expect that it would exonerate you
from punitive damages. So, if you remove infringing material with all
due speed as soon as you were informed, I think you would only be liable
for any commercial loss they had sustained from your publishing their
copyright material. So they would have to prove that
1. The intended to publish critical or commentary material on Pratchett
- which I think only Stacie and SBriggs could reasonably say
2. That they might reasonable have lost income due to your infringement
of their copyright.
So I would think that you are fairly safe
Karen
<al...@spamspam.co.uk> writes
>Leo Breebaart wrote:
>
>> (And of course, ideally, I'm still hoping for a solution that
>> will allow me to use the one as input for the other -- both
>> ways.)
>
>First, of course, IANAL
>
>In the front of several books I have seen, there is often a statement of
>the form
>"Every reasonable attempt has been made to trace the copyright owners of
>the material in this book, but it as not been possible in all cases. If
>the holders of any omitted copyrights will contact the publishers, their
>copyright will be acknowledged in future editions."
>If they can do this, I se no reason why you shouldn't.
>
>
>Since the apf is derived exclusively from afp and abp, it seems that
>reasonable to me that reasonable attempts would amount to a clear
>announcement of your intention to publish in wiki form on afp, abp, and
>afpa, perhaps repeated a couple of times, with the clear statement that
>any copyright holder could have their contribution removed. Of course,
>some of the contributors will have dropped off, but I think most will
>accept that "that is life".
This isn't entirely correct. Whilst the APF might have been born of
afp/abp the contributions are by no means exclusively from there. Many
people who find and use and contribute to the APF find it via the
website or links and have never been near a newsgroup. A similar
announcement on the relevant pages might count as every effort - I don't
know. The details of copyright law and the extent of enforcement can
vary significantly with national boundaries and the extent to which
people care or can afford to care.
>
>If you do so, I think that most people will agree that you have acted in
>good faith.
I'd agree that is likely - most suggestions do come in a spirit of
contribution and a promise to rectify omitted credits should satisfy
most people (I suppose it could also cause arguments as to who precisely
contributed what but again I don't imagine it is that likely).
>Of course, acting in good faith does not exonerat you from
>the breach of copyright - but I would expect that it would exonerate you
>from punitive damages. So, if you remove infringing material with all
>due speed as soon as you were informed, I think you would only be liable
>for any commercial loss they had sustained from your publishing their
>copyright material. So they would have to prove that
>1. The intended to publish critical or commentary material on Pratchett
>- which I think only Stacie and SBriggs could reasonably say
There are others but, yes, the pool is small, especially when you add:
>2. That they might reasonable have lost income due to your infringement
>of their copyright.
>So I would think that you are fairly safe
>
Except for costs.
I agree, such a situation is very unlikely. on the other hand it isn't
my risk and it wasn't me who gave any original promises to contributors.
I've been in favour of using the wiki to support the annotations for a
while, especially as Sockii's Annotate-o-matic is no longer available
for interim suggestions. I'd see wiki support more as a development
area for new annotations more than modifying existing annotations but I
don't a fixed view. At the moment input on existing annotations can come
in as suggestions or from discussions on abp. Having the existing APF
wikified and protected would also mean additional maintenance when there
is a new release, I wouldn't like to see versions getting out of line.
Before a frozen-but-allowing-comments version was released I'd want to
be convinced of a viable implementation of the page management which
from my own meandering in various wikis I have some doubts over. I'm
also a bit underwhelmed by rollback, history management etc all of which
contributes to my general feeling of 'great if its additional discussion
space for new contributions but not quite sure what it adds to a frozen
existing version'.
I don't think edit wars are particularly likely - most of the 'argue to
the death just to be the last one standing and shout the loudest'
posters get a much bigger reaction on the newsgroups and forums for
this type of subject. More bangs for their bark, so to speak for your
average rebel without a cause.
If this sounds like I'm wavering on the issue its because I do, and
because ultimately when it comes down to the whole copyright issue it
isn't my risk.
--
Karen/hypatia Ka...@lspace.org
New? Check http://www.lspace.org
Momentarily surfacing, if following up please cc or it may be a while before I
see it.
Sanity
> Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Possibly because a common concensus may be more difficult to
>> > arrive at than people anticipate. Mass editing/deleting of
>> > previous comments may result in an incoherent mass that
>> > offers little, if anything of value to the overall document.
>>
>> Think of the worst trolls on Usenet with the ability to edit
>> other people's posts.
>
> I may be too optimistic, but to be honest I don't think a
> Wiki-APF will attract that much attention from trolls, or spark
> that many edit wars.
>
> I'd be much more concerned (if the site were to get really
> popular) about more generic attacks such as spam or
> "because-I-can" vandalism.
We have had a few (resulting in a blanket register-before-editing for the
last weeks), but as the audience grows, so will the potential for sysops
who can clear up the mess. Having to register before editing is an extra
hoop to jump through which I try to get rid of whenever possible, but it
does save the time to remove spam. We haven't had much vandalism, and in
any case junk was removed fairly quickly.
It is a risk though, but judging from Wikipedia it can be cleared up
within reasonable time.
> These days they'll call it folksonomies and dress it up in
> gradient-begraphicked Web 2.0 sites -- but the essential spirit
> that causes things like the APF to happen can be just as much
> present in, say, sites such as LibraryThing or Flickr as it was
> on Usenet.
Still, we'd like a tag cloud for the APF ;o)
esmi
<snip>
> I'd be much more concerned (if the site were to get really
> popular) about more generic attacks such as spam or
> "because-I-can" vandalism.
Can Akismet be plugged into a Wiki? That would deal with 90%, or more,
of the outright spam. Vandalism will always need a human editor since,
ultimately, it's subjective.
What still irks me about wikis in general is the need to learn a new
syntax. Whilst I'm sure that I could cope (if I could be bothered),
there will be people who will find this a barrier. One of the positive
aspects of archive via Usenet/email is that it doesn't require any
special skills or additional knowledge.
If APF-Wiki does come into being, could something be added that would
enable those who cannot (for whatever reason) use wiki markup themselves
to also participate?
Sanity
> on 08/01/2007 22:52 Leo Breebaart said the following:
> <snip>
>> I'd be much more concerned (if the site were to get really
>> popular) about more generic attacks such as spam or
>> "because-I-can" vandalism.
>
> Can Akismet be plugged into a Wiki? That would deal with 90%, or more,
> of the outright spam. Vandalism will always need a human editor since,
> ultimately, it's subjective.
Akismet doesn't have a plugin for mediawiki, so I'm using "Bad Behaviour"
for now.
> What still irks me about wikis in general is the need to learn a new
> syntax. Whilst I'm sure that I could cope (if I could be bothered),
> there will be people who will find this a barrier. One of the positive
> aspects of archive via Usenet/email is that it doesn't require any
> special skills or additional knowledge.
>
> If APF-Wiki does come into being, could something be added that would
> enable those who cannot (for whatever reason) use wiki markup themselves
> to also participate?
Wiki mark-up is nice for all the fancy bits, but really just typing text
and using comming things like paragraphs and punctuation is enough for
most text. There are buttons for commonly used stuff like bold, italic and
headline text. If it's necessary to add things, someone generally comes by
and applies the wiki mark-up.
Leo Breebaart
> Leo Breebaart wrote:
>
> > These days they'll call it folksonomies and dress it up in
> > gradient-begraphicked Web 2.0 sites -- but the essential
> > spirit that causes things like the APF to happen can be just
> > as much present in, say, sites such as LibraryThing or Flickr
> > as it was on Usenet.
>
> Still, we'd like a tag cloud for the APF ;o)
<http://www.kronto.org/stuff/cloud.html>
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Orjan Westin
Can't be genuine. There's no "wossname".
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Joe Bednorz
<<TKbck+NK...@cableinet.co.uk>>:
>
>If this sounds like I'm wavering on the issue its because I do, and
>because ultimately when it comes down to the whole copyright issue it
>isn't my risk.
There's no copyright problem if the copyright isn't changed. So the
question becomes, "Why change the copyright?"
--
"One time the story is all "myffy" when suddenly you stumble across
the joke and your head hits the next available wall while at another
bit you laugh at a joke or situation and almost swallow your tongue
when you think about it for a second longer." - Volker Hetzer in abp
Free Online SF Books: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best, Joe Bednorz