The wiki thread

[Icarium]

I would like to start a page about my own collection. Just because it's an easy way to put the information down and it will be available for someone else should it be useful.

I would like to ask your permission to do that. Does anybody mind?

[kbdfr]

I would like to start a page about my own collection. Just because it's an easy way to put the information down and it will be available for someone else should it be useful.

I would like to ask your permission to do that. Does anybody mind?

Hey, I find that's a great idea provided there are links to and from the "normal" wiki pages dealing with the individual items presented.

[JBert]

As long as you document each keyboard separately, you can always create your user page and link to all individual keyboards. If you want, you can even reuse a picture or two since the images are then already in the wiki.

EDIT: Testing on my user page: http://deskthority.net/wiki/User:Jbert

[7bit]

Would be a good start, but at a later stage you should give every keyboard its own page.

Also, don't listen to webwit et al. and post large pictures!!!

[mintberryminuscrunch]

I would like to start a page about my own collection. Just because it's an easy way to put the information down and it will be available for someone else should it be useful.

I would like to ask your permission to do that. Does anybody mind?

Hey, I find that's a great idea provided there are links to and from the "normal" wiki pages dealing with the individual items presented.

holy shit! I just wanted to propose the same idea
PS: but I was thinking of posting pics rather than links..

[Findecanor]

As long as you create articles for your keyboards that you have and post the pictures there too, I don't see that there would be a problem. Well.. unless they are very much modified, that is.

BTW. I wrote a user page for myself, with info about myself and my keyboard collection. I did not bother to add any images, but I may do that later. Click my signature to see it. If my signature is hidden, just click my username to the left and it will appear in the bottom of the menu.

[ripster]

Your sig is hidden but link works.

Hmmmm...this info could be useful.

[Charlie_Brown_MX]

About copyrights and such, not much has been developed yet regarding this subject matter. I imagine we should have something similar as wikipedia, they use this open license for texts, and contributors can chose from a number of open licenses for media. Personally I prefer public domain, but that won't be everybody's preference.

I am not a fan of Creative Commons licenses;  I tend to side with Joe Clark’s take on the issue.  As such, knowing that anything I contribute to the DT wiki instantly ceases to be under my copyright is a huge disincentive.  I don't mind sharing my work freely (“free as in beer”), but I don’t want to lose my copyright over it either.

I generally don’t care about copyright on copy-editing or factual corrections, but I’ve poured quite a lot of time into a project recently that I think would be a great addition to the wiki.  However, I’m unwilling to post it if it means I lose copyright/sign away everything under a CC license.  

On a related note, what’s the policy on misappropriation of copyrighted works? I’m thinking of the case of someone taking another person’s work and reposting it on the wiki.

[mintberryminuscrunch]

About copyrights and such, not much has been developed yet regarding this subject matter. I imagine we should have something similar as wikipedia, they use this open license for texts, and contributors can chose from a number of open licenses for media. Personally I prefer public domain, but that won't be everybody's preference.

I am not a fan of Creative Commons licenses;  I tend to side with Joe Clark’s take on the issue.  As such, knowing that anything I contribute to the DT wiki instantly ceases to be under my copyright is a huge disincentive.  I don't mind sharing my work freely (“free as in beer”), but I don’t want to lose my copyright over it either.

I generally don’t care about copyright on copy-editing or factual corrections, but I’ve poured quite a lot of time into a project recently that I think would be a great addition to the wiki.  However, I’m unwilling to post it if it means I lose copyright/sign away everything under a CC license.  

On a related note, what’s the policy on misappropriation of copyrighted works? I’m thinking of the case of someone taking another person’s work and reposting it on the wiki.

Upload it to your website and post the link in the wiki
Btw. I doubt you understand how cc works
And how Wikis work
And the article you linked makes some bs claims...

[webwit]

You don't lose copyright, so I don't see your point. That Clark guy is an idiot who fundamentally fails to see the difference between an open license and copyright, yet sees himself as a unique visionary. I guess he would complain copyright was lost if someone buys a book, writes something in it, and sells it to someone else. What he should argue is why he does not like an open license.

[ripster]

It doesn''t matter what the license says.

Whomever owns the Website owns the Wiki and other content.

I know this from personal experience..

[Charlie_Brown_MX]

I spent the last half-hour writing a detailed reply, but then I realised that digging into it further won’t be of any value as, for all intents and purposes, I already have my answer.

Thanks for clarifying DT’s stance on the matter.

It doesn''t matter what the license says.

Whomever owns the Website owns the Wiki and other content.

I know this from personal experience..

You’re right, of course.  Licensing is all pretty academic on a site you don’t own.

[Icarium]

I don't see the problem with people writing articles in any suitable license. I doubt that anybody here has the time and expertise to decide what those might be, though.

[webwit]

It doesn''t matter what the license says.

Whomever owns the Website owns the Wiki and other content.

I know this from personal experience..

You’re right, of course.  Licensing is all pretty academic on a site you don’t own.

Now you want two mutually exclusive things. With an open license, anyone can run a copy, while with closed licenses, distribution would be a nightmare.

[Charlie_Brown_MX]

It doesn''t matter what the license says.

Whomever owns the Website owns the Wiki and other content.

I know this from personal experience..

You’re right, of course. Licensing is all pretty academic on a site you don’t own.

Now you want two mutually exclusive things. With an open license, anyone can run a copy, while with closed licenses, distribution would be a nightmare.

No, I don’t.

Ripster builds a sandcastle in my sandpit, and declares that anyone can use it, or take photos of it and distribute them but must not charge. Further, no-one can demolish it or claim they created it. He calls this the Ripcastle License. I own the sandpit, though, and I decide to change the sandcastle without his permission, claim I created it, and sell photos of it. He has a license that explicitly prohibits these activities, so we fall out over it. I decide, out of spite, to lock him out of the sandpit and demolish his sandcastle. How does his license protect him from that?

How the contents of a website is licensed — whether it’s open or closed — does not change the fact that the person in control of the website can undermine that license if they so choose. Those are two entirely seperate arguments, somewhat linked but not mutually dependent.

[webwit]

How does his license protect him from that?

Now we're mixing copyright and licensing with a right of distribution. This is like a movie maker who complains about a movie theater, that his license/copyright is worthless because the theater can break the law and claim they own the movie, and because they can stop playing the movie at some point. I really think you're better off with hosting your own personal closed license stuff instead of seeking to do it in a community collaborative wiki and preemptively accuse them of violating licensing and copyright. The whole fucking point of using open licensing is to prevent that stuff.

[Charlie_Brown_MX]

I really think you're better off with hosting your own personal closed license stuff instead of seeking to do it in a community collaborative wiki and preemptively accuse them of violating licensing and copyright. The whole fucking point of using open licensing is to prevent that stuff.

At no point did I accuse anyone, pre-emptively or otherwise, of violating licensing or copyrights. I think it’s pretty clear from my earlier questions and comments that this was not my intention, and I said nothing that could be construed as an accusation, implication, or assertion to that effect. The closest I came was when I offered a hypothetical situation, in which I placed *myself* as the licence- and copyright-violator. There was no implicit accusation in that directed at anyone — it was a *hypothetical situation*.

Asking for clarity on the copyright and licensing of material contributed to the wiki, even if it’s done so with reservations (which were expressed reasonably), does not constitute an accusation. It was never intended to provoke anger or elicit a response like yours; it was intended only to clarify something that isn’t stated clearly anywhere on the wiki.

As for hosting the stuff myself: you’re absolutely right. That *is* the better option, especially in light of this discussion. I had sought to contribute to the community without doing so under a license with which *I personally* disagree, but it would appear that was ill-advised.

[ripster]

I wish the stealing of MY Geekhack content was hypothetical.

All in an effort to drive traffic to a dying keyboard forum.

Tsk, Tsk iMav. So much for doing stuff for the "keyboard community".

Btw like most people I stuck a CC license on my Ripster SUBFORUM content because it sounded cool at the time.

[Charlie_Brown_MX]

Quiet, Ripster, or your sandcastle gets it.

[ripster]

I hear the ocean now...

[webwit]

Any compatible open source license should work. Using others is just not practical - it's incompatible with the collaborative nature of mediawiki, and it would impose all kinds of restrictions on distribution. Imagine 50 contributors using closed licenses. If someone would ask if it is possible to run a mirror, we'd have to ask all 50 of those contributors.

[GH1391401]

Would updating an about (e.g. http://deskthority.net/wiki/Deskthority_wiki:About) or mission statement page make sense? I'm a GHer but I am reading this forum now and there seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards teh GH forum so I am not sure if I am even welcome making changes to the wiki...

[Icarium]

You and your work are totally welcome and don't let the GH flame discourage you.

[mintberryminuscrunch]

Any compatible open source license should work. Using others is just not practical - it's incompatible with the collaborative nature of mediawiki, and it would impose all kinds of restrictions on distribution. Imagine 50 contributors using closed licenses. If someone would ask if it is possible to run a mirror, we'd have to ask all 50 of those contributors.

if you're even allowed to change the content under a more restrictive license.
a
cc by sa
or
cc by nc sa
should do the job,
no one could use your content without naming you as the author
the person to use your content has to share it under the same license
nc non commercial

[agor]

[...]
cc by nc sa
should do the job,
no one could use your content without naming you as the author
the person to use your content has to share it under the same license
nc non commercial

Would be fine for me aswell

[ripster]

Uploading some Cherry MX pics to the Wiki.

SURE you don't want me to watermark these Deskthority.net before the Geekhack Wiki team steals them all?

http://deskthority.net/w/images/1/1c/Cherry_Catalog.png
http://deskthority.net/w/images/3/3e/Ch ... y_Page.png

And yes they are big. PNG preserves the detail for readability.

P.S. Yes, I must have stolen about 100 pics from Deskthority.Net Wiki for the Geekhack Wiki so maybe we should just treat it as Karma?

Don't see the point to use PNG here. The quality of the source-images isn't really good, so 90% JPEG should be fine (42% the size of Cherry_Catalog_Technology_Page.png).

BTW: Do you have a permission to upload these? Any source?

Plenty of catalog pics in the wiki. If not there should be.

Anyhoo, it's up there. Feel free to delete if you don't like them. The wonders of a collaborative wiki!

And if you need images let me know what format and stuff you want them in. I must have >5K images .....a full 1G full or $2 of SSD space stored at Geekhack!

This limit on ripster’s posts has been a Pyrrhic victory. He might be making fewer posts, but he’s now engaging in the forum equivalent of top-posting which is confusing.

TIL what top-posting means.

I already knew Pyrrhic victory.

Moderators call. I do what the moderators tell me to do here. Otherwise I make do with the limitations as best I can with creativity.

AND I thought the worse thing on the Internet was not getting the best damn Wikis EVAH!

BTW how do I check how many Wiki contributions someone has made here, do I have to logout and go into the Wiki?

brb.......

Yep, logout and check your contributions then search somebody else.

http://deskthority.net/w/index.php?limi ... =&month=-1

[7bit]

Don't see the point to use PNG here. The quality of the source-images isn't really good, so 90% JPEG should be fine (42% the size of Cherry_Catalog_Technology_Page.png).

BTW: Do you have a permission to upload these? Any source?

[Charlie_Brown_MX]

This limit on ripster’s posts has been a Pyrrhic victory. He might be making fewer posts, but he’s now engaging in the forum equivalent of top-posting which is confusing.


Zaphod
Remember
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,951

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in forums, on usenet and in e-mail?

[ripster]

Not any more!

Anyway what ARE the Image Guidelines here:

Size
Format
Watermark

For example...


And yes I have his permission to use.

Translation/翻译:
No problem, feel free to use my pictures. (Litster: looks like DragonBro can read Ripster's reply!)

If we get IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) on EVERY pic the wiki will be sparsely populated. I just always linked to source.

[7bit]

^^^^Impressive collection


<------- The link to the wiki shows guest