Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/In the media
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Фред-Продавец звёзд in topic Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case
Discuss this story
AI assistants: citation needed edit
- Don't knock the Alexa!! My mom and all of my siblings are quite happy with the one she has. It may not say that the information it gives is coming from Wikipedia, but it also doesn't say things like "You asked me that yesterday". The most common question my (blind) mother tosses at it is "What time is it?". Frankly, if the thing had to state all of its sources then I think it wouldn't be as useful. That said, my mom got a big kick out of the Eva Longoria audio version of Sewing (see the YouTube version of Glamour video). As a Wikipedian, I got a big kick out of the last bit, and I can state that my mom still knows her Funk and Wagnalls. If Wikipedia had a program whereby people could "adopt" an article and speak an audio version in, then maybe you could give Alexa-type products an easy input. Jane (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Echo can already read out full Wikipedia articles (apparently, you have to say, "Alexa, tell me more", and then it reads on). I doubt it can match Eva Longoria's delivery though, or her sewing skills. :P It wouldn't hurt to say the two words "Source: Wikipedia" at the end (users could be given the option to switch the source announcement off, once it becomes too repetitive). --Andreas JN466 12:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Amazon Echo's question-answering abilities comes from a company Amazon bought called Evi. Many of its "What is?" questions indeed come from Wikipedia (or sometimes it uses dictionary definitions from WordNet). However, when it comes to not just the simple "What is?" questions, it gets more complicated (literally). My best guess is that movie and tv show — related data at least practically comes IMDb, since Amazon owns that company. As for other information, since Evi does say it uses semantic technology, it probably comes from unstructured sources and gets converted into structured data. As for explaining Siri, that's easy! Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, Oxford Dictionary, Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo Finance, and Yahoo Sports. --Proud User (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case edit
- WMF is right not to take the poison bait of copyright licensing. Unless WMF can literally put a CC license on the photos so anyone can reuse them, all they would get is the ability to have someone's eyeballs on their site rather than someone else's - which is valuable to internet businesses but not actually relevant to growing a free encyclopedia that anyone can copy, modify, and improve. Let this BUS hawk "their" (taxpayer-funded) photos at their own expense. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe artists should place "Terms of Use" plaques on their artworks. If you don't accept the terms, you're not allowed to make a photograph or sketch, or even look. They own every possible 2-D projection of their public outdoor artwork; you don't. People will try to make unauthorized "pirate" copies, so the police should actively enforce the Terms of Use, no matter how stringent. Technology can help here. Tag each artwork with an electronic signal that orders all cameras not to function when it is in view. (Confiscate every old camera that lacks this helpful "added function".) Unfortunately, an "analog hole" exists: eyeballs and pencils – someone could look longer or more often than the license allows, or even make a sketch. Robotic enforcers should patrol the vicinity and destroy any sketches they detect. Repeat violators lose their unlawful tools, and next time some fingers. Preventing looking is more difficult – it would require multiple lasers to [temporarily] blind anyone trying to steal an unlicensed glimpse. Failing that, a large curtain on all sides (and above, in case of aircraft). Fully enclosed outdoor sculpture. That's what they really need or deserve. Hasn't the world seen enough with France's infamous stupidity regarding night-time illuminations of the Eiffel Tower? I didn't think Sweden was as stupid. I stand corrected. Grow up, world. -A876 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like standard stupidity in European copyright rules. It's not more stupid than France's prohibition of photos of furniture or Article 5 (3) (o) of the InfoSoc Directive (which created a system where you're free to publish something on paper but not on the Internet). For example, Swedish copyright law used to contain a provision which said that artworks could be used in connection to a critical discussion of the artwork. The Swedish government could not find an equivalent provision in the Infosoc Directive, so it suddenly became illegal to critically discuss artworks on the Internet. A student union discussed some images critically in its magazine, and in 2009, the Court of Appeals of Scania and Blechingia declared that the paper magazine was permitted under copyright law, but that an identical copy of the magazine but in digital form on the student union's website was infringing the copyright of the critically discussed images. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Позор, Швеция! Это ужасно и недопустимо. Мы должны теми или иными способами ликвидировать этих вредителей. Sverige fritt är en lösen för alla!!! Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like standard stupidity in European copyright rules. It's not more stupid than France's prohibition of photos of furniture or Article 5 (3) (o) of the InfoSoc Directive (which created a system where you're free to publish something on paper but not on the Internet). For example, Swedish copyright law used to contain a provision which said that artworks could be used in connection to a critical discussion of the artwork. The Swedish government could not find an equivalent provision in the Infosoc Directive, so it suddenly became illegal to critically discuss artworks on the Internet. A student union discussed some images critically in its magazine, and in 2009, the Court of Appeals of Scania and Blechingia declared that the paper magazine was permitted under copyright law, but that an identical copy of the magazine but in digital form on the student union's website was infringing the copyright of the critically discussed images. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Egyptian revolution edit
See also this 2011 coverage of such a statement by Ghonim, which talks a bit more about his connections with the Wikimedia movement: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes#Briefly ("Egyptian Wikimedians and the revolution"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)