oops, forgot to include the link
http://wiki.scrums.org/index.cgi?HowToGenerateWikiTraffic

--- In WikiForum@yahoogroups.com, "Deb" <deborah@h...> wrote:
> Thanks, everyone. I've compiled your responses into a wiki page for
> our group... I'll be mulling over ways to implement it. The
> motivation factor is not negligible... something to focus on.
> ciao! deb
>
> --- In WikiForum@yahoogroups.com, "Deb" <deborah@h...> wrote:
> ...
> > Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
> > participation on a new Wiki?

Thanks, everyone. I've compiled your responses into a wiki page for
our group... I'll be mulling over ways to implement it. The
motivation factor is not negligible... something to focus on.
ciao! deb

--- In WikiForum@yahoogroups.com, "Deb" <deborah@h...> wrote:
...
> Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
> participation on a new Wiki?

Bryce,

Definitely agree with you. I'll note that

- You consider a wiki where people can also see/know each other in reality.
   When the only link between people is the wiki itself, it is much harder.

- Also, if people have clear responsibilities on one or two subjects, then
   it is also more easy to distribute them the task of maintaining one or two
   pages (that may extend to 20-40 if they like the tool).

- Most comments are applicable for non-wiki collaboration as well. I found
   an interesting concept that realy applies : the "5 I's of motivation", i.e.
   * Interest(ing work) : the task needs to be attractive
   * Information : people involved need to know what happens
   * Involvement : ask people's perception, advices, etc.
   * Independance : each contributor needs to be free to organise his/her part
   * Increased Visibility : contributors need to get the kudo's
   The source of this should be on www.nelson-motivation.com, but I got it
through
   a French magazine, and the one-liners above are mine, so maybe they are not
   100% respectful of the original concept.

   From the above, maybe the 4th is the most problematic for wikis : there is
little
   independance because the idea is to have a common look and feel, at least in
theory
   (but in practice I think it is almost impossible to maintain that in the end).

CVE.

With the wiki efforts I've been involved with I find that the best driver to
getting content in there is to build a strong community whose underlying
principles and processes are geared towards getting good content into the Wiki.
  People seem to get well motivated to getting content in when they know that
others will care about it, read it, and respond to it, and most importantly
that by adding it, it will help further their own principles, ideas, or
objectives.

It's hard to get a Wiki up and going; I've easily had twice as many that didn't
get up off the ground as ones that did.  Often what I find works best to get it
started is to actually go individually talk to and recruit individuals.  I.e.,
I'll go over to Mary's desk and ask her if she's used the Wiki (no), ask if she
has time for me to explain it (sure), then walk her through adding a page, and
then later ask if she could write up a page on topic X, since she's the expert
at that and has the passion, and everyone else knows its important but would
really like to learn more.  Then repeat for a few other people, and if you're
lucky it'll catch on and everyone will get hooked.  :-)

Bryce

--- Christophe.Vermeulen@... wrote:
> Not sure you can really do so much a bout it.
>
> In our (Intranet-only) Twiki, you can subscribe to a daily list of changed
> pages per directory. But not many people do this, so most changes get
> simply unnoticed. I'm afraid that the reality in Wiki, like in _any_ other
> collaborative/participative/... effort (web or not) is that
>
> - Many people do not dare or take time to contribute, they prefer to stay
>   passive/lurk. (same on this mailing list ;-)
> - Most efforts that could be done to "motivate" contribution will be seen
>   as "annoyance" if forced to them, and won't give results. On the contrary,
>   they will send people away with a sense of frustration.
> - It has to be easy. Technology is often a repellent for many people, even if
>   ore when they are PC literate. Think of it as "they have to learn another
>   application". So it has to be as easy as possible. The method to follow has
>   to be explained in very detailed terms, and a link to "Help" needs to be
> present
>   on the editing page (with a target towards another window).
> - Many of the "managers" (wikimaster, whatever you call it) have a precise
>   idea of what they want to achieve. So each time someone "new" starts to
>   contribute, usually it leads to "Yet Another Way To Use The Tool" and
> creates
>   a bit of irritation from the manager. Either he/she accepts that, and it
>   reduces overall consistency, or he/she corrects it, and the author could be
>   frustrated. Maybe that's the artist's part in each of us ?
> - I believe the only really working way to generate useful contributions is
> to
>   give the appropriate reward to it. But finding what it is is difficult. To
>   start, ask yourself why someone would want to contribute, i.e. what would
>   be the return for the author himself ? (People are selfish by nature). It
>   could be recognition, money, access to extra information, sense of
> membership to
>   a team, etc. Actually very similar problem as when you need volunteers for
> any
>   kind of not-for-profit action.
>
> Hope it helps (and does not demotivates you).
>
> Marc Laporte wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > It is useful to have a push component to your wiki site.
> >
> > For example:
> > *A periodical newsletter with noteworthy changes.
> > *RSS feeds on wiki changes
> > *A watch page feature (opt-in feature to receive a notification of
> > change on a certain page)
> >
> > You should also directly email people within your community. You could
> > ask them to become editors/animators of certain sections.
> >
> > Deb wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I'm a wiki user on a brand new wiki. Most of the time it seems
> > > I'm the only one posting... not much of a conversation going on there
> > > yet. My question is not technical but more about social aspects of a
> > > wiki - is this the right place to post?
> > >
> > > Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
> > > participation on a new Wiki? I'm leader of a group using the wiki, so
> > > I'm in a position to post to the group... but I need ideas. What kind
> > > of approaches/entries stimulate participation?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > deb
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Not sure you can really do so much a bout it.

In our (Intranet-only) Twiki, you can subscribe to a daily list of changed
pages per directory. But not many people do this, so most changes get
simply unnoticed. I'm afraid that the reality in Wiki, like in _any_ other
collaborative/participative/... effort (web or not) is that

- Many people do not dare or take time to contribute, they prefer to stay
   passive/lurk. (same on this mailing list ;-)
- Most efforts that could be done to "motivate" contribution will be seen
   as "annoyance" if forced to them, and won't give results. On the contrary,
   they will send people away with a sense of frustration.
- It has to be easy. Technology is often a repellent for many people, even if
   ore when they are PC literate. Think of it as "they have to learn another
   application". So it has to be as easy as possible. The method to follow has
   to be explained in very detailed terms, and a link to "Help" needs to be
present
   on the editing page (with a target towards another window).
- Many of the "managers" (wikimaster, whatever you call it) have a precise
   idea of what they want to achieve. So each time someone "new" starts to
   contribute, usually it leads to "Yet Another Way To Use The Tool" and creates
   a bit of irritation from the manager. Either he/she accepts that, and it
   reduces overall consistency, or he/she corrects it, and the author could be
   frustrated. Maybe that's the artist's part in each of us ?
- I believe the only really working way to generate useful contributions is to
   give the appropriate reward to it. But finding what it is is difficult. To
   start, ask yourself why someone would want to contribute, i.e. what would
   be the return for the author himself ? (People are selfish by nature). It
   could be recognition, money, access to extra information, sense of membership
to
   a team, etc. Actually very similar problem as when you need volunteers for any
   kind of not-for-profit action.

Hope it helps (and does not demotivates you).

Marc Laporte wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It is useful to have a push component to your wiki site.
>
> For example:
> *A periodical newsletter with noteworthy changes.
> *RSS feeds on wiki changes
> *A watch page feature (opt-in feature to receive a notification of
> change on a certain page)
>
> You should also directly email people within your community. You could
> ask them to become editors/animators of certain sections.
>
> Deb wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm a wiki user on a brand new wiki. Most of the time it seems
> > I'm the only one posting... not much of a conversation going on there
> > yet. My question is not technical but more about social aspects of a
> > wiki - is this the right place to post?
> >
> > Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
> > participation on a new Wiki? I'm leader of a group using the wiki, so
> > I'm in a position to post to the group... but I need ideas. What kind
> > of approaches/entries stimulate participation?
> >
> > Thanks
> > deb

At 1:59 AM +0000 on 5/6/04, Deb typed:
>Hi, I'm a wiki user on a brand new wiki. Most of the time it seems
>I'm the only one posting... not much of a conversation going on there
>yet. My question is not technical but more about social aspects of a
>wiki - is this the right place to post?
>
>Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
>participation on a new Wiki? I'm leader of a group using the wiki, so
>I'm in a position to post to the group... but I need ideas. What kind
>of approaches/entries stimulate participation?

I asked Ward about this once and he wrote the following:


First few months sets the tone. Watch it carefully then.

Invite people to visit and contribute. Invite 20 at a time. Expect
only 5 or 10 to do so and only 1 or 2 to write. Invite 20 more a few
days later.

The best contributors are people with some name recognition. Really
famous people already have too much invested in their name to risk
signing it on a wiki (in their opinion anyway).

Write a page every few days yourself.

Add paragraphs to many pages. Do web searches and add pointers to
related sites with brief reviews or quotations from the sites.

Try to keep your signature from being the only one.


--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

Hi!

It is useful to have a push component to your wiki site.

For example:
*A periodical newsletter with noteworthy changes.
*RSS feeds on wiki changes
*A watch page feature (opt-in feature to receive a notification of
change on a certain page)

You should also directly email people within your community. You could
ask them to become editors/animators of certain sections.

Best regards,

M ;-)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/                                                                /
/ Marc Laporte       <|>                  http://marclaporte.com /
/ Avantech.net       <|>                     http://avantech.net /
/ Tiki CMS/Groupware <|> http://tikiwiki.org/UserPagemarclaporte /
/                                                                /
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Deb wrote:

> Hi, I'm a wiki user on a brand new wiki. Most of the time it seems
> I'm the only one posting... not much of a conversation going on there
> yet. My question is not technical but more about social aspects of a
> wiki - is this the right place to post?
>
> Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
> participation on a new Wiki? I'm leader of a group using the wiki, so
> I'm in a position to post to the group... but I need ideas. What kind
> of approaches/entries stimulate participation?
>
> Thanks
> deb
>
>
>
> - WikiForum is archived in http://c2.com/w2/wiki/RecentChanges
> - Unsubscribe in http://www.egroups.com/community/WikiForum
>
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=129gjfthc/M=295196.4901138.6052515.3001176/D=groups/S=1\
705005703:HM/EXP=1083895177/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.\
com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WikiForum/
>
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       WikiForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:WikiForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Hi, I'm a wiki user on a brand new wiki. Most of the time it seems
I'm the only one posting... not much of a conversation going on there
yet. My question is not technical but more about social aspects of a
wiki - is this the right place to post?

Can anyone direct me a resource discussing ways to stimulate
participation on a new Wiki? I'm leader of a group using the wiki, so
I'm in a position to post to the group... but I need ideas. What kind
of approaches/entries stimulate participation?

Thanks
deb

On TWiki.org they automated registering.

We now protect against too many writes into too short a space of
time (blacklist plugin = surge protection) but I guess we'll
eventually have to put in place some sort of system that makes it
hard for a machine to automate (e.g. picture recognition) coupled
with perhaps email verification.

But each level only helps to push away slimers to other sites...

Regards,
    Martin

--
MBA, MSc Comp Sci
Melbourne Business School

  --- John DeBruyn <jdebruyn@...> wrote: > Hi Gene:
>
> Good to hear from you.  I heard the same about Ward and here is
> a story in
> one of the Seattle papers:
>
>
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html
>
> and the tinyURL should that wrap
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rqgt
>
> After you are out from under the 15th and have some R and R we
> will have to
> discuss the possibilities of wiki collaboration now that we are
> 7 years
> older and wiser.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene Prescott [mailto:PrescottG@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 8:22 AM
> To: 'WikiForum@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [WikiForum] WikiSpam alert
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Tho in the throes of tax season I recently discovered that
> "bridges" still
> exists.  Sort of amazing.  I also saw where Ward is now working
> at MS?
>
>
>
> What's new with you?
>
>
>
> Gene
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John DeBruyn [mailto:jdebruyn@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:09 AM
> To: WikiForum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [WikiForum] WikiSpam alert
>
>
>
> Hi Peter:
>
>
>
> How did your visitor get past your login/password routine?
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Thoeny [mailto:peter@...]
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: WikiForum List
> Subject: [WikiForum] WikiSpam alert
>
> Hi Wikiers,
>
> at TWiki.org we had WikiSpam three times, done by the
> same person/group (judging from the IP address). In
> total, around 200 pages have been spammed with a set
> of the same URLs, apparently to raise the Google ranking.
>
> You can read the details in
> http://TWiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/WikiSpam
>
> We have a solution for public TWiki sites: Install the
> BlackListPlugin that puts black sheep automatically
> on a ban-list on suspicious activities,
> http://TWiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Plugins/BlackListPlugin
>
> Now, this morning I got an e-mail, most likely from the
> person who spammed TWiki.org (same name, same IP
> subnet[2]), soliciting support for a Wiki he intends to
> setup. Beware in case you get contacted by that person!
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
> [1]
>   Received: from hasit (PPP-219.65.75.77.gngr.mum2.vsnl.net.in
> [219.65.75.77])
>         by relaymaster.rapidns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
> D076944F3C
>         for <peter@...>; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:46:22 -0400
> (EDT)
>   Message-ID: <010601c41f55$d17e19c0$2c4b41db@hasit>
>   From: "Hasit Ruparel" <hasit@...>
>   To: <peter@...>
>   Subject: help for new wiki
>
>
> - WikiForum is archived in http://c2.com/w2/wiki/RecentChanges
> - Unsubscribe in http://www.egroups.com/community/WikiForum
>
>
>
>
> - WikiForum is archived in http://c2.com/w2/wiki/RecentChanges
> - Unsubscribe in http://www.egroups.com/community/WikiForum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - WikiForum is archived in http://c2.com/w2/wiki/RecentChanges
> - Unsubscribe in http://www.egroups.com/community/WikiForum
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WikiForum/
>
>   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   WikiForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of Service.
>
>

=====
--
Martin@... (please don't reply to @yahoo)

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com

Hi Wikiers,

at TWiki.org we had WikiSpam three times, done by the
same person/group (judging from the IP address). In
total, around 200 pages have been spammed with a set
of the same URLs, apparently to raise the Google ranking.

You can read the details in
http://TWiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/WikiSpam

We have a solution for public TWiki sites: Install the
BlackListPlugin that puts black sheep automatically
on a ban-list on suspicious activities,
http://TWiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Plugins/BlackListPlugin

Now, this morning I got an e-mail, most likely from the
person who spammed TWiki.org (same name, same IP
subnet[2]), soliciting support for a Wiki he intends to
setup. Beware in case you get contacted by that person!

Regards,
Peter


[1]
   Received: from hasit (PPP-219.65.75.77.gngr.mum2.vsnl.net.in [219.65.75.77])
         by relaymaster.rapidns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D076944F3C
         for <peter@...>; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
   Message-ID: <010601c41f55$d17e19c0$2c4b41db@hasit>
   From: "Hasit Ruparel" <hasit@...>
   To: <peter@...>
   Subject: help for new wiki

I've given up on the term 'wiki'. I think it's been
destroyed. See:

     http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WhatIsaWiki

Comments?

SS

At 10:26 AM -0500 on 3/20/04, Sunir Shah typed:
>John Abbe wrote:
>>  Anyone know what makes a work sufficiently different that it becomes
>  > an original rather than a derivative work?
>
>The concept of original in copyright law is pretty loose,
>encompassing any creative act, no matter how small. But
>that isn't what you're asking. You're asking how much can
>I quote someone else in my work? I think if it is
>recognizable and believable by 12 of your peers that a
>section of your work was lifted from someone else's work,
>and not independently recreated, then you've copied it.

More precisely, i'm asking what happens with wiki-style editing. For
example, if i read something like this:

"FooBar is a useful pattern; it helped me realize i needed to split
our project team into two separate teams. --JillEomhcs"

"I also found FooBar helpful, i used it in our project to merge five
separate teams into two. --JoeSchmoe"

...and replace those by writing something like this:

"Sometimes FooBar tells you to create more teams, sometimes fewer teams."

...i'd see that as an original (non-derivative) work; by not signing
it the copyright goes (uneasily, until/unless i claim it) to the
publisher. But if i write something like this it's less clear:

"FooBar is a useful pattern; it can help you realize you need to
split your team up, or to merge separate teams into a smaller number
of teams."

If this is a derivative work, then by not signing it i've created the
impression that the copyright is held by the publisher, when in fact
it's held by JillEomhcs (and JoeSchmoe?).

With longer texts in wikis, something mostly rewritten often has
little sections that are verbatim or nearly so, which would arguably
make it a derivative work. The idea that to stay legally out of
trouble one must make sure when refactoring to *not* use (especially
well-written) existing bits really sucks. It inclines me away from
the default approach, toward declaring that submissions to NcddWiki
are giving a lot of rights.

>  > Can you point me to what in the Berne convention gives (even
>>  uncomfortably :) this right?
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/15.html

Thanks. I can see why you're uneasy. It sounds like the publisher
doesn't even have copyright, but is holding the copyright in trust
(or something like that) for the anonymous publisher. Anyone have
more clarity on this?

>  > I *still* have no clarity on what you mean by multilevel copyrights.
>>  Can you write a little something to help me on that?
>
>Because the copyright is liberalized, in the sense that
>it doesn't take many rights away from the authors, that
>means the authors can choose any copyright landscape
>they want. You just need to create the community
>expectations to do one thing or another. Thus, a wiki
>with the default copyright can have many bits of content
>that separately are
>
>* Protected by the default copyright
>* Public domain
>* Free for any use
>* Free for any use with accreditation
>* copyleft
>* Restricted (e.g. published papers)
>* Use for pay
>
>It can be as diverse and pluralistic as you want. It's
>totally open. This makes it more complicated, of course.

Okay, i see what you mean now. This would require tons of permission
tagging, which i don't see on Meatball. That doesn't mean that the
above situation isn't what's legally true, it's just very difficult
for a reader to know what they can legally do with which bits.

>  >>If I were you, I'd stick with the default copyright, and republish
>>material as more "open content" that you want to disseminate.
>>>The wiki is already open enough.
>
>>  Under the default copyright how can you republish material other than
>>  through the wiki?
>
>Think about FAQs and HOW-TOs. If you want to create FAQs
>for distribution, you will have to change the copyright
>of that page. So declare at the top of the page that all
>content on it will be copyrighted as free for distribution.

Well, if i were to start compiling a FAQ given what i know *now*, i'd
create a separate e-mail address just for the FAQ, and put a
prominent statement next to the address in the FAQ, saying: "By
sending me e-mail you agree for any material in it to be included in
this FAQ under the FAQ's current license, and any future license this
FAQ is released under."

>  > Does this relate to compilation copyright claims?
>
>I'm not so sure about my claim that we can republish anonymous
>text after the fact, since when we anonymize other people's
>text by stripping their signatures, we have already violated
>their copyright.

Right, this is one of the things i was getting at above. As far as i
can tell, standard wiki practice doesn't respect copyright's intent
in this manner. This is why i am (at this moment anyway :) leaning
away from the default approach, toward asserting that participants
are licensing us some particular rights when they submit. I suppose
one of those rights would be to anonymize what they submit.

>The MeatballWikiCopyright has always given us the right to
>republish any pages on the site. The sanity of doing this
>is questionable.

Ah, because: "you grant Meatball a non-exclusive perpetual
royalty-free universal license to ... distribute the content in a
compilation of selected Meatball content"

Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

> Anyone know what makes a work sufficiently different that it becomes
> an original rather than a derivative work?

The concept of original in copyright law is pretty loose,
encompassing any creative act, no matter how small. But
that isn't what you're asking. You're asking how much can
I quote someone else in my work? I think if it is
recognizable and believable by 12 of your peers that a
section of your work was lifted from someone else's work,
and not independently recreated, then you've copied it.

[anon.]
> Can you point me to what in the Berne convention gives (even
> uncomfortably :) this right?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/15.html

> I *still* have no clarity on what you mean by multilevel copyrights.
> Can you write a little something to help me on that?

Because the copyright is liberalized, in the sense that
it doesn't take many rights away from the authors, that
means the authors can choose any copyright landscape
they want. You just need to create the community
expectations to do one thing or another. Thus, a wiki
with the default copyright can have many bits of content
that separately are

* Protected by the default copyright
* Public domain
* Free for any use
* Free for any use with accreditation
* copyleft
* Restricted (e.g. published papers)
* Use for pay

It can be as diverse and pluralistic as you want. It's
totally open. This makes it more complicated, of course.

>>If I were you, I'd stick with the default copyright, and republish
>material as more "open content" that you want to disseminate.
>>The wiki is already open enough.

> Under the default copyright how can you republish material other than
> through the wiki?

Think about FAQs and HOW-TOs. If you want to create FAQs
for distribution, you will have to change the copyright
of that page. So declare at the top of the page that all
content on it will be copyrighted as free for distribution.

> Does this relate to compilation copyright claims?

I'm not so sure about my claim that we can republish anonymous
text after the fact, since when we anonymize other people's
text by stripping their signatures, we have already violated
their copyright.

The MeatballWikiCopyright has always given us the right to
republish any pages on the site. The sanity of doing this
is questionable.

SS

Anyone know what makes a work sufficiently different that it becomes
an original rather than a derivative work?

At 2:34 AM -0500 on 3/15/04, Sunir Shah typed:
>[Multilevel copyrights]
>>  Which are - that you claim copyright on the compilation but none of
>>  the particular material, yes? This differs from WardsWiki in that he
>>  claims copyright on unsigned material. Assuming i've got that right,
>>  why the difference?
>
>Actually, Meatball recently claims the copyright on unsigned
>material in the sense that the Berne convention gives us, but
>I don't really feel comfortable with using that without care.

Can you point me to what in the Berne convention gives (even
uncomfortably :) this right?

>I refer actually to the http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OpenAuthor notices,
>the http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PrimarilyPublicDomain badges,
>and http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWikiBasicsSnapshot.

I've looked at these a fair bit now. So, OpenAuthor and PPD are tags
people *could* put on what they write. Any text not so tagged is
submitted under whatever terms are declared in the wiki's copyright
statement. Your right do release a BasicsSnapshot looks like it
depends on the Berne convention rights to anonymous text above?

I *still* have no clarity on what you mean by multilevel copyrights.
Can you write a little something to help me on that?

>If I were you, I'd stick with the default copyright, and republish
>material as more "open content" that you want to disseminate.
>The wiki is already open enough.

Under the default copyright how can you republish material other than
through the wiki?

Does this relate to compilation copyright claims? I found Brad
Templeton's reference to this re r.f.h, but in that case he was the
compiler, and so held the compilation copyright. In the case of
wikis, it seems to me that compilation copyright would be held by
whichever participants were involved in changing names, moving text,
creating WikiNames out of non wiki name text, etc., unless the wiki's
copyright statement explicitly states that participants grant this to
the wiki administrators.

Do you have a different understanding, and if so, what?

Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

Danny writes,
> for interchange the conversion XHTML -> WikiText

Sorry, I've been up all night. I missed this part.
Yes, I saw your blog entry from before. I'm of the
mind to use as much of XHTML as possible as well.

SS

Danny writes,
> the best bet for Wiki interchange is XHTML over (RESTful) HTTP.

It'd be simpler to just use an <iframe> transcluding the
original source then. That way the data would always be
current. Really nice wikis will give you a naked wiki to
transclude:

     http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?NakedWiki

SS

Sunir Shah wrote:

>I've greatly updated the dusty WikiSyntax list with a view
>towards a wiki parser model and then a wiki interchange format
>by the end of the year. Please feel free to add anything and
>everything to the site. Best practices would be appreciated,
>including algorithms (e.g. how to compute numbered headings
>efficiently, etc.), syntaxes, and other useful hints on what
>to do.
>
>
>
fyi, there've been discussions on the Interwiki list [1] regarding
interchange, the following is my own personal take on these.

IMHO the best bet for Wiki interchange is XHTML over (RESTful) HTTP. All
Wikis currently have something approaching WikiText -> XHTML conversion,
for the normal rendering of their pages. As most Wikis use WikiText
format in their backend store, for interchange the conversion XHTML ->
WikiText would also be required. For this purpose I put together the
following stylesheet :


  > (little subset of) XHTML -> XSLT -> (little subset of) MoinText

First (rough!) pass at :

http://dannyayers.com/2004/03/interwiki/moin.xsl

Sample input:
http://dannyayers.com/2004/03/interwiki/xhtml.xml

Sample output:
http://dannyayers.com/2004/03/interwiki/wiki.txt

blogged:
http://dannyayers.com/archives/002321.html

The stylesheet (so far) came out remarkably self-explanatory - I think once
we get one of these right for e.g. Moin, it should be pretty easy for other
Wiki users to port it. Wiring up the XSLT engine is another matter of
course...

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/interwiki-discuss

I've greatly updated the dusty WikiSyntax list with a view
towards a wiki parser model and then a wiki interchange format
by the end of the year. Please feel free to add anything and
everything to the site. Best practices would be appreciated,
including algorithms (e.g. how to compute numbered headings
efficiently, etc.), syntaxes, and other useful hints on what
to do.

     http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiSyntax

SS

(too many f'ing mailing lists, not enough sleep...sorry)

Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

I feel jealous. Hm, need, need...?

(fifteen minutes later)

Companionship, actually companionship and meaning combined
together...now the jealousy mutates to simple frustration (i won't
get my needs met by you not having the group). So have fun, knowing
it's happening meets my need for inspiration!

Life,
John

At 8:38 PM +0000 on 3/11/04, (I)An-ok Ta Chai typed:
>NVC for Social Change Practice Group
>Sunday, Apr 4, and Sunday, Apr 25, 2PM - 5PM, BayNVC office.
>
>With Miki Kashtan
>
>We will gather to explore various themes about the application of NVC
>to social change...

--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

That last part i wrote seemed completely opaque when i read it over
so let me try again:


Some people think a proprietary license indicates you will use the
law to keep anybody from using your intellectual "property", either
to maximize profit or because you're just insecure. The same folks
are likely to see an open/free license as a declaration that you want
to work with others.

Other people think a proprietary license is for making clear that
you'd prefer people check with you before doing something derived
from your work; you're likely to say yes, and you're not likely to
spend time & energy chasing down people who don't ask. The same folks
are likely to see an open/free license as just asking for trouble.


Does this make sense to y'all?


I don't really give a hoot about the license. I want others to be
able to make use of the work NcddWiki participants have done and will
be doing, *and* i'd like to know what they're doing with it, all in a
fun, friendly, working/playing-together sense. Whether we choose a
proprietary or a free/open license, i think we can express that
sentiment. And likely some people won't get that, no matter what we
do.


The other folks involved seem likely to choose a Creative Commons
license that allows sharing (non-viral) but no commercial usage. Can
anyone say why this might be a bad idea?

Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

Meatball has a multilevel copyright scheme. We begin by
making minimal claims. Each page can then have a particular
copyright if that's deemed necessary. So, for pages we want
to publish to the outside world, we can simply say the page
is free for use. This works well since a lot of pages that
are under discussion are not suitable for wider dissemination.

Wikipedia has this problem constantly, where they are afraid
someone will take the latest version of an article as given,
so they have created a lot of hard security and bureaucracy
to control the chaos or wabi sabi nature of an open wikis
(which is the wrong answer). If you don't publish everything,
then you don't have pressure to fix things too quickly.

Copyleft is the worst of all worlds, of course, and you
will regret whatever copyleft license you choose since
they are too complicated and incompatible and politically
charged. Pick an open license that is really dead simple
if you must pick one at all.

You really don't want to include people who see the
government as a hard-edged, coercive force as these
people aren't, shall we say, people people.

SS

-----Original Message-----
From: John Abbe [mailto:johnca@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:45 AM
To: WikiForum
Subject: [WikiForum] Copyright - why not go free/open?


We're very close to going public with the National Coalition for
Dialogue & Deliberation wiki (no, really :) ; the biggest remaining
non-tech issue is copyright. I see two approaches:

Claim as little copyright as necessary to be functional - WardsWiki,
Meatball.

Inform users they are submitting their words under some free/open
license - WikiPedia, CommunityWiki. (Let's leave aside
viral/non-viral for now.)

At NCDD we want this work to be as widely available as possible. The
reasons i can think of for not going the free/open route:

People's default expectations are probably closer to the first
approach. A big bold sign on the edit page would seem to address this
reasonably well.

Some people may not want to contribute at all if their work is going
to become quasi-public domain. But wouldn't those generally be the
same people who don't want to contribute if their work is going to be
editable?


Help! Why not go free/open?


I'm beginning to think that people's response to this issue has to do
mostly with how they see law in general. If they see it as a purely
coercive, hard-edged thing then not going free/open is supporting
domination and violence. If they see it as (small l) liberal,
community agreement (which perhaps unfortunately is often backed up
by coercion & violence), then not going free/open is just making a
strong request that one be kept informed what's happening with one's
work.

After all, without a free/open license anyone is still free to ask us
for permission to use material; and even with a free/open license i'd
include a request that people let us know what they're doing with it.

Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood


- WikiForum is archived in http://c2.com/w2/wiki/RecentChanges
- Unsubscribe in http://www.egroups.com/community/WikiForum

Yahoo! Groups Links

We're very close to going public with the National Coalition for
Dialogue & Deliberation wiki (no, really :) ; the biggest remaining
non-tech issue is copyright. I see two approaches:

Claim as little copyright as necessary to be functional - WardsWiki, Meatball.

Inform users they are submitting their words under some free/open
license - WikiPedia, CommunityWiki. (Let's leave aside
viral/non-viral for now.)

At NCDD we want this work to be as widely available as possible. The
reasons i can think of for not going the free/open route:

People's default expectations are probably closer to the first
approach. A big bold sign on the edit page would seem to address this
reasonably well.

Some people may not want to contribute at all if their work is going
to become quasi-public domain. But wouldn't those generally be the
same people who don't want to contribute if their work is going to be
editable?


Help! Why not go free/open?


I'm beginning to think that people's response to this issue has to do
mostly with how they see law in general. If they see it as a purely
coercive, hard-edged thing then not going free/open is supporting
domination and violence. If they see it as (small l) liberal,
community agreement (which perhaps unfortunately is often backed up
by coercion & violence), then not going free/open is just making a
strong request that one be kept informed what's happening with one's
work.

After all, without a free/open license anyone is still free to ask us
for permission to use material; and even with a free/open license i'd
include a request that people let us know what they're doing with it.

Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood

Porter235 wrote:
> If you don't want the handbook editable, don't put it in the wiki.

The handbook has to be editable, but not by everyone, even if everyone
should be able to leave comments.

cu, Sascha

--
Sascha Carlin * Heinrich-Heine-Str. 1 * 64319 Pfungstadt
http://www.itst.org/         **         +49 6157 157 205

Hi!

Tiki CMS/Groupware is very well suited for what you describe. Tiki can
use many databases (including mysql) thanks the ADOdb abstraction layer.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/tiki/

Tiki offers comments below the wiki page. The comments are threaded.
Alternatively, you can also activate "discuss this page". In which case,
users are can discuss this page in the forums.
http://tikiwiki.org/CommentDoc

Groups & permissions are very flexible. You could have one group of
people only allowed to comment whilst another could also edit the wiki
pages. http://tikiwiki.org/PermissionAdmin

Tiki also offers structures which permits you to order the pages into a
book with table of content. http://tikiwiki.org/StructureDoc

You can also upload images. You can also use the JgraphPad drawing
applet to edit illustrations. Ex.: This can be useful to add notes &
diagrams to a screenshots. http://tikiwiki.org/JgraphPadDoc

We have just released version 1.7.6  Version 1.8.1 will be out any day now.

Best regards,

M ;-)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/                                                                /
/ Marc Laporte       <|>                  http://marclaporte.com /
/ Avantech.net       <|>                     http://avantech.net /
/ Tiki CMS/Groupware <|> http://tikiwiki.org/UserPagemarclaporte /
/                                                                /
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Sascha Carlin wrote:

> Hi all ;)
>
> I am looking for a WikiEngine, preferably a PHP/MySql-based one, that
> has the ability to comment on WikiPages. I know, that sound odd. Let me
> explain.
>
> The Wiki will be an online version of a printed handbook. Users should
> be able to 'comment' to pages, e. g. ask questions, discuss issues, ...
> These comments must not be part of the WikiPage. The handbook's content
> must not be altered when commenting.
>
> I know of one WikiEngine that does this, WakkaWiki [1]. Is this really
> the only WikiEngine with this ablility?
>
> cu, Sascha
>
> PS: PHP/MySql would be great, but I will not turn down a Perl solution
> if there is any.
>
> [1] http://www.wakkawiki.com/
>
>
> - WikiForum is archived in http://c2.com/w2/wiki/RecentChanges
> - Unsubscribe in http://www.egroups.com/community/WikiForum
>
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WikiForum/
>
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       WikiForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:WikiForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

>>The Wiki will be an online version of a printed handbook. Users should
>>
>>
>>be able to 'comment' to pages, e. g. ask questions, discuss issues, ...
>>
>>
>>These comments must not be part of the WikiPage. The handbook's content
>>
>>
>>must not be altered when commenting.
>>
>>

Why not have the handbook as static (normal nonWiki) pages, which in the
footer has a link to comment on this page. This link then takes the user
to a wiki site, and the appropriate page for commenting on the
particular page. If you don't want the handbook editable, don't put it
in the wiki.

At 10:35 PM +0100 on 3/11/04, Sascha Carlin typed:
>I am looking for a WikiEngine, preferably a PHP/MySql-based one, that
>has the ability to comment on WikiPages. I know, that sound odd. Let me
>explain.
>
>The Wiki will be an online version of a printed handbook. Users should
>be able to 'comment' to pages, e. g. ask questions, discuss issues, ...
>These comments must not be part of the WikiPage. The handbook's content
>must not be altered when commenting.
>
>I know of one WikiEngine that does this, WakkaWiki [1]. Is this really
>the only WikiEngine with this ablility?

I don't know of any others.

The reason this is so rare is because many folks see this as a
strength of wiki - the question or comment goes exactly where it's
relevant, and the resulting messiness puts the pressure on others to
answer the question or incorporate the comment into the flow of text.

Not trying to convince you to do it this way, just answering the
inherent question of why off-page commenting isn't a more common
feature.

Happy wikiing! Life,
John
--
   All you  /\/\ John Abbe           "Faith is not belief without proof,
       need \  / CatHerder            but trust without reservation."
       is... \/  http://ourpla.net/john/             --Elton Trueblood