Wikipedia talk:Press releases/February 2004

Umm. Whats the relationship between this page and the Meta 'pedia's page? Should we change the other one if we change this one? Perl 01:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia version. The Meta one was for finding wording that we could all agree on. That version was available for translation by other languages and adaptation by en.wiki. The Meta version is now (mostly) obsolete as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. But other languages need to check it and update their versions. --mav 01:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this part:

Presently, fewer than one hundred articles in the English version of Wikipedia have their neutrality disputed by other participants in the project.

This was true in August, but is it true now? --mav 01:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i dont know. Perl 02:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are certainly more than a hundred articles linking to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute (see [1]). I don't know how many exactly - I stopped counting at 110, and I was barely halfway through the list (I didn't count user and talk pages). --Camembert

OK - sentence removed. Thanks. --mav

I just processed the list, and excluding talk:, wikipedia:, User:, etc., there were 171 items (=articles) listed. Tomos 16:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

eo and fr

What's the difference between the eo and fr links at the top of the article and the standard inter-language links? --Spikey 03:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For some reason their versions of the press release are on Meta. I have no idea why they would do that. --mav 03:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

public domain

I find the last sentence a bit confusing: "Unlike the rest of Wikimedia's content, the text of this press release is placed into the public domain." given the earlier statement that "All Wikimedia content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which permits anyone to reuse Wikimedia content in any way they wish, etc". Perhaps add to the first sentence: ", thus can be used in any way without referring to the source" or something like that Erik Zachte 13:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, since it is public domain, it can also be used under the GFDL as well, so it is effectively available under the GFDL as well. Link to previous comment about public domain.. Jrincayc 19:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wednesday release?

Why are we waiting until Februrary 25 to release it since it hit 500,000 on feb 22? Jrincayc 22:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To give more time for other languages to draft their version, more time to finish this version, more time to finish Main Page/Test, and more time for the developers to batten down the hatches. This should spare the servers from much strain (each language version is going to choose its own release day - some are releasing now, others are waiting). --mav 22:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

number of edits and different writers

Should this be changed to indicate how many individuals edited on the English wikipedia? Perl 22:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not? I'm already counted though. --mav

The Hook Up Front

I would like to see the word collaborative in the firsts couple of sentences. This is what in the public relations business is called the "hook". It is the reason people might be interested in the story, and the reason news directers might play it. Without the hook clearly explained somewhere in the first two sentences (most press releases are not read beyond the second sentence), this is just another promotional product release, of which media outlets get dozens each day. I know it talks about "all volunteer", and this is good, but it is not enough. First we have to convince them to read the release and run the story, then we provide all the details. mydogategodshat 15:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good point. It really should put collaborative up front. Also, I moved down the mention of the new front page, since it's still being debated, and not final. Also, not sure there's any consensus it was created in "celebration" of anything. When is the press release considered "final"? Fuzheado 16:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. As far as I am concerned this press release can be distributed but won't be in a hard freeze or listed on the Main Page until the 25th actually arrives (UTC). --mav 16:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it is very good. Kudos to all contributors. Before I came to this talk page, the quibble I had was with the last sentence "Unlike the rest of WIkipedia..." and I noticed another user has queried it too. I think it is dangerous because readers are likely to NOT read the whole thing, but are likely to read the first and last bits (its just what skim readers do). Particularly in this context, I think the last line is confusing more than anything else. Remove it unless editors specifically need to know that the text is PD, which they probably don't as press releases are quoted extensively every day of the week without anyone saying anything explicit about permissions. As Mydogategodshat says above, historically the hook for Wikipedia has been collaboration, not copyrights, and I don't see this changing tomorrow. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The PD note is needed so that this text can be adapted into news articles, just not quoted as a press release. It says Wikimedia, BTW. --mav

Given that a PD notice is required, I believe simply saying The text of this press release is placed into the public domain instead of Unlike the rest of Wikimedia's content, the text of this press release is placed into the public domain. would be better. The made with the opening clause is too subtle, IMO. At the first reading it says "we don't normally let people use our stuff, but we are this time." when in fact it means "we care a lot that people can use our stuff and indeed we use a special licence so that people can use it." So we are at risk of appearing to say the opposite what we mean. Am I worrying too much? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That does make sense. But I took a nap and woke up after the 25th had arrived. The press release is in hard freeze right now... --mav

P.S. Wrist duly slapped, re p instead of m!

To hell with it - I made the change. --mav

Nitpicking

I think the commas and the end at the end of the first list should be removed (or, less preferred, add them to the second list to make them uniform). Dori | Talk 17:31, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'll take them out.--mav

Fuzheado beat you to it :) I also got a conflict with him on changing frontpage -> front page (exact same subject header too). I think Wikipedia has indoctrinated us to think alike. Dori | Talk 17:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Nitpicking mindshare! We're obviously doing something right. :) Fuzheado 17:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mention change history?

A brief mention of change history and logging might be a nice way to pre-answer some vandal vulnerability and quality objections - it's mentioned that people keep a watchful eye, but doesn't make clear that every change is logged and tracked, and so momentary lack of watchfulness is not a disaster. Dunno how to phrase sufficiently succinctly though. Stan 18:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good point - change made in footer. --mav

Please add link to esperanto :[[eo:Vikipedio:Dua gazetara komuniko]]. Thanks Arno Lagrange 10:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. --mav

All Wikimedia content is free?

All Wikimedia content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which permits anyone to reuse Wikimedia content in any way they wish [...]

IMHO this is not correct. Unfortunately we have some content which is not free in the GFDL sense. For example all "fair use" images aren't. -- mkrohn 17:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So we should strip all fair use quotations from Wikipedia? That's absurd. --mav 20:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't wrote anything about removing content. But perhaps you or someone else should correct the above statement in the press release. Perhaps something like "Almost all Wikipedia content is available ..." -- mkrohn 21:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All Wikimedia content is available under terms of the GNU FDL. Fair use materials like quotations and low res images are not Wikimedia content. --mav

Omission

Since this mentions the sister projects, it should also indicate their size. After all the English Wiktionary already has the third largest number of articles. Eclecticology 17:48, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Interlinks

May you remove the interlinks? They're all on Wikidata now, and some of them were also wrong. Thank you. --Horcrux92 (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)