Search This Blog

Sunday, January 14, 2007

From the networked goods, services and their markets to netliving

I substitute the word "networked" for the word "netliving' because markets mean consumption, but not only it. If to include market and get the wholeness, customers could assist in production, sales, marketing, development, etc.

A quote from Technologies And Tasks In The Publishing Industry:

"Is there a financial promoter of the Bank AA in the forum that can help me? I need some information about a new bank account for trading. I have already contacted the call center and I have asked few trivial questions, but if you ask something which is different from the standard, the operators are completely unable to request."

Why not give customer the direct access to those who may really know answers – the developers, for instance (see the framework)? Too many stupid questions from the customers? But maybe it’s a signal that your descriptions of goods and services require corrections? They (customers) might assist you – to be co-developers. Are you ready to share your profit?

Another sociology can be – you should not separate/categorize people (investors, employees, customers). Right now I’m a customer, 30 minutes later I’m a co-developer.

There are the evidences that things go this direction:

Good example is FON + Skype.

Bad example (from my experience) is Wikipedia governance (a transcript without formatting is below). It was discussed among Knowledge Persons.

But these models have the centralized parts (Skype, as far as I know, is a result of investing).

Can it be differently (I mean the completely dispersed model, where parts are changeable to sustain - netliving)? I don’t yet know. What can you say?

The transcript:

"[edit] Deleted content

You are talking about the links, but have deleted my definition of knowledge that was veryfied by the scientific community at knowledgeboard.com. Why and what's the reason?

Nikolay

In reply to:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Knowledge. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (talk to me) 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikolay Kryachkov (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Ah. That was because:
The text was copyrighted material, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (unless there are fair-use rationales, which does not apply here).
The links were removed because they didn't contain any more information about knowledge itself, just about a project. I am not commenting on the site itself, merely whether it should be added to Knowledge. Veinor (talk to me) 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m copyright holder and can’t republish my content on wikipedia? I would like to understand.

You said: "I am not commenting on the site itself, merely whether it should be added to Knowledge".

Who decides?

Nikolay

Any content put on Wikipedia automatically goes under GFDL. You'd have to prove that you're the author and that you're releasing copyright. Otherwise, the Wikimedia Foundation could get in large amounts of legal trouble due to copyright violations.
As for your second question, the community, generally. I'm not saying I have absolute power (I'm not even an admin, despite what some people think), but you need to prove that it should be added. I honestly can't see any way to do so; it doesn't provide any additional information on knowledge and it's not any sort of official site. Veinor (talk to me) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor: "You'd have to prove that you're the author and that you're releasing copyright".

According to what? I think you must prove that I’m not author, if you state it (but why?). But you deleted the link to the content source (my website with my name as author/copyright holder) and content.

Veinor: "I honestly can't see any way to do so; it doesn't provide any additional information on knowledge ...".

Are you expert on 'knowledge' or censor? What the reason to prove to you?

Nikolay

The Wikipedia copyright policy is located at WP:COPYRIGHT. And you need to prove that you are the author per that policy. As for the appropriateness of the link, I think I misread what it is at first (the English is not very clear). I think that it's actually a method for getting organized (for arranging your information), is that correct? In any case, however, the link to knowledgeperson.com appears to fall under WP:SPAM (the sole purpose seems to be to sell things) and the blog and Google Groups link fall under WP:EL for being a blog and a forum, respectively. Veinor (talk to me) 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me a quotation from your policy page that I need to prove that I’m the author? I did not find such an obligation/need.

If you suspect that I'm a thief, do prove that. If otherwise it's a blatant slander (1. a false and damaging statement about a person; 2. the crime of making such a statement).

I did not give the link to the product page. It was the link to the content source knowledgeperson.com/from_what.html

The links to my blog and google group were made because they have relevant detailed content.

Wikipedia, for example, has content about KPMG with the link to kpmg.com and what from that? Nikolay Kryachkov 06:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't quote policy to prove that you need to be the author because it's copyright law and common sense. You can't give away other people's property without their possession; similarly, you can't release other people's copyrights. All I am saying is that you haven't given me proof that you are who you say you are. And you linked to both knowledgeperson.com/from_what.html and knowledgeperson.com (the latter in the External Links section). The reason KPMG links to kpmg.com is that it is the official site of KPMG. Even though it is probably not the best source for information on the company itself, WP:EL gives exceptions for official sites. Veinor (talk to me) 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My question was about: "a quotation from your policy page that I need to prove that I’m the author", not about that I need to be the author (your: "I can't quote policy to prove that you need to be the author because it's copyright law and common sense").

Of course I need to be the author and I am the author.

You started from the statement that my links were inappropriate and then substituted the subject: "All I am saying is that you haven't given me proof that you are who you say you are".

If your job is to check author’s identity (in this case that I’m Nikolay Kryachkov and the author of my content), do it yourself, but don’t waste my time. Proving my identity is not my obligation (you did not give me any legal reason for that).

KnowledgePerson.com is my official project.

And now give me your real name, your employer contact data. I’ll think about the legal steps. Nikolay Kryachkov 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to prove that you're the author because, if your claims are taken as true, you aren't the author, and the REAL author recognizes the copyright violation, the Wikimedia Foundation could get in a large amount of trouble for hosting copyright violation. And it isn't my job to prove that you're the author; I have no way of doing so. And it isn't your obligation either unless you want the removed content on Wikipedia. Finally, do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. And I will not give you my contact information for privacy reasons. Veinor (talk to me) 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Your: "it isn't my job to prove that you're the author". No, YOU must prove that I’m NOT the author, if you state this. There is a presumption of innocence and YOU violate this presumption. It’s the fact. And keep your hypothetical trouble with you.

2. I did not ask YOUR contact information. I asked your employer contact information.

3. It’s impossible to make LEGAL threat. I said: "I’ll think about the legal steps".

4. According to this from your private message to me: "Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them" I can say – don’t connect YOUR doings with users.

5. I know you can block my account as you have said me privately. It is really threat (a declaration of an intention to inflict harm).

6. You're making Wikipedia reputation with your "customer service".Nikolay Kryachkov 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Ok, how about you prove that I'm not the author so that anyone else can verify that proof? And why are you so averse to proving you are who you say you are? I'm not familiar with the procedure myself, but I don't imagine it would be that complicated.

2. If you knew my name and employer contact data, you would be able to find me.

3. Well, I thought you meant that you'd think about the legal steps you'd take against me. What did you mean, then?

4. What the statement means is that your statement could lead people to believe that you're considering taking action against me outside of Wikipedia.

5. I can't block my account; I can only request for an admin to look at the situation. I am not an admin. Note the difference between "you will be blocked" and "I will block you".

6. How so? I doubt people will judge Wikipedia based on me alone. Veinor (talk to me) 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. As I have said there is presumption of innocence and I have rights.

2. I noticed you’re in subjunctive mood.

3. Legal steps.

4. You probably have nothing to do.

5. No difference because of a chain of actions.

6. That means you have violated my right.Nikolay Kryachkov 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Which one of those is a reply to which? Veinor (talk to me) 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)"

2 comments:

Chris said...

If you put a statement on your website that the text is released under GFDL license, then Wikipedia should have no trouble accepting it. Text released under GFDL should be postable on Wikipedia, and only the website author/owner (you, in this case) should be able to put that release on the website page.

I am not a Wikipedia representative, but I don't see how they could argue with anything I've said.

Of course if your website has a copyright notice without a GFDL release, then they should not accept text from it.

Chris

Nikolay Kryachkov said...

But why should I (copyright holder) use some licenses at my website in order to be able to put my content somewhere else? Wikipedia uses GFDL, another website uses something else and if I put my content on these sites, this means that I agree with their licenses. Those person from Wikipedia said: "Any content put on Wikipedia automatically goes under GFDL".

Please notice, the problem was that I have to prove Wikipedia that I’m the author of my content (not a thief).