#sw-meeting [2:22:46p 1/9/10] !logon [2:22:47p 1/9/10] not ~ [2:22:56p 1/9/10] Welcome to the promptly started meeting. [2:23:00p 1/9/10] Let's begin immediately. [2:23:03p 1/9/10] First topic, [2:23:07p 1/9/10] external image policy [2:23:13p 1/9/10] How we doin? [2:23:38p 1/9/10] to begin i'd like to make sure it's recorded that by default all our images are used undder fair use [2:23:46p 1/9/10] they are not GFDL or CC-BY-SA like our guide pages [2:23:57p 1/9/10] unless they're tagged with a different license [2:24:07p 1/9/10] totally need to allow images from goatse.cz... er, um... I'd prefer not to have /too/ many exceptions to external images. Like, dynamic maps and such are a no-brainer, but there should be a reason why it's necessary [2:24:08p 1/9/10] Has that come up as an issue? [2:24:20p 1/9/10] not significantly [2:24:23p 1/9/10] but it has [2:24:25p 1/9/10] for example [2:24:31p 1/9/10] if someone wants to borrow images from us [2:24:36p 1/9/10] they have to go to the original author [2:24:42p 1/9/10] can't get permission from "the site" [2:24:47p 1/9/10] ex. control images [2:25:07p 1/9/10] and if we upload images from another site under fair use [2:25:13p 1/9/10] so we've made it infeasible for people to steal content from us legally, sounds good to me [2:25:31p 1/9/10] for example an image that has a copyright notice on it [2:25:35p 1/9/10] we can't really take that off [2:25:42p 1/9/10] though [2:25:49p 1/9/10] i'm a bit fuzzy on that note [2:25:56p 1/9/10] hmm... [2:26:07p 1/9/10] watermarked images aren't used on SW anyway. [2:26:10p 1/9/10] right [2:26:18p 1/9/10] but for example a hand drawn map [2:26:23p 1/9/10] with notes and copyright notices on it [2:26:34p 1/9/10] I believe we've allowed these in the past [2:26:52p 1/9/10] Where? [2:26:52p 1/9/10] karlcsr or w/e his name was [2:26:57p 1/9/10] oooh... [2:27:00p 1/9/10] it would be somewhat irresponsible for us to remove the notice and change the "owner" [2:27:04p 1/9/10] or was that a special exception? [2:27:30p 1/9/10] i think we're going to have to consider it on a case by case basis from now on [2:27:36p 1/9/10] it's just something to be aware of [2:27:43p 1/9/10] oh, maybe not him [2:27:57p 1/9/10] you're thinking of the NESMaps guy maybe [2:28:34p 1/9/10] yeah [2:28:40p 1/9/10] i was actually thinking of gf /console/ps2/file/919902/51144 [2:28:59p 1/9/10] was thinking of including it in the guide i was working on [2:30:16p 1/9/10] unless the author has specified otherwise I would think uploads like that are intended for GameFAQs only. [2:30:49p 1/9/10] Well, [2:30:54p 1/9/10] what if Prod asked for permission? [2:30:55p 1/9/10] no harm in contacting the author to get permission [2:30:57p 1/9/10] If it's granted, [2:31:03p 1/9/10] how is that identified on the file? [2:31:11p 1/9/10] Oh, no, wait, [2:31:13p 1/9/10] I'd put the convo on the talk page [2:31:16p 1/9/10] even if we get permission to post it locally, they wouldn't have to give up any further control by making it gfdl/cc [2:31:18p 1/9/10] you were going to link to it externally? [2:31:37p 1/9/10] it would have to be uploaded as is, unless we get permission to modify it [2:32:09p 1/9/10] post a notice that it's used at strategywiki under permission from the original author, post said permission on talk page and link to it [2:32:14p 1/9/10] at least, that's what I would do [2:32:30p 1/9/10] OK. Then purely out of curiosity, [2:32:38p 1/9/10] how does this relate to the external image discussion? [2:32:59p 1/9/10] it was mentioned in the thread :) [2:33:05p 1/9/10] as for the policy itself [2:33:11p 1/9/10] Oh, wait... [2:33:20p 1/9/10] Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong discussion. [2:33:34p 1/9/10] We're not talking about linking to external images? [2:34:24p 1/9/10] no, uploading them locally. [2:34:32p 1/9/10] both [2:34:34p 1/9/10] ok, I understand, [2:34:50p 1/9/10] i just want to make sure that point is understood by at least a few of the sysops [2:35:01p 1/9/10] so that misinformation isn't spread further [2:35:13p 1/9/10] anywayz, back to the policy discussion [2:35:26p 1/9/10] how should we have discussions of new entries in the whitelist brought up? [2:36:02p 1/9/10] Personally, I'm not sure. [2:36:05p 1/9/10] I'm thinking that any new sites should be brought up on the Staff Lounge [2:36:12p 1/9/10] I can't see a real need for new whitelist entries. [2:36:15p 1/9/10] and they're discussed there [2:36:26p 1/9/10] if something isn't allowed to be uploaded locally you probably shouldn't be hotlinking it either. [2:36:30p 1/9/10] the only one i can think of right now is the gdna site [2:36:37p 1/9/10] for signatures [2:37:01p 1/9/10] and maybe xbox and ps3 sites as well [2:37:14p 1/9/10] (depending on if they have signature files as well) [2:37:21p 1/9/10] mygamercard.net et al. [2:37:32p 1/9/10] is that official xbox? [2:37:40p 1/9/10] or rather, official MS [2:38:08p 1/9/10] no [2:38:22p 1/9/10] but it's the most popular and allows (even encourages) hotlinking. [2:38:38p 1/9/10] so discussions about specific sites we'd have to bring up on the staff lounge [2:38:46p 1/9/10] i'll add a note to the talk page of the whitelist page linking back [2:38:55p 1/9/10] ok [2:39:51p 1/9/10] the general policy so far will be that we only allow sites that we will potentially host large numbers of files from [2:40:08p 1/9/10] and that don't mind hotlinking [2:40:31p 1/9/10] Sounds about right. [2:40:52p 1/9/10] ok then, [2:41:04p 1/9/10] lets move on to the next topic [2:41:12p 1/9/10] i will post the resolution and archive that topic [2:41:19p 1/9/10] Roadmap to adminship. [2:41:33p 1/9/10] Skiz mentioned that the wiki software has improved to make this issue less of a problem. [2:41:59p 1/9/10] ...? [2:42:34p 1/9/10] anybody? [2:42:41p 1/9/10] Bueller? [2:43:15p 1/9/10] i propose we dont' bother with a roadmap [2:43:16p 1/9/10] although the linked thread brings up another point: [2:43:16p 1/9/10] allowing rollbackers to see unpatrolled edits [2:43:16p 1/9/10] What is the issue behind that? [2:43:16p 1/9/10] I stated that it was impossible back when I replied, but that was version 1.14... in either 1.15 or the new alpha (1.16), not sure which, a new permission was added that lets people see what is patrolled/unpatrolled without actually being able to patrol them [2:43:17p 1/9/10] so now that the technology is available (or soon will be), we should evaluate if this would be worthwhile [2:44:38p 1/9/10] I also think the roadmap is a bad idea, but this issue could be pursued a bit more [2:46:03p 1/9/10] Hmm... [2:46:08p 1/9/10] OK, we're floundering a bit here. [2:46:14p 1/9/10] anyone for roadmap? [2:46:28p 1/9/10] I think we're all on the same page, [2:46:39p 1/9/10] ie. we just let people nominate others for whatever position, without worrying about previous permissions [2:46:41p 1/9/10] I'm against having a set roadmap beyond the current policy [2:46:42p 1/9/10] the issue doesn't come up frequently enough for an official policy at this point. [2:46:48p 1/9/10] ok [2:46:51p 1/9/10] We can discuss each user on an individual basis. [2:46:58p 1/9/10] We're still small enough to do that. [2:47:01p 1/9/10] so then on the issue of giving rollbackers access to see what's not patrolled [2:47:04p 1/9/10] what is the benefit? [2:47:30p 1/9/10] Well, they won't waste their time on something that a sysop has already approved. [2:47:31p 1/9/10] a potential pro is that it would allow them to focus their efforts on what hasn't been looked at yet [2:47:53p 1/9/10] except it still creates the exact same amount of work for sysops since we still have to go back and patrol it [2:48:01p 1/9/10] that sounds fine to me [2:48:25p 1/9/10] definately sounds like it would be helpful [2:48:28p 1/9/10] indeed [2:48:43p 1/9/10] shall we go ahead with it? [2:48:44p 1/9/10] again, not sure which version of mw it is, but if we just enable it next time we update, that won't be an issue anyway [2:48:46p 1/9/10] I agree. [2:49:25p 1/9/10] anyone against? [2:49:30p 1/9/10] any further discussion? [2:49:40p 1/9/10] not in 1.15, so it would have to be done next time we upgrade [2:49:49p 1/9/10] we can put in the parameter now [2:49:54p 1/9/10] and it'll be fixed whenever we update [2:50:00p 1/9/10] it's called 'patrolmarks' [2:50:34p 1/9/10] $wgGroupPermissions['rollback' ]['patrolmarks'] = true; [2:50:37p 1/9/10] yeah [2:50:54p 1/9/10] done [2:50:58p 1/9/10] so, next topic? [2:52:11p 1/9/10] i've posted that it's done in the topic [2:52:14p 1/9/10] and i'll archive that now [2:53:16p 1/9/10] Deleted guide requests [2:54:11p 1/9/10] delete requested guides :P [2:54:47p 1/9/10] i'm proposing we delete the page and get rid of any links to it [2:54:49p 1/9/10] Er... [2:54:51p 1/9/10] no point in "archiving" it [2:54:57p 1/9/10] Wait, in all seriousness, [2:55:14p 1/9/10] isn't that semantics? Or are they really two different things? [2:56:31p 1/9/10] so anyone want to keep the page? [2:56:45p 1/9/10] Is that page a page where people go to request that certain guides be deleted? [2:56:51p 1/9/10] no [2:56:59p 1/9/10] Or is it just a repository for past deletion requests? [2:56:59p 1/9/10] that page is for people to request a new guide they want worked on [2:57:07p 1/9/10] http://strategywiki.org/wiki/StrategyWiki:Requested_guides [2:57:09p 1/9/10] Ooooooooooooooooh [2:57:21p 1/9/10] OK [2:57:28p 1/9/10] I don't see it as a terrible page, [2:57:37p 1/9/10] but unfortunately, it's also not terrible useful :( [2:57:51p 1/9/10] i don't think it's useful at all [2:58:01p 1/9/10] and may give people false hope for no reason [2:58:41p 1/9/10] anyone want to state their position for or against? [2:58:50p 1/9/10] anyone else * [2:59:04p 1/9/10] hmm... [2:59:15p 1/9/10] I don't have a strong opinion about this page. [2:59:20p 1/9/10] I suppose if I were pressed, [2:59:20p 1/9/10] I've never used the page, so no opinion [2:59:29p 1/9/10] I'd support your choice for deletion. [2:59:38p 1/9/10] Garrett? [2:59:41p 1/9/10] Arrow? [2:59:55p 1/9/10] me and procyon alone isn't concensus >_> [3:00:15p 1/9/10] well [3:00:20p 1/9/10] sigma 7 is also in agreement [3:00:32p 1/9/10] and trevman [3:00:51p 1/9/10] Lol [3:00:55p 1/9/10] -Arrow- looks. [3:01:11p 1/9/10] I honestly don't really care for that page. [3:01:16p 1/9/10] I'd say go ahead and take it out. [3:01:24p 1/9/10] I'll jump on whichever bandwagon is progressing along the farthest, which looks like "delete it" [3:01:41p 1/9/10] as we haven't heard anything against it [3:01:45p 1/9/10] it'll be deleted... [3:02:15p 1/9/10] ok :) [3:02:23p 1/9/10] wii [3:02:32p 1/9/10] Last topic, pricing out of scope. [3:02:40p 1/9/10] I'd agree with this one, [3:02:47p 1/9/10] Pricing for games? [3:02:55p 1/9/10] What's the point? [3:02:57p 1/9/10] same, we don't need to report how much they're selling for [3:03:01p 1/9/10] Ya [3:03:06p 1/9/10] The price drops over time anyway. [3:03:07p 1/9/10] Prices fluctuate enough -- Rhonlore has joined in the meeting. [3:03:29p 1/9/10] Not only that but prices vary too much between stores [3:03:46p 1/9/10] and then there's sales, craigslist, etc. [3:03:59p 1/9/10] Prices are definitely out of scope./ [3:04:28p 1/9/10] and this also means xbox live prices [3:04:33p 1/9/10] and any of the online stores [3:04:43p 1/9/10] What about MMORPG services? [3:04:44p 1/9/10] or the wii shop [3:04:47p 1/9/10] Like Maplestory pets? [3:04:53p 1/9/10] anything that deals with real world money [3:04:55p 1/9/10] Or...whatever [3:05:05p 1/9/10] even those fluctuate [3:05:05p 1/9/10] But do Maplestory pets deal with RWM? [3:05:10p 1/9/10] yes they do [3:05:22p 1/9/10] ok, then forget it. [3:05:23p 1/9/10] do they have pricing there? [3:05:28p 1/9/10] it's how MS makes its money :P [3:05:37p 1/9/10] on the page [3:05:42p 1/9/10] but the prices are listed right under the item, so no big deal anyway [3:06:00p 1/9/10] i don't believe we have any of the pricing info in the guide itself [3:06:10p 1/9/10] but as Skizzerz says, it deals with real world money [3:06:14p 1/9/10] so it would be included [3:06:29p 1/9/10] included by being excluded :P [3:08:07p 1/9/10] lol [3:08:19p 1/9/10] OK, then I think we have enough of a consensus on this one. [3:08:34p 1/9/10] Does anyone have any final thoughts or comments? [3:08:58p 1/9/10] I will make it a priority to get the word out about next month's meeting, so that it can be a bit more productive. [3:09:21p 1/9/10] i'll start off the next topic and start listing threads for discussion [3:09:30p 1/9/10] i would have like to get into some of the scoping issues.... [3:09:41p 1/9/10] uh-oh [3:09:45p 1/9/10] red dot sights > * [3:09:50p 1/9/10] but we've overrun our one hour and the biggest proponent of keeping isn't here [3:09:50p 1/9/10] oh, not that kind of scope [3:09:53p 1/9/10] :) [3:10:06p 1/9/10] lol [3:10:08p 1/9/10] of keeping everything * [3:11:41p 1/9/10] so [3:11:48p 1/9/10] Yeah, this one is too thorny to start now. [3:11:49p 1/9/10] to note on the new format for meeting discussions [3:12:06p 1/9/10] each new meeting will be mentioned by a topic on the forums [3:12:17p 1/9/10] any points that are to be brought up for discussion need to be stated in a thread [3:12:46p 1/9/10] we will use this meeting to discuss any threads and start to archive them so we can make sure everything gets looked at and things don't get left for years like we currently have [3:12:56p 1/9/10] hopefully we can get through the backlog of threasd we have right now [3:13:56p 1/9/10] Sounds good to me. [3:14:04p 1/9/10] if you want something new discussed in a meeting [3:14:05p 1/9/10] Thanks for taking the time to do all that Prod. [3:14:06p 1/9/10] post in the thread [3:14:08p 1/9/10] I appreciate it. [3:14:27p 1/9/10] np :) [3:14:37p 1/9/10] OK, any last thoughts? Anybody? [3:14:51p 1/9/10] If not, thank you very much for coming, and have a wonderful weekend.