User talk:Harriska2~enwikibooks

2006 11 30
| How to Create a Print Version

2006 10 05
Kathy to read: 

2006 09 28

 * Started testing in Kathy's Sandbox
 * Naming convention - fdi_reading1, fdi_reading2, fdi_learning1 or fdi_prepare1, fdi_math1, fdi_math2, fdi_writing1, fdi_writing2, fdi_spelling1, fdi_spelling2 (other subjects: vocabulary, expression, communication)
 * Define curriculum
 * Define Direct Instruction or DI
 * Define Free Curriculum - see Free Software Foundation
 * Probably will start with reading curriculum because greating need - will probably take much longer due to need in creation of stories and workbooks

Need to decide on wikibook name. Suggestions:


 * Free Direct Instruction (Free DI, Freedi, FDI)
 * Free Direct Instruction Programs (Free DIP, Freedip, FDIP)
 * Free Direct Instruction Curriculum and Training (FREDICT)[[File:00%.svg]]
 * Free Direct Instruction GNU/FDL (Free DI GNU/FDL, Free DI Gahnu, FDI Gahnu)
 * Free Direct Instruction Reading (Free DIR, Freedir, FDIR)
 * Free Direct instruction User Manuals (Free DUM, Freedum, FDUM)
 * Direct Instruction GNU/FDL (DI GNU/FDL, DI Gahnu)
 * Free Direct Instruction Curriculum (Free DIC, Freedic, FDIC)
 * Free Direct Instruction Library (Free DIL)
 * Free Direct Instruction Training

To do:
 * Should start working on outline

Copyright
From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Internet_Law/Fair_Use

The Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to look at (17 U.S.C. § 107):


 * 1) The purpose and character of the use. Transformative uses are favored over mere copying. Non-commercial uses are also more likely fair.
 * 2) The nature of the copyrighted work. Is the original factual in nature or fiction? Published or unpublished? Creative and unpublished works get more protection under copyright, while using factual material is more often fair use.
 * 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Copying nearly all of a work, or copying its "heart" is less likely to be fair.
 * 4) The effect on the market or potential market. This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it's unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely fair. Linking to the original may also help to diminish the substitution effect. Note that criticism or parody that has the side effect of reducing a market may be fair because of its transformative character. In other words, if your criticism of a product is so powerful that people stop buying the product, that doesn't count as having an "effect on the market for the work" under copyright law.

[Wikipedia Copyright] Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.

Given that publishers commonly now obtain the copyright from the authors as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does authors. This is one of the chief arguments in favor of peer-to-peer file sharing systems, making an analogy with the changes wrought by printing.

The case of Donaldson vs Beckett, in 1774, brought disagreements on the length of copyright to an end. The outcome of the case resulted in the decision that Parliament could, and had, put a limit on copyright length. This decision reflected a shift in English ideas of copyright. The English lords who made the decision in 1774 decided that it was not in the public's best interest to have London publishers control books in perpetuity, particularly as English publishers commonly kept prices high. There were some notions that this was a cultural or class issue. Works in perpetual copyright were seen to have limited access by some citizens to the cultural history of their own land.

Critics of copyright as a whole fall broadly into two camps: Those who assert that the very concept of copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and has always served simply to enrich a few at the expense of creativity; and those who assert that the existing copyright regime must be reformed to maintain its relevance in the new Information society.

A copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy. For example, if a book is written describing a new way to organize books in a library, a copyright does not prohibit a reader from freely using and describing that concept to others; it is only the particular expression of that process as originally described that is covered by copyright. One might be able to obtain a patent for the method, but that is a different area of law. Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the included items, not to the particular items themselves. In some jurisdictions the contents of databases are expressly covered by statute.

In some cases, ideas may be capable of intelligible expression in only one or a limited number of ways. Therefore even the expression in these circumstances is not covered. In the United States this is known as the merger doctrine, because the expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea. Merger is often pleaded as an affirmative defense to charges of infringement. That doctrine is not necessarily accepted in other jurisdictions.

 WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

 In United States copyright law, the merger doctrine holds that if an idea and the way to express it are so intricately tied that the ways of expression have little possible variation, there will not be copyright infringement, lest the copyright prevent others from expressing the same idea. The overall principle is that of the idea-expression divide, which is that one can hold a copyright in an expression, but not in an idea.

One case involving this was Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) [1], in which the court ruled that the whole vodka bottle in that case was driven by function, was not subject to copyright, and could not be protected by copyright law for that reason. While the label might have been protected by copyright, it was ruled to be incidental to the use and not significant.

Re: Note on Rob's Page
I figure I will get back to you about your note, because Rob has not been as active lately, and I would like you to get a timely response to your question.

If a book isn't on a bookshelf, I would hardly call that "nefarious", but typically new users who are not familiar enough with wikibooks to know about the bookshelves probably do not know enough to create a "good" book. Also, most new books that are created are done so simply because the user did not find one of the existing books on the subject. In general, I would say that users who don't know enough about wikibooks probably shouldn't be starting a new book, because many books created in these ways are doomed to stagnate and eventually be deleted. Of course, there is no policy saying that people can't create a new book any time they see fit, but it generally isn't recommended.

If a book is a stub, or if it contains stubs, typically we are very tolerant of that. However, there is a difference between a stub that "is likely to attract future contributors", and a stub that is "not likely to ever attract new contributors". The second group of books are typically deleted after a certain period of time, while the former type of books typically are not. Some of the things that would make a book unlikely to attract new contributors are: The key to making a good book that is going to flourish, and not get deleted, is to excercise a good amount of forethought before you create any pages, or write any content. I've written an essay on the topic of creating a new book, and if you are seriously thinking about creating one, I would suggest you read it (or at least part of it): User:Whiteknight/New Book Guide. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The book is hard to find because it has a bad, incorrect, verbose, or esoteric title.
 * The book structure is difficult to expand or completely non-existant.
 * The current content of the book is so poor that fixing it would take as much work, if not more, then creating a new "better" book.
 * The current content of the book is either comprised or arranged in such a way as to be following an arbitrary or external outline, that new contributors may not understand or agree with (for instance, books created as companions to a particular university class).

Thanks for the info
I read your page above and that is what brought me to Rob's page.

Wikibooks Newsletter, Volume 1
(Wikibooks gazette home | Discuss | Bulletin board | Subscription list)

This is a short newsletter that is being distributed to all active wikibookians. You are getting this message because you are recognized as an established contributor to the project. This newsletter will be distributed on a regular basis to help share news, information, and tips. It comes from a bot account, User:The Staff. User:The Staff is currently operated by a team of wikibooks admins, the complete list of which is available on the user page of the bot. If you would like to not receive this newletter anymore, please remove your name from the list at Active wikibookians.

The work you do at Wikibooks is greatly appreciated. However there are plenty of other opportunities for you to get involved and help us to create a thriving Wikibooks community. We are sure that there are things we can do to help you and your understanding of Wikibooks and similarly there are certainly things you could do to help Wikibooks become a better place.

We would like to ask all wikibookians to add the Bulletin Board to your watchlists. The Bulletin Board is a fast and easy way for wikibookians to communicate important news and events to the entire community. If you have important news to share with the community, you can feel free to add your own entry to that page.

If you have general questions or comments about Wikibooks, you are welcome to post a message on The Staff Lounge, a free discussion area. Your input would also be welcomed in the Votes for Deletion and Requests for Adminship discussion pages. These pages are all active discussion areas that help to shape the Wikibooks community as a whole.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Wikibooks community is much larger and more diverse then the people who work in a single book, or on a single bookshelf. Hopefully, together we can all make Wikibooks a better place, and a more valuable educational resource.

The Staff 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question about monobook/common.css on the staff lounge
Harriska, while I browsing through the staff longe, I noticed your question, Then how might I be able to get my style added so that others can see it? Administrators are able to edit modules within the MediaWiki namespace. You would be interested in MediaWiki:Common.css. I am unsure if an administrator would add a change like that, since any Wikibooks user (or reader) with an account could apply it to their own style sheet or any reader with Firefox could download an extension to apply the css style. But it's worth a shot; you may consider asking an administrator at the administrators' noticeboard or contacting one individually. Cheers, Iamunknown 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Harriska2. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Harriska2~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)