Humanities desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

GPL vs GFDL vs CC-BY-SA-3

This is no question for legal advice! So please don't delete this. I have been quite confused about lincensing especially when I started uploading my photos to Commons on what liscence is best to choose.

What is the difference with General Public Liscence, GFDL (Wikipedia liscence) and Creative Commons Liscence (Wikinews)? Because I have read that GFDL is more limiting than Creative Commons.
What is the advantage if I multi-liscence my works in both GFDL and Creative Commons? Because some Wikipedians do so.
Why is Wikinews not using the same liscence as Wikipedia and its sister projects?

Thanks a lot in advance! -- Felipe Aira 06:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally the contributions to Wikinews were declared public domain. Because of some concerns, the most important one of which was that this might encourage plagiarism, the decision was made to switch to Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, which requires attribution. This choice was made as being the least departure from the completely free sitation that existed before addressing the concerns.

As far as I can readily see, the main difference with the GFDL is that the latter requires, for mass distribution, that a "Transparent copy" (being a copy in a non-proprietary format) be included. I'm not sure why that should be considered important for Wikipedia, but then, I'm not a lawyer. --Lambiam 11:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL (at least 1.2) has a lot of little stipulations in it that make it "limiting". It was originally written for computer manuals and its wording reflects that, and some of the requirements which seem sensible for manuals become really tricky when applying it to other formats (e.g. including a complete copy of the GFDL with every so-licensed work is impractical for things like photographs).

The GPL is for software. It shouldn't be applied to anything else or you're going to run into even bigger problems than with the GFDL.

CC licenses are generally, in my opinion, more thought out and have much more consideration into them about making them easy to actually use. Unlike GFDL and GPL, CC's licenses weren't just made by a bunch of programmers—they were formulated over a long period by lawyers, free-culture activists, anthropologists, you name it. Their goal was not to come up with a license for a project, but rather the license itself was the project. I think they are a lot more clearly written and more easily adaptable to other forms of media. You don't have to include a full copy of the license in works where that isn't feasible, for example—a simple enough thing, but it makes it a million times more useful for things like photographs.

Multi-licensing is a great way to go. It means that the end-user can choose which license they are using when they re-use it. At the moment, if I started a new project that licensed its work as CC, then I wouldn't be able to use GFDL-only works in it for the most part (there are ways to do it, but let's not go there for the moment). If the work I wanted to use was multi-licensed as GFDL and CC, then I could easily use it. So who cares? Well, Wikipedia decided to use GFDL (to be fair, there weren't a lot of other good options at the time), and so now its textual content could never be integrated into a CC-licensed work. It places serious limitations on how the work can be used and assumes that the GFDL will continue to be widely used in the future. The future of the GFDL lies with the group that publishes it (the Free Software Foundation), and who knows what they will decide to do, whether they will adopt it to fit the changing needs of future media. By multi-licensing you are essentially spreading things out more finely, not placing your bets on one horse: maybe CC will be more adaptive to change? Maybe it will be more popular? Who knows? There's no down side to it, only up sides. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to why Wikinews uses CC while the other Wikimedia projects use GFDL, it's because when Wikipedia was set up, GFDL was just about the only free content license in widespread use, and I believe CC didn't even exist. The nature of Wikinews is such that articles don't get edited after, say, a week of existence, so it's possible to state that all articles created after date X are licensed CC, while earlier ones remain GFDL. On Wikipedia, that would lead to such a mish-mash of licenses - either articles would be haphazardly licensed, or even worse, separate parts of the text in a single article would have different licenses! At the moment, Wikimedia, the Free Software Foundation, and Creative Commons are in discussions to make the GFDL and CC more compatible, so that at some theoretical point in the future Wikipedia can have a licence equivalent to CC (either by a transfer of license, or through the future version of GFDL being more like CC). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah caucus?

The Iowa caucus is today, 3 January 2008.

When is the Utah caucus? Does every state hold a caucus for the United States presidential nomination?--71.105.20.224 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Iowa caucus article, most states use presidential primaries rather than caucuses. Utah's primary is scheduled for February 5th as part of "Super Duper Tuesday". — Lomn 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a state either has a caucus or primary, not both.

Who decides whether a state holds a caucus or primary? Is it the Secretary of State (U.S. state government)?--71.105.252.61 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is determined by each state, I believe by the state's legislature -- trying to find details on that still. --LarryMac | Talk 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Note this article discussing some of the changes various states have considered or implemented. — Lomn 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I find the utility of caucuses/primaries as they currently exist to be pretty silly for the presidential election given the state of modern media. Some states (South Carolina and Florida among them, but I'm not sure of the exact list) discussed progressively leapfrogging their primaries earlier and earlier so as to be the first in the nation (or at least nearly first). The Democratic and Republican parties both indicated that this could mean forfeiture of convention delegates, and yet this isn't really seen as a deterrent. Although such sanctions mean that the states lose out on the de jure democratic process, it's quite arguable that they greatly enhance their de facto importance by shaping early impressions of the candidates (however unofficially) rather than voting at the end of the process once the convention nominees are a virtual lock. Apologies for approaching a soapbox (and it's certainly something I feel inclined to soapbox about), but I hope I've raised an interesting point about the primary process without getting into too much rhetoric. — Lomn 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some states have both. I can't give you a list, and I'm not sure why they do it both ways, but it has something to do with what the state wants, and what the party wants. Corvus cornix_talk 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Corvus cornix is indeed correct in the rare case of Washington state where Republicans will be holding caucuses on Feb. 9 & a primary on Feb. 19th.[1]

I thank you all for the these excellent responses and future ones on this question.--71.105.252.61 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shared parenting

I have been reading Fathers_rights#Child_custody_-_Shared_parenting and am puzzled as to why this social, moral, political and religious imperative is not making better progress. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world the parents would sit around a table/in a courtroom and produce a compromise that is best for the child/children. I think publically people accept that whilst it is totally unfair, it is 'easier' for a child to be assumed to one of the parents automatically because an assumption of 50/50 (which is what would be most fair) could be more complicated for parents and the children. Why women presumed and not men? Well because historically our culture has seen the role of women as the main care-giver. There is no single reason and i'm sure my gross oversimplification isn't ideal, but I do believe that whilst there is general agreement that these rules are unfair on fathers, there is also little vocal demand for it to be changed. ny156uk (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't help IMHO that of the groups that do demand for change, many of them use actions and methods that scare people and are probably not conducive to winning support. Note that it isn't the case in all places that women are often given primary custory. In a number of countries fathers are given primary care. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of them only, I think (Fathers-4-Justice) - and even that was in the past as they no longer do that. In which countries are fathers given primary care? - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a number of Muslim countries for example (in Malaysia while the civil courts are AFAIK more similar to the norm in a number of western countries, the Syariah courts will usually award primary custody to fathers after a certain age [2]). Note that according to custody (and I'm pretty sure it's right), fathers used to get And Fathers-4-Justice seems to have a lot of offshots in other countries like Australia, NZ etc. I don't know about the UK but in Australia and NZ AFAIK, they are still targeting lawyers, judges and mothers with protests and the like. Some of the actions may not necessarily be endorsed by the group per se but often they don't seem to be condemnded. They may not be the only group but given their high profile due to the nature of their actions, they are the kind of people that people tend to associate with father's rights groups. It's made worse by the fact that many of the high profile people associated with these groups are hardly a poster child for 'hard done by father's'. In other words even though the general cause may be just, there is a major image problem since the people and actions which give the cause a high profile don't generate sympathy but fear. This is hardly unique to father's rights of course, it has happened with animal rights etc. They also seem to have polarised the debate, making it out as if most of the people involved are 'evil' (for lack of a better word), e.g. mother's are scheming bitches, feminists are evil have made the world a worse place, CAFCASS and similar organisations have no merit etc. Again this is hardly unique but the problem remains that when you polarise the debate in that way, people tend to view the issue that way and often they come down on the other side. Anyway I'l stop now since this is getting a bit too soapboxy Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, note as Best interests mentions (well it mentions US States but I'm pretty sure it was through much of the world) sole custody was traditional granted to the father. This slowly changed to the other extreme with sole custody being given to the mother. Gradually (IMHO anyway) this is coming back to a more equitable level where both parents are given equal custody (if they want it and haven't done things which stop them from having it). Personally I think most people do actually want to get to a fair situation. And most people do actually have a similar idea what a fair situation is. They just don't agree on how we reach there or where we currently are. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My starting point is the moral imperative and I don't understand compromising on something that is wholly unfair (in favour of either sex). If the legal system is tilted in favour of either parent there is no incentive on that parent to do the thing that will create least harm and hurt. Hence Fathers-4-Justice, etc. That seems to me self-evident. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of irrelevant to my point thought which was in response to your question about why the idea isn't making great progress which IMHO is at least partially because the most visible advocacy is by groups and in ways which generate fear not sympathy. Clearly Fathers-4-Justice etc has an image problem which is a big issue when it comes to their advocacy regardless of the merits of their cause which I think I've mentioned before. Also, clearly things are changing and have been all the time. Many people do feel we haven't achieved perfection yet, but how we improve is clearly an open question. I didn't really want to get into this but but that the current system in most western countries is not explicitly tilted in favour of the mother. In fact the best interests of the child are what are key. Groups like F4J argue that the current system is flawed and leads to an unfair bias towards mothers which may or may not be true but is difficult to prove. You can't simply look at the number of cases and say well mother's get primary custody more often so there's something wrong since you have to analyse each and every case and look at the circumstances such as 'did the both parents want custody?' 'did either parent do anything which negatively effects their right to custody?' etc and this is difficult to do since family court cases tend to have a great deal of secrecy to protect all parties involved which is one of the big problems. I've tried to avoid mentioning my personal beliefs as they relate to the general issue but I did mention I believe things tilted in favour of the mother too much in many instances in Western countries but this has been coming back ot a more equitable solution. However I'm far from convinced the ideas espoused by F4J are the best solution. History is littered with well meaning ideas that failed spectaculary. (And here is a big part where the image problems I've mentioned probably come into it for many people). The simple fact is, legal systems are inherently very complicated, and getting them right is very difficult. Anyone who proposes a radical change and claims this is going to solve all the problems is likely to be greeted with a great degree of scepticism. Just because something seems theoretically fairer to some people does not mean it's going to achieve that outcome. (And the apparent unwillingness of some of the most visible proponents to accept that most people do actually want to achieve the same outcome even if they differ in how to get there is again another image problem). Note also as I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in at least one of the articles another problem is that most of the proponents of rebutable 50/50 put it in the form of parent's rights yet for many people the right of the child is of paramout importance (note I use gender neutral terms here for a reason, as I've mentioned before I don't think many people feel the rights of the mother are more important then the rights of father and the current system is generally explicitly set out based on the rights of the child not either parent, whateer the net result of that may be). The rights of the parent may very well coincide with the child and that's a valid argument but it doesn't change the fact that when someone advocates for something for reason A when people are more concerned about reason B then there's obviously a problem. If I may come back to the image thing again, the fact that by their actions and words, most of them seem to be promoting (whether this is their intention or not) a more adversial stance when I think most people feel we need to reduce the adversial style in custody disputes is not going to help convince people their suggestion is the best. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Time of her Life, The Time In Between and The Memort Man

Hi there, I want to know that what are the themes and who are the characters in these books that are mentioned above? and can you give me an example of each theme for each book, so can understand what the paragraphs are saying about the theme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.185 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t read any of the titles you have listed. You may thus get a more detailed answer from someone here who has read them, as long as that person doesn't think it would be doing your homework for you. There is much information available on Google, however, and some here on Wikipedia.

For a start, there are at least four books entitled The Time of Her Life. I have selected the one by Lesley Mcintyre and the one by Robb Forman Dew because they are the most recently published options. You can find a review of the Mcintyre book at [3]. There are many reviews on Google for Dew’s book. Here are two of them: [4] and [5]

David Bergen’s book won the Giller Prize. There are many in-depth reviews of The Time in Between on Google. Here’s one: [6].

As for Lisa Appignanesi’s book, The Memory Man (and I am assuming that “Memort” in the title is just a typo), here are two reviews: [7] and [8]. Bielle (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa caucuses

What time can we expect the final results of the caucus to be out, when all the precincts have reported in? 202.156.14.10 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best I can come up with:

"The earliest preference groups are allowed to form is 7:00; that process must allow 30 minutes, and then 'realignment' (in precincts with more than one delegate) must be allowed. Realistically, by the time delegates are apportioned and precinct chairs call the state party’s central reporting desk, it will be 8:00. Most local media appears to be switching to caucus coverage around 9:00 central time."

That's about the Democratic Caucus; from what I understand the Republican Caucus is organized a little more effectively. Jacques l'Aumône (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Will Rogers said, "I'm a member of no organized political party: I'm a Democrat." Corvus cornix_talk 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flanders and Swann made a similar joke in the introduction to The Gnu [9] from At the Drop of a Hat - "... Well, I wrote to the local council about this. Very nice about it, you know, elections coming up and so on. We have got a jolly decent lot of old burghers on our council. Get them sticking up flags on the Town Hall, I’ll tell you that much. But then our council is, of course, strictly non-political. They’re all Conservatives ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg War Tribunals

Is the "Nuremberg War Tribunals" another name for the Nuremberg Trials?--24.109.218.172 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear so, although I can find no reference to anything specifically called the 'Nuremberg War Tribunals'. The Nuremberg Trials were held in front of the International Military Tribunal, so it seems logical to me. "This link". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) gives much more detailed information TicketMan - Talk - contribs 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mean the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials also known as the 'Nuremberg Military Tribunals'. Foxhill (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]