Knowledge Base changes: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
(copyright/legal problems)
Line 142: Line 142:


:::I do not believe its appropriate to force everyone to adopt your ethical views. I don't have a objection to modifying the style guidelines to suggest that editors consider whether it would be useful to link to any sources. In many cases that would achieve the results you want, but for different reasons. I frequently provide a link to sources, though I typically use the external links section (or the talk page) because I'm usually concerned about adding value - not attribution. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I do not believe its appropriate to force everyone to adopt your ethical views. I don't have a objection to modifying the style guidelines to suggest that editors consider whether it would be useful to link to any sources. In many cases that would achieve the results you want, but for different reasons. I frequently provide a link to sources, though I typically use the external links section (or the talk page) because I'm usually concerned about adding value - not attribution. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
==Copyright/License problems==
I suggest we think about adding a short "Copyright/License problems" section in [[Rules_and_guidelines]] that sets peoples expectations on what they can legitimately copy/modify. I'm splitting this out as a separate topic from "Using external sources and references in KB articles". Please discuss this at [[Talk:Rules_and_guidelines]] . [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:32, 20 January 2008

This page has been created for several reasons.

  • It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
  • It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
  • It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organisation of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in Talk:Knowledge Base can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
  • This page was an attempt to address incidents that have occured on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.

This page is the primary place to announce new suggestions. Whenever possible, issues should be discussed in a more appropriate place, such as the discussion page of the article or category that the suggestion affects.

Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to Knowledge Base changes/Archive.

Welcome to new editors

Hello! Great to have you here. Please add a comment here :-)

  • Hello Knowledge Base! FJ reporting to duty! *bows at all* FatJohn 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm new, I am "name already taken" from the forums, hello to everyone! --Lethargy 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Base changes

A discussion by interested parties regarding the MozillaZine Knowledge Base, in the context of planning for improved Mozilla end-user support, is taking place. Details at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.planning <snip> Forum discussion of end user support, including the KB, here. Alice 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Minutes of the end-user support meetings were posted to the mozilla.support.planning newsgroup, along with an announcement linking to drafts of a Firefox Support Overview and Support Product Requirements Document. Proposals related to the KB include one log-in for forums and knowledge base management, account levels (admin, senior moderator, moderator, senior editor, editor, volunteer) as well as analysis and metrics to include top viewed articles (problems). Division of articles into "How To’s" (tutorials or best practices initially populated with content from “Firefox Help”) and "Troubleshooting" (“support” that helps users solve problems) was proposed, with the troubleshooting section being initially populated with MozillaZine Knowledge Base content that will be organized in a tagging structure that incorporated most frequently accessed questions. Creation of KB style guides and editorial approval processes for content and style were also proposed. See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Support:PRD#Knowledge_base_requirements for details. Alice 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

SUMO use of MozillaZine KB articles

Update: There is a current discussion taking place here concerning how the official Firefox support (SUMO) KB should credit content derived from MozillaZine KB articles. Alice 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots - confusion?

I'm worried about us posting screenshots of dialogs to describe how to do something and some poor granny trying to actually click on buttons in the screenshot. What can we do about this?--Np 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much we can do to prevent people from making silly mistakes, except maybe to add something like "Sample image: do not click" to each screenshot ..... it's funny, because I've tried using scroll bars on screenshots myself, on occasion :-D Alice 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Application specific articles

I've noticed a recent trend towards having more articles be application specific. My first impression is that this seems to be due to

  • Recent awareness that you can include screen shots in the article. Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows and Corrupt_localstore.rdf for example are articles that at one time would have at least been written to cover both Firefox and SeaMonkey, and might have also covered Thunderbird.
  • Frustration over the density and problems in navigating an article that cover many applications, such as Profile_folder
  • Mozilla's plans to create their own knowledge base, using migrated Firefox articles from mozillaZine.

I've frequently pushed for Thunderbird specific versions of some articles, including one for Profile_folder but I have mixed feelings about this trend. There are some cases where it makes a lot of sense to address multiple applications in one article. I'm also concerned over what effect this has on whether editors who tend to focus on browser specific articles will continue working on the mozillaZine knowledge base after Mozilla creates their own for just Firefox. Thoughts?

As an aside, does anybody object to my creating a calendar category? Tanstaafl 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see advantages in combined application articles such as Profile Folder. One reason being, the same files may be used in different application profiles (in some cases they can be copied over directly, as with mimeTypes.rdf and bookmarks.html). Firefox users are in the majority, though, and it's hard for editors who don't have experience with Mozilla Suite or SeaMonkey to include it in articles. I use SeaMonkey about as often as I use Firefox (and I still have Mozilla Suite installed as well) so I try to include SeaMonkey where possible, such as in plugin articles. In the case of Changing media handling behaviour I've included screenshots for both Firefox and SeaMonkey. Regarding Mozilla's plans to create their own knowledge base, using migrated Firefox articles from mozillaZine, when that happens and if my contributions are no longer needed for Firefox articles because Mozilla folks have taken them over and restrict new articles to selected editors, I can always go over to SeaMonkey and start fixing up that KB a bit. Alice 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think combined application articles are good when the info provided only differs slightly, for example by a single menu sequence. In profile folder, about half the article doesn't apply to any given user. Creating a new Firefox profile on Windows was created not to avoid mentioning SeaMonkey, but to avoid the "but if"s, "except if"s , and "you can also"s that plague the profile manager article.--Np 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing obsolete information

I notice that some articles, such as Multiple_SMTP_servers_-_Thunderbird have multiple sections for obsolete versions. I suggest we add a rule of thumb that such text should be removed if its for a version thats more than two major releases ago to In-house_style . i.e. since Thunderbird is at 2.0.0.6 keep the text about 1.5 or later but dump the 1.0.x text if it simplifies the article. Tanstaafl 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about removing obsolete sections, especially if the "obsolete" part is long and uninteresting. I think though, that e.g. in about:config articles, the lines "Applies to Mozilla since 19980425" or "Applies to Firefox since release 0.9" etc. can stay. -- Tony 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tanstaafl 10:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Prep for switch to new web site

We're getting closer to switching to the new web site. Kerz has stated he'll enable automatic account creation when we switch. See this thread for more details. He has created a subforum for the knowledge base, so we won't be limited to just talk pages and this article when discussing some issues. He has offered (in the moderators forum) to move a small number of threads to the new web site if they're identified ahead of time. However, given the recent history of lost accounts and the fact nobody has started to make a list of the threads I suggest we assume the worst, and start migrating information in any referenced threads into the article. It will also give us a chance to make the information more up to date and easier to find/read. After the move we can update any links to dedicated discussion threads for extensions/themes. Does this seem reasonable?

I notice Alice has converted the request for comments template in preparation for the move. Any other changes that we should think about? Tanstaafl 01:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In the "Request for Comments" template, I switched from forum thread link to MozillaZine Site Discussion forum since I assumed that links to the main forums (Firefox, Thunderbird, Site Discussion, etc.) would be redirected to the corresponding new forum. (We also link to the MozillaZine Site Discussion forum at MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base:About#Commenting_on_articles). Once we switch to the new forum, we could link that template and the About page directly to the new Knowledge Base subforum. But, I'm not so worried about that. You said, :I suggest we assume the worst, and start migrating information in any referenced threads into the article. What do you mean by "referenced threads"? We have many, many references to forum threads in KB articles. You don't mean that all those references will be lost, do you? I have an entire web page of useful threads that I reference quite a bit: http://wymette.home.att.net/mozforum.html (I haven't updated it since August 2007, but I do update it from my bookmarks!). Alice 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You have two hundred and forty six links on that page, and some of them are for pretty long threads. I have difficulty seeing Kerz move all of them, especially if several other people have long lists that don't overlap that much with yours. Your guess is as good as mine what will actually happen, but nobody has even started to compile a list in the five months since the beta of the new web site was first available, and its called a "grand forums restart" for a reason.
My impression is that there aren't many references to threads in Thunderbird articles, and most users in the Thunderbird forums point to articles rather than old threads. I'm going to start replacing some of the references in the Thunderbird articles as a precaution, but it wouldn't be a disaster if we suddenly lost access to those threads. I'm basically trying to suggest contingency planning for Firefox and SeaMonkey, which are much more vulnerable. Tanstaafl 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You have two hundred and forty six links on that page There are probably more, since I've just updated my mozforum page. I don't care if the threads are carried over to the new forums, I just don't want the linked pages to "disappear" altogether (then I'll have to depend on google's cache or the wayback machine to get that content). I really hope that all those threads aren't lost. Besides the KB, other sites link to our forum threads, notably Bugzilla reports. If I can find the time, I'll try to go through some KB articles and see what information in linked forum threads should be incorporated into the KB (some are simply references to justify the information given in the KB, e.g., forum references in the Problematic extensions article). Alice 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that links to forums.mozillazine.org threads in KB articles, Bugzilla, google groups, newsgroups, etc., will not be lost.... that they'll be archived and available for "read-only" access. Maybe you can confirm, but that's how I understand it, based on the following Nov 3 2007 post in the new Site Discussion forum, by "steviex"
It looks like Threads that are reposted here need rewriting to remove any HTML formatting, and repace it with BBCode.... Any links back to the old board should be OK, as I would guess that the archived posts would be viewed with phpBB 2, in the old format.
...Even so, it wouldn't hurt to prepare for the worst and incorporate as much information as possible into KB articles, instead of depending on forum links. I created a new Problems printing web pages article that used to be just a forum link in the Issues with Firefox article, with that in mind. Alice 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

KB articles to update for the new website

  • KB articles that tell people to post KB requests or feedback to a specific thread, including Create_a_knowledge_base_account and Special:Userlogin.
  • KB articles that link to a specific forum, such as MozillaZine Site Discussion, may not be redirected properly and may need updating to the new Site Discussion forum or to the Knowledge Base subforum on the new board.
  • Rules and guidelines links to forums.mozillazine.org/rules and that page may no longer exist after the move, so we'll either need to update the link or edit the article to summarize those rules.

All articles in the Category:MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base_organization should be reviewed for needed updates. If I find any articles outside of that category I'll post them here. Alice 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IMAP category

I'd like to add a IMAP category. We're seeing more new IMAP users due to Gmail, its awkward for new IMAP users to find many IMAP-centric articles when they don't have the right vocabulary, and I'd like to write some more IMAP-centric articles. I don't see any need for a corresponding category for POP - its the mainstream. We already have a Calendar , a Newgroups (Thunderbird) and a RSS (Thunderbird) category. Any objections or concerns? Tanstaafl 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked over Rules/Categories#Creating a new (sub)category for the background and did a KB search on IMAP to make sure there were enough existing articles to justify a new category (there were 7 with "IMAP" in the title). I don't have a problem with a new IMAP category except that it should be named IMAP - Thunderbird (with a dash, not parentheses) if that's the name you were going to use. Since IMAP mail applies to both Thunderbird and SeaMonkey, I would prefer simply naming the category IMAP mail or similar. Alice 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd intended to simply use "IMAP". Since that doesn't seem to be a problem (its not application specific) I'll go with that. Tanstaafl 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you created Category:IMAP and placed articles under it but you haven't yet categorized the new category. Unless you had something more specific in mind, I guess it could be categorized under Category:Thunderbird and Category:Mozilla Suite? Alice 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Tanstaafl 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

KB account creation

I've created a mozillaZineKB at gmail dot com account to handle new account requests, sent the password to all SysOps (except for np who has publicly stated he's not interested in handling requests), and updated the login page. We used to average only about one request every two days before, and the login page encourages users (if they have a forum account) to request a knowledge base account using the moderation requests thread in the mozillaZine site discussion forum. Thats practical now that most moderators are also SysOps. However, we probably should come up with some conventions to avoid problems due to multiple people reading a message requesting an account. Its a IMAP account by the way, I figured that would make it easier to monitor. Tanstaafl 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Related KB article: Create_a_knowledge_base_account Alice 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of color

A discussion was started asking for for opinions on using color in KB articles. Please post any comments to Talk:In-house style#Use of color. Alice 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Using external sources and references in KB articles

There was a recent forum discussion about copying MozillaZine KB article content to the SUMO KB. Related to that, I think we should add a statement to our own Rules and guidelines about using content from other sources and referencing certain material. (I also mentioned that here in the forum topic.) I was thinking to add something like this but I wanted to make sure that it would be OK:

All MozillaZine KB contributions should either be original or copied with permission and proper attribution. Plagiarized content is not acceptable. If you are simply including information that you found elsewhere, such as a solution to a particular problem that you found in a forum topic, then that forum topic should be referenced.

Do we need approval from kerz to add something like that or would it be OK to add it? Also, the sentence that is shown whenever you create or edit KB content is as follows:

You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

...However, the MozillaZine Knowledge Base:Copyrights article was recently changed and no longer includes information about copying material from a public domain or other free resource. Each SUMO article, by the way, includes a statement about the Creative Commons license that covers using their material that says, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License ... and the linked page explains under what conditions their content can be used by others. Shouldn't MozillaZine have something similar? Alice 19:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me. Nothing very controversial there and I don't think that you would actually need Kerz's approval to add that. However, be a bit grim if Kerz popped up later and wrote, 'Hey, I like hosting Copyrighted material!' Unlikely, I grant you, but would be better/good if Kerz, himself, posted all that. Leaves no ambiguity then.--Frank Lion 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited the sentence slightly to include proper attribution. I'll wait for other opinions. Alice 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism is a emotionally loaded word, that I'm used to seeing in a academic environment where they can get seriously hung up on the origin of a single sentence. In more collegial environments the focus is on intent (are you trying to pass something sizable off as your own effort rather than building on the efforts of others or sharing/reusing something). I believe that a wiki for a user community where people collaboratively edit documents should be concerned about copyrights (don't steal stuff), but should promote a collegial environment. Unnecessarily attributing everything has a corrosive effect. There is also a difference between getting help/ideas from somebody else, paraphrasing, isomorphic copying, and copying.
I think we need to differentiate between the deliberate planned wholesale copying of the contents of multiple articles from another communities web site (which is what SUMO did) and paraphrasing a paragraph or two you found in some forum thread, blog, or posting of some email thread. This isn't a academic environment, we don't need to give credit for every idea. I also don't see the need to attribute something from our own forums, though if it was a sizable body of text/amount of work it might be courteous to acknowledge the contribution (same effect, but different reason why we did it). The proposed rules are overreacting IMHO. There is a big difference between respecting copyrights and having to track and document the origin of everything.
I agree it would be nice if we adopted a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License but kerz has made it clear he doesn't want to specify a license (at least for now). I don't see that as an obstacle for sharing work between SUMO and MozillaZine (in either direction), I assume we just need to provide prominent attribution if we adapt one of their articles. Tanstaafl 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I happened to be reading Nuance and Suggestion in the Tweety and Sylvester Series, where the author includes the following at the end of the article:

Textual content (c) Kevin McCorry, with all rights reserved


This article, the observations, the interpretations, and the ideas therein are the intellectual property of the author unless otherwise noted and may not be reproduced and then altered in any way without the express written consent of the author, and any scholarly quoting, paraphrasing, or other repetition of them MUST be accompanied by full stated credit to the author, with failure to do so possibly exposing an individual or group to litigation and possible civil or criminal penalty.

I'm mentioning it as an example of content that should not be copied without proper attribution, as set forth in the source content. The same applies to SUMO articles (or other articles) with a Creative Commons license. I suppose we could get rid of the "Plagiarized content" sentence and link since. as you say, it is emotionally charged and just mention something about not copying material without proper attribution as set forth in the source material? I do think that we should at least include that much. As for material taken from forum posts, that's a separate matter. I still think that we should encourage people to document such sources, for example, If you are simply including information that you found elsewhere, such as a solution to a particular problem that you found in a forum topic, then a link to that forum topic would be sufficient. I suppose we don't need to require documentation, although it is helpful to authors and users alike, to know where information comes from in particular cases. Alice 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the MozillaZine Knowledge Base:Copyrights article being recently changed (by kerz) is another issue, since it no longer includes information about copying material from a public domain or other free resource, and therefore the (see Project:Copyrights for details) link that is seen whenever you edit a page that I mentioned above, doesn't make any sense. Alice 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that a quid pro quo for sharing mozillaZine articles with SUMO was that they would share theirs with us, and that the main reason why we should provide attribution for SUMO articles is reciprocity (not some legal requirement) - we ask people to do that when they use our content. Since we do not use a Creative Commons license we normally can't copy/modify articles that use that license. Am I incorrect?
The latter is my understanding too — unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holder.
Other than Mozilla web sites where else is attribution a real issue? I've never run into a situation where the source material requested attribution or had a license. I think our rules should be neutral regarding whether somebody provides attribution of ideas/information from forums/blogs etc. Whether or not our style guide wants to suggest that the author consider whether a link to source material adds value is a different issue.
As is said under the editing textarea, DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION. I understand that as meaning that if ever some MZ article is found to contain (non-freely-reusable) copyrighted material, that material should be summarily removed, unless the copyright is attributed and it can be proven that it was "used by permission" or that it fell under "fair use of copyrighted material". IMHO, except in special cases, it's usually better to refrain from using copyrighted material altogether. -- Tony 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your last paragraph. The copyright statements make sense to me. We just have some limitations in what we can do due to not using a Creative Commons license (the main reason why we should keep lobbying kerz to consider using one). Tanstaafl 07:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The MozillaZine Knowledge Base:Copyrights article was recently changed by kerz and no longer includes any details about using copyrighted material or copying from a public domain or other free resource, and therefore the (see Project:Copyrights for details) link that you see whenever you edit a page doesn't make any sense. It doesn't link to anywhere that gives editors any details about what non-original material can or cannot be used, and under what circumstances. Here's a screenshot, to show what I mean:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8586/editkbjc2.png
In other words, you are referred to Project:Copyrights for details about submitting non-original material to the KB but the linked page no longer gives you any such information, since the current version of MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base:Copyrights just says, The content of the MozillaZine wiki is owned by MozillaZine. Any contributions you make here are considered part of the site. As part of the open source community, we will gladly share anything here with others, assuming they will give credit back to the specific article the content is taken from. Questions or comments on this policy should be sent to the MozillaZine site forum. Thanks! . If you check the history, that page used to give a lot more information and had entire sections listing Contributors' rights and obligations, such as Using copyrighted work from others and Linking to copyrighted works. That information may have been "over the top" but I still think that the MozillaZine KB should put contributors on notice about submitting non-original content. You said that This isn't a academic environment, we don't need to give credit for every idea. which is true, but there specific cases where we do need to give credit, the main one being, if the source material demands it because of copyright or other restrictions that require proper attribution at the minimum. Alice 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get hung up on the legalities, which is why I wanted to include a reference to plagiarism, since that also covers ethical concerns which, quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism includes "the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation". In this post (in the same discussion about copying MozillaZine content to SUMO) , np quoted the following from here "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference." I don't want to beat this to death and maybe kerz is really the one to be concerned, since it's his site, after all, and he's the one that changed the page that's linked from Project:Copyrights. Alice 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point we're not arguing legalities, just ethics. I would expect the worlds largest/most well known online encyclopedia which states articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects and not the place for "original research" — that is, new theories, etc., that have not been supported by peer review to also require that you cite sources for the information you contribute. We're just a bunch of users helping other users with a software application. I see a big difference between reformulating the information from an article from a web site (especially if that web site is used as the source for multiple articles) and using some information you find in a couple of paragraphs from some random forum thread/blog/mail message. You apparently don't.
You imply that not attributing sources creates a "unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation". However, we deliberately don't identify the author in the article, make a big deal about collaboration and nobody owning an article, and once several people have edited an article it can take a bit of work to identify their contributions. Moving or merging articles also muddies who created them - thats happened to me several times and I've never complained.
I do not believe its appropriate to force everyone to adopt your ethical views. I don't have a objection to modifying the style guidelines to suggest that editors consider whether it would be useful to link to any sources. In many cases that would achieve the results you want, but for different reasons. I frequently provide a link to sources, though I typically use the external links section (or the talk page) because I'm usually concerned about adding value - not attribution. Tanstaafl 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright/License problems

I suggest we think about adding a short "Copyright/License problems" section in Rules_and_guidelines that sets peoples expectations on what they can legitimately copy/modify. I'm splitting this out as a separate topic from "Using external sources and references in KB articles". Please discuss this at Talk:Rules_and_guidelines . Tanstaafl 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)