Talk:WikiMapia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiMapia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Wikipedian The operators of the subject of this article, WikiMapia, have edited Wikipedia as Alexandre Koriakine (talk · contribs), Jacksav (talk · contribs) and User:Matt510 (Matt Jones).
Archive
Archives
1


Contents


[edit] WikiMapia talk needs to be there, not here

Please do not use Wikipedia pages, for conducting user support discussions for Wikimapia. Wikipedia is NOT a free web space provider for other projects to host their user support forums on.
A user support forum for Wikimapia is at http://www.wikimapia.org/forum/.
Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It really is not appropriate to discuss features/bugs/criticisms of the site on this page; I wish the creators would enable that discussion on WM rather than taking up space here. Talk pages on Wikipedia articles are, of course, for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. We are not an auxillary webhost. -- nae'blis 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not being used as "an auxiliary webhost", here... WikiMapia is one of the more exciting developments to have grown out of the entire Wikipedia project, and very much deserves its own article and discussion in Wikipedia itself: not only is WikiMapia a subject of very valid interest, to the world-at-large -- that world very much including non-developers like myself -- it also is very much in need of some general discussion of precisely the type which appears here on this Talk page.
We are not techs, here. The WikiMapia folks have asked that tech questions be emailed to them, for now, and that is what I assume tech people are doing. Yes a wiki or other "auxiliary" would be a useful thing for them to set up, probably -- like GoogleEarth's "keyhole bbs" -- but I am not tech enough to participate in that sort of thing, nor would I have the interest.
The discussion here is more just for fleshing out the Wikipedia article, so I really believe it should remain: no different from any other Wikipedia article, on any other subject of general interest.
--Kessler 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not the purpose of an article talk page. Discussing what does and doesn't belong in the article is fine; discussing features or bugs of the site is not. I've archived the entire page, as it was ALL off-topic, and encourage the founders/site operators to open their own forums or discussion board so that Wikipedia is not misused for this purpose. -- nae'blis 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Alexandre, have you thought of setting up some sort of wiki-style page on a subdomain of wikimapia? Something like "wiki.wikimapia.org" or "talk.wikimapia.org"? If Wikipedians are getting upset about having the talk here it might function better at a subdomain of wikimapia. Thoughts? Matt510 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a template enough telling that the content was off topic, and thus deleted, and then welcome on topic discussions? Logictheo 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits

David, why did you reinsert the how-to sections into the article? Why do you feel it is not a stub? And finally, why did you revert me using the automated tool? -- nae'blis 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of whole chunks of accurate information is vandalism. If you want to remove relevant sections, get consensus first. Otherwise, it gets reverted. That's what the rollback tool is for. David Cannon 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not accurate in my view; deleting chunks of non-encyclopedic material (how to use the software) is not vandalism, and I am insulted by your use of the automated tool as if my edit was not worth your consideration. If I'd been smacked with a trout by a bot, I could understand, but you don't seem to be taking a neutral viewpoint on this matter. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to teach users how to use /implement Wikimapia (which is the second paragraph I removed), and the first one just doesn't make any sense. Where is this car? -- nae'blis 01:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The "car" is in the top left corner. As I see it, the article does not describe the workings of wikimapia in any detail. The superficial description of how it works is necessary, in my view, to show how wikimapia differs from similar projects. I didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sorry I was so abrupt and acted without explaining my actions at the time. But there are procedures to be followed. The de facto procedure is that information is not deleted without consensus, unless it is wrong or obviously unencyclopedic. This paragraph does not fit that description: pick up any encyclopedia (such as Britannica) and read any article on a piece of software, and it describes how it works. I'll look something up in Britannica tomorrow and cite the relevant page numbers, if you like. David Cannon 09:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur with David's analysis. An effort to reach consensus should be reached (and preferably on this page) BEFORE deleting whole chunks of accurate information....Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal topics

[edit] copyright and wikimapia

I wish to know if images from wikimapia used in illustrating wikipedia article is violation of US copyright laws. Legaleagle86 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about satellite/map images owned by Google - then it will be a violation of Google terms of service, I suppose. But, I think that for non-commercial purposes it's allowed. Alexandre Koriakine 10:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This is important: I removed a link to Wikimapia because it appeared to be a link to copyright violation material, a violation of Wikipedia:External links. Can setting up a whole wiki with copies of the maps really be "allowed"? Notinasnaid 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really impossible to get a definitive answer about this? I would not want to start removing all the thousands of Wikimapia links in Wikipedia without proper confirmation of the copyright position. Hasn't Wikimapia obtained legal advice or an official note from Google? Notinasnaid 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The definitive answer is provided by Google itself. Follow the link at the lower right corner of any wikimapia map (TERMS OF USE), and it will take you to a page outlining the matter crystal clear. Wikimapia is NOT violating their terms of use, unless I can't understand English. David Cannon 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see "Google Maps, including local search results, maps, and photographic imagery, is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only." Wikimapia is presumably non-commercial, but can a collaborative project of this kind, with countless unknown participants and results published to the world be described as "personal"? I see the comma in "personal, non-commercial" as meaning "and", not connecting synonyms. I am not a lawyer, but I am concerned at this. "Also, you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical latitude and longitude coordinates." also worries me, though it depends how you break up this clause. Notinasnaid 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And, perhaps simplest of all "The photographic imagery made available for display through Google Maps is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you." Notinasnaid 11:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, bulk feeds and mass downloads are certainly not possible in wikimapia. I can see why you regard the word "personal" as problematic, but I do believe it means only that the individual persons viewing the maps are not to use them for commercial purposes. I don't believe it refers to the medium through which the maps are viewed. If so, Google Earth and a host of other projects are jeopardized also. Your last quote, "The photographic imagery made available for display through Google Maps is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you." - also refers, I believe, to the use of the images by the individual viewing them, not to the medium through which they are viewed. David Cannon 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terms of Use and Licence?

Still no answer to these questions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiMapia/Archive_1#Terms_of_use_and_licence.3F) and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimapia . For me the goal of Wikimapia is still unclear. So I do not participate as actively as I would like to, nor I'm doing tech. proposals, etc. Sorry for repeating that Alexandre and Jacksav, but I think it's a fundamental point...Olivier Auber 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I inderstand you, very soon (one-two, max three weeks) we are going to open API, for which we need a licence of use, so we need to really choose it. It would be a licence like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/, I hope it will be ok to you. :) Alexandre Koriakine 17:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good news Alexandre! As I understand, there is 3 main item which require Terms_of_use_and_licence:

1-Server program
2-Client API
3-Collected data

What do you imagine for each one? I would recommand (just like FSF does) 1-GNU GPL and GFDL, 2-GNU GPL and GFDL, 3-GFDL, and/or for the whole wikimapia project: FreeArtLicence because I think what you are doing could be a major work of art. Choosing CC-by-nc (non-commercial) would probably cause difficulties for the continuation of the project, including some kinds of incompatiblity with wikipedia --Olivier Auber 13:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ce que je pense - Currently the server program is not planned to be released. Client API - sure it must have own TOS and license, thanks for pointing it. And for collected data, we want it to be opened to the public, but we don't think it must be fully compatible with Wikipedia one. Wikipedia uses many sources, but not every source really compatible with it. Moreover, as I understand, we can give special permission to Wikipedia (which is a subject to think).Alexandre Koriakine 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ce que je pense cher Alex: If you don't release your server program as Free software just like mediawiki is, wikimpapia will be seen by wikipidians as a business or a web2.0 start-up like many others (http://mapygon.com , http://maplandia.com , Google Earth itself, etc.). Wikipedians will prefer free systems (http://www.geonames.org or other systems listed here) or simple solutions for geocoding wikipedia articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas and finaly reprogram a kind of wikimapia one day or another just like Passtor claimed it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimapia#Governance.3F . As I understand the situation, you have NOW the opportunity to go further than geonames (*) and to deliver great services to the wikipedia community as well as to NGOs, even to Gov organizations in the global context of crisis. All these people could defend and finance a free project which allow them to do what they want, otherwise, they will simply do their own tool. I understand your fear in front of such a decision... Ce serait dommage pour vous et une perte de temps pour tout le monde. - Olivier Auber 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (*)for example by being compatible with it and by including statistics and import/export functions.

All we want is a successful project which is useful for people. We don't want to clone Wikipedia, we want the further development of the internet. And if the project won't have a success - this will be a problem, but the license incompability. Alexandre Koriakine 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image uploaded to Wikipedia in violation of copyright

I deliberately make no comment on the previous discussions around intellectual property.

However, I have just now edited WikiMapia to remove the screenshot referenced by User:Vinay412 08:54, 29 March 2007 UTC

I have done this because this image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information because:

The image appears to show data derived from Google Earth/Maps.

As such, Google Earth and/or DigitalGlobe and/or others own copyright over a portion of the material, and it cannot be released into the public domain.

[I presume that the uploader agreed to the following licence terms by displaying the original image on his computer:

"The photographic imagery made available for display through Google Maps is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you." .(emphasis added by me). "You may not use the imagery in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties.

You may not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate, modify or make derivative works of the imagery, in whole or in part. You also may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sublicense, market, or transfer the imagery or any part thereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized by this agreement.

By using Google Maps, you do not receive any, and Google and/or its licensors (if any) retain all ownership rights in the imagery. The imagery is copyrighted and may not be copied, even if modified or merged with other data or software."(again, emphasis added by me)

Only if you can show how this analysis is wrong, may this (or a similar image) be restored to Wikipedia. Please delete the image you uploaded to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimapia-bangalore.jpg ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimapia's data is independent of google maps, they may switch to yahoo maps or live maps anytime. This was a screenshot and very essential for the article. im adding the picture within a week if no further objection looms. Vinay412 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
also as for "terms and conditions of google map", they cant state watever they want in their service. terms stated by them if not valid in law of any country, then that stands null and void. Vinay412 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Only some of the uploaded screenshot is independent (principally the coding done by the Russians and the thousands of contributors (none of whom have, as yet, released their copyrights) and very little of which is visible in your screenshot. What counts here is the law in Florida where Wikipedia's servers are located.
The image that you uploaded is a derivative work and NOT an acceptable upload to either Wikimedia or for display on the article page WikiMapia according to the Federal laws of the US and the State laws and precedents of Florida. Please take alternative legal advice on this topic if you disbelieve mine.
Thank you for your interest, support and understanding in improving Wikipedia's articles.
...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This looks quite ok as wikimapia offers to embed iframes(html) in any web page. A screenshot for review should not be a copyright violation in any country/state, as it does not harm organisation's interest in any manner. i think google map's "terms and conditions" are worth a skip, they apply to individual who signs up for their service(like mail etc. which they may terminate on violation), and not related to copyright - Copyright is independent of content provider, its law of a country. Also let me know if wikipedia has provision to embed html iframes. thanksVinay412 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in thinking that copyright laws (and enforcement) vary greatly from country to country. However, what we are discussing here is what material can and can not be included in the Wikipedia WikiMapia article and, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but what counts here is the jurisdiction where WP's servers are located and that, I believe, is Florida. My understanding is that Google Map's "terms and conditions" may turn out to be worth more than "a skip" according to the Federal laws of the US and the State laws and precedents of Florida. Please do take alternative legal advice on this topic if you disbelieve mine....Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's content policy has changed to incorporate non-free images, only for fair use. I have uploaded again with proper licence tag, you may give a look. Miyamw 04:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlike G, I have no legal knowledge, so could you provide a diff of the policy change please? (Nice screenshot - I've enlarged it, streamlined the caption and moved it to a more appropriate position - thanks for the upload!) W. Frank talk ✉  09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting Wikipedia users to Wikimapia

Read more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexandre_Koriakine

[edit] {{notability}}

As we can see there is some concern/objection as "no independent reliable sources about this project. No press coverage in reputable published sources?". I'm curious how old was Wikipedia/Wikimedia when it got such coverage? --pavlosh 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I also don't know of what relevance this would be. Web sites, be they wikis or whatever, are included as soon as there is enough reliable, independent information from public sources about them - but not earlier. At a time when Wikipedia itself didn't yet have such coverage, by our own standards, we ought not to have had an article even about itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation and "At a time when Wikipedia itself didn't yet have such coverage, by our own standards, we ought not to have had an article even about itself" is the exact answer to my question. Would you please give some examples of right "public sources"? --pavlosh 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There is some useful discussion of relevant criteria at WP:WEB#Criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikimapia GFDL?

See Black Sun (sculpture) which copies a Wikimapia page's text to Wikipedia... I attributed it as GFDL. I've found lots of other sites saying Wikimapia is GFDL but can't actually find anything on Wikimapia saying that. --Rividian (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)