Talk:The Real Frank Zappa Book (The Whole Book)
Are you dead serious about this? I think excerpts are the limit here, because, contrary to most articles, this one is still in print: people can actually still BUY this... --Emdebe 01:42, 22 May 2005 (PDT)
People can still buy the WE ARE The Mothers... AND THIS IS WHAT WE SOUND LIKE! article - but who would bother if we are just ignoring copyrights and giving it away for free?
From the bottom of the Zappa Wiki Jawaka editing page:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Duncan 08:50, 22 May 2005 (PDT)
Hello Houston? Do we have a problem here?
Should we remove the lyrics as well?
--Emdebe 15:07, 22 May 2005 (PDT)
Duncan 08:50, 22 May 2005 (PDT) : "who would bother if we are just ignoring copyrights and giving it away for free?"
Then we should get rid of the Articles About Zappa category altogether - and possibly, yes, list no lyrics either.
?
- KillUglyRadio 09:58, 23 May 2005 (PDT)
Lyrics: We could always ask ZFT for permission to use them - as they are widely available elsewhere and the non-profit wiki is of benefit to them - they will probaqbly say "yes - and feel free to use the album covers too".
Articles: What is the point of them? Some are factually inaccurate; most/all have a lot of duplication. Why not quote from them in the relevant seperate articles.
The only good article is http://www.thewire.co.uk/archive/essays/zappa.html ;-)
Dunk 12:06, 23 May 2005 (PDT) - who was Duncan this morning but has spent the afternoon trying to persuade his swanky new G5 and Tiger to talk to his modem but has been unable to persuade Safari to run so, not having cookies loaded with passwords etc., had to set up a new account via Firefox.
Is this the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning? --Emdebe 13:05, 23 May 2005 (PDT)
Or is Duncan/Dunk just having a bad hair day? --Emdebe 13:12, 23 May 2005 (PDT)
User:Dunk: "Why not quote from them in the relevant seperate articles."
I think I can live with that - it actually even makes sense... but so then do we eliminate the Articles About Zappa category?
- KillUglyRadio 00:50, 26 May 2005 (PDT)
Dunk 12:06, 23 May 2005 (PDT): "Articles: What is the point of them? Some are factually inaccurate; most/all have a lot of duplication."
Dunk 12:06, 23 May 2005 (PDT): "Why not quote from them in the relevant seperate articles."
Contradictio in terminis?
Dunk 12:06, 23 May 2005 (PDT): "The only good article is http://www.thewire.co.uk/archive/essays/zappa.html ;-) "
That's not exactly the "Wiki-way" ---> "Objectivity. The wiki is not the place for overly personal opinion. It is meant to be a work of reference, and as such, articles added will need to adhere to a basic sense of neutrality."
"Wiki Jawaka's ambition is to be nothing less than the ultimate Frank Zappa Resource. Scattered across the web are various extremely valuable sites whose merit lies in narrowing their focus down to one particular aspect of the phenomenon that is FZ. Keywords here are 'narrow' and 'valuable'. WJ's aim is to maintain a broad, kaleidoscopic view, one that encompasses a singular focus on lyrics, or musicians, or tours, or conceptual continuity."
In other words, for completeness sake, the articles must be included...
"All off-site material is reproduced without any kind of explicit permission from anybody. But, any intrusion on copyrights on material used herein is unintentional. If you feel any material reproduced here is infringing copyright, let us know about it, and we will take appropriate action."
--Emdebe 15:45, 26 May 2005 (PDT)
"Objectivity. The wiki is not the place for overly personal opinion...
At My Guitar Wants To Kill Your Mama (The Album) we have "Pretty much just average material."
At Album Grouping we have "Usually, when I think about jazz, I think about Duke Ellington or Miles Davis, not FZ."
etc. etc. etc.
In other words, for completeness sake, the articles must be included...
Why? If a non-wiki article is factually accurate we could use those facts (we should already know them anyway) in our wiki articles. If the non-wiki article is factually inaccurate or opinionated should we perpetuate such errors by reproducing them in the wiki? We could provide a link to the original non-wiki article (with a disclaimer that the article may be inaccurate etc.)
In the future people will turn to the wiki to research their own articles because they trust it to be complete and accurate :-)
Dunk 23:44, 26 May 2005 (PDT)
"We are quite prone to mistakes and mis-information as is anyone else, and rather than flipping out about our horrible errors in judgment or misleading of the general public, send us a pigeon with any corrections you have, preferably worded in as nice a way as possible. And if you've got something to add, add it, don't bitch about it."
I guess we can go on forever like this. At the Wiki we are very good at kicking in each other's balls, but not so good at finding a solution/consensus to apparent differences in opinion(s).
To get out of this apparently never-ending discussion, I suggest that we drop the "articles about Zappa" section, and add a "motivational statement" in the Project Charter ("We are not incorporating articles about FZ, because... copyrights... inaccuracies...").
If copyrights are a major concern, then we must drop the interviews as well.
--Emdebe 12:48, 27 May 2005 (PDT)
If we take this to a broader audience, the conclusion might be different...
Anyway, we need to take a decision here...
--Emdebe 16:48, 28 May 2005 (PDT)
