Talk:Wikimapia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

The Wikimapia database seems to be down for a couple of hours today. Even the forum is not accessible. Any news on what's happening? --Sujit 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

While not a lawyer, my degrees in journalism and public administration required knowledge of copyright laws and purposes. I submit the following observations:

• Google Earth et al specify copyright adheres to /*IMAGERY*/. Google Earth also asks that any reproduction of images should contain their copyright information, and the /*Google Earth*/ logo automatically added to the bottom right of the image.
• Written text and images are subject to copyright. Data is not. You cannot copyright ideas or information. Once published, data becomes part of the world's /*common knowledge*/, and anyone may use it in any way desired, so long as original materials are not simply reprinted. This includes photographs, art, music, printed text, and exact duplication of words used.
• It is generally accepted that brief extracts of text and/or imagery is lawful if done in the process of reviewing or promoting an original work. As a courtesy, and by law in certain jurisdictions, permission may be asked of the copyright holder. Think in terms of common sense: if your quotation is meant to advance the material, there should be no objection to your using it. If you are in any way at odds with the publisher, be prepared for litigation, but take comfort in knowing you may very likely win in court.
• Obviously, you want to pick your battles. The right to copy, or to deny such rights, is grounded in Common Law. Acting in good faith, without intention to harm or defraud (and even to be harmful if conditions warrant!) is usually sufficient defense.
• Common Law is grounded in common sense; but, if questions remain, run it by a copyright attorney.

75.165.4.79 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)EdwinNFish@Yahoo.com

Connecting Wikipedia users to Wikimapia

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

{{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)

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)

On the contrary - http://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html says (section 1.F): All User Submissions of all users and all WikiMapia data are available through WikiMapia Website, WikiMapia API and other current or future WikiMapia services for non-commercial purposes only: personal or educational. In addition, WikiMapia provides an "map on your page" feature, which you may incorporate into your own personal websites for use in accessing the information on the Website. WikiMapia reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the WikiMapia Website at any time. (emphasis mine).

This is not GFDL compatible. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction... I wish I'd found that page when I was initially dealing with the copyright issue. --Rividian (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All those Indians and Pakistanis tagging like crazy on Wikimapia only to have their data owned by two guys. That's so anti-wikipedian.192.129.3.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Copyedit as vs. edit

Per the request on the WikiMapia site I've just done a superficial copyedit of the article here, aka / also-known-as I don't have time right now to get into policy discussions & wrangles if any concerning content -- so please feel free to reverse / change any copyedit changes I made & I won't get too upset :-) -- literally just flying through the text, right now, looking for format & grammar & phrasing etc. oddities, nothing deeper.

I figure there's 1) copyedit, 2) edit, and 3) composition, in these Wikipedia articles, and I generally confine what I do to the first. If, time permitting, I can wrangle about some more important item I'll try to participate in that, here on Talk, but right now I can't. Happy to see the article, tho: WikiMapia deserves wide & deep coverage, IMHO, and here at WikiPedia (?) it will get that.

--Kessler (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image: Wikipedia Growth

Image needs testing in both Firefox -- fuzzy, there, needs bolder x/y text -- and IE. My temp.fix places it below Features, so the horizontal line will separate it better visually. Also now at 400 pixels for better legibility. To get the image back into the initial section, above Features, I think extra text may help: if the text comes after the outline that may position this image to the right of it.

Can't do this myself, right now, but the image itself needs those bold fonts too: whoever does that might try re-positioning it as well, then.

It's a great image, tho, don't dump it: nothing like a geometric progression to float boats / make days sunny -- sure it's been straightline and not a curve?

--Kessler (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of references for section

A few days ago I reverted an edit that removed some recent material from the section on user levels. I reverted it as a good faith edit because they gave a reason for the removal: namely, that it lacked citations. Since I had added citations for the material only days before, it seemed like a simple mistake. Also, since the editor was an IP address with a single edit in their list, I chalked it up to misunderstanding or inexperience.

However, the next day another Wikipedia user contacted me to inform me that the links to those references were no longer valid. From what I can determine, the pages in question were purged by Wikimapia's administrators, who objected to their content about the strike by senior users. Although I was unaware at the time that the pages had been deleted, it's true that this portion of the article is is now unreferenced.

Honestly, I'm having a difficult time believing that the IP edit was not also done by Wikimapia administrators. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I can be impartial in this case. As an old Wikimapia user (now inactive, as noted in my profile here), I may very well have a conflict of interest. I actually learned about the strike while researching material about user levels, a section that I had been planning to expand on for some time. I thought the material about the strike was interesting, especially how it illustrates the rather opaque process of promotion/demotion at WikiMapia, so I included it.

Sorry for the lengthy explanation, but I thought that some public discussion was necessary in light of the missing links. I also wanted to publicly declare my prior association with WikiMapia, although it should be clear from my several prior contributions to the article.--Koppas (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Untruthful edits by TarzanASG

Times and again this user makes inappropriate edits of this page regarding license issues. He adds his private opinion about the Creative Commons license Wikimapia is using being a non-free one, which is very questionable, not to say untruthful, and clearly out of place here. He also insists on user contributions on Wikimapia becoming the owner's intellectual property, which absolutely makes no sense, and as the matter of fact, never did(see the license). His reasons are clearly agressive and harassing(he also posts this and more harsh diffamations on another sites, and Wikipedia is not a tribune), and I want to alert some moderator to put a stop on this by freezing the article in its current state and to warn this user of his actions being unacceptable. - W8r

Needs independent critical information sources

The information in this article is almost entirely derived from the Wikimapia website itself. While none of it seems definitely incorrect, the viewpoint cannot be expected to be neutral, especially considering that it is a commercial enterprise. Data from truly independent sources is needed to ensure a balanced view, e.g. about number of users, coverage, accuracy, data openness, etc.. (But beware that many tech blog/magazine reviews are probably based on the website, too.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Disclaimer: right now I am not feeling very neutral myself, see "Criticisms" section above. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This Article Requires Consensus Re: Notability

It has been well over five years since this concern above was made about whether the subject of this article meets the criteria for notability. I don't see any evidence that it does and suggest it be nominated for deletion. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 18:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

-Bis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.29.43 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure

New members can not log in, you can only edit as a guest (IP) now.90.244.94.71 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Where for art thou?

Wikimapia may be wonderful, but if you aren't part of the in-crowd, well, you're locked out. I was having trouble finding some basic display control information. I had to use Google to find the help site, which didn't do me any good because it won't let me ask a question unless I log on, and it won't let me log on. Sorry to be taking up Wikipedia server space, but nobody else will listen to me. Waaaah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.104.156 (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

New Heading and Info Required

The wikimapia site was very useful until a few years ago when ALL the user data (at least for the areas I was interested in, in BC, Canada) appeared to have been wiped. Can someone explain and post what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus451 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2