Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.
Talk:Rainwater management (original)
Is this the main article for rainwater harvesting?
Will this be adapted as the main article for rainwater harvesting? If so, we should move some to the Category:Rainwater page.
Being in a wiki implies that it's open to ruthless editing (adding, splitting, merging, deleting bits) but I want to check before I dive in. there's also the question of giving credit - perhaps an acknowledgement on each page that uses a substantial extract (more than a sentence or two) from the IRN and AR material. --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 18:32, 10 November 2006 (PST)
- There's another unfinished sentence thing goin' on above.
- I don't know what "main article" means, but I guess this could be. This could easily be two articles. It was two in the original doc, but I didn't like the title of the first one (urban something) as a stand alone doc, and couldn't think of a better one, so bundled it under rainwater. It turns out that Rainwater was an existing category, and rainwater harvesting was a non-existent category that was listed on the topics page. Since that was the case, I stuck them together under rainwater.
- I have some memory of "listing up to 5 authors" from a wikipedia page, but can't find that page now, or it has changed on the wikipedia:wikipedia:Copyrights page. But there is a section there that tells me I haven't done it quite right, since I should have a link to the source (don't know what happens if it's not on the web). There is also some discussion of "invariant sections" but I didn't understand it.
- I didn't explicitly tell the author about the nature of editability of a wiki. I will do that. I did mention the possibility of "CC attribution" license, but I haven't seen any movement on that yet...
- Chris, since you're the moderator of this section, I'll leave it to you as to what we might like to do; we can work together to consider the licensing angle, and I will be happy to interface with the author, though she seems quite warm in her brief emails, and I'm sure it would be fine if you wanted to discuss things with her as well. --CurtB 19:10, 10 November 2006 (PST)
- Here's my thought: Let's use the wiki in the usual way (open to all forms of ruthless editing... sounds harsh but it actually allows the material to be integrated into Appropedia, and used to make an even better resource). If the PDFs aren't available on the web, then we should upload them here, and link from the relevant page (which also solves the attribution issue). Could you check with the author that she's happy with this?
- I think we need a policy on uploaded documents (PDFs, DOC and other document files). Probably they should all have their own wiki page with a description (however brief), authorship, and a link. I'd suggest we create a template for these pages to ensure clear and consistent layout, with a prominent link to the document. I have about 10 Word documents from an Indian engineering academic which could also be uploaded in this way (once I clarify copyright with the author). --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 01:13, 11 November 2006 (PST)
- The document is available on the web, I've added a link to the attribution on the derived pages. I think you're right that the wiki ought to be used in the usual way, but it's always puzzled me how attribution (which appears to be a core part of GFDL) is maintained in a wild and woolly environment. I like your template idea (was thinking of that myself, but I generally like your templates better than mine :-). I will connect with the author, though I may try to finish porting first, kind of for momentum reasons, and because I already told her I'd ping her when I was done porting, and don't want to be a pest. I'd like her to have a chance to review the pages unmodified, but also tell her that they're subject to change (except that we will retain attribution), particularly with the idea of integrating into the larger wiki, and if that's a problem we can remove the content.
- I have this concern that the attribution could be removed (though we should revert such a change I guess, as long as we are keeping up with the avalanche of edits and changes that I expect :-). One thought I just had about how to address this in implementation would be to implement the derived pages as two (or more?) templates, an attribution template and a content template, then protect the page and the attribution template (changeable by sysops), but leave the content template open to editing (changeable by anybody).
- Maybe there could be a range of options (protected like above, open, maybe others). By the way, are you aware of content that has been ported to Wikipedia (with attribution)? I expect that exists, but I haven't noticed it... --CurtB 08:59, 11 November 2006 (PST)