I'm thinking of deciding this one myself.
Dr. William M. Connolley can be trusted not to abuse admin powers, and
it's not supposed to be a big deal. He got 70% to 30%, but a lot of the
objections were irrelevant in my opinion.
I had objected vociferously at first (go ahead, look it up ;-) but Erik
(user:Eloquence) convinced me to change my vote to neutral. I have been
reading the comment stream, and now I feel I should take matters into my
own hands.
Any objections?
Ed Poor
Bureaucrat
I note that my previous account, while still technically "able" to post to
Wikien-l:
(A) has seen NO action on any of its "waiting for moderation" messages
(neither passed nor disproved, simply left wasting in the queue)
(B) has been altered such that I have not actually receive messages FROM the
list, despite being "subscribed."
This is a fucking joke and one hell of an abuse of power.
A. Nony Mouse
_________________________________________________________________
Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership!
http://match.msn.ie
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Date: July 15, 2005 6:45:40 PM MDT
> To: Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running
> the asylum)
>
>
> See
>
> Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Larry_Sanger.
> 27s_definition_of_neutrality
>
> and
>
> Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley
>
> Particularly this quote:
>
> "In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast
> majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers)
> believes to be the truth."
>
> Fred
>
> On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Dan Grey wrote:
>
>> On 15/07/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> any method of arriving at the
>>> truth though reference to expert editors such as himself presents
>>> prospects of sustained conflict.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>
>> OK, just for my benefit (and anyone else who may not be 100% au fait
>> with all this) - is that what William suggests we do?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
Below is the response I received from the proprietor of
http://4dw.net/royalark after I e-mailed him to ask for copyright
information on a picture that appeared on his website. The image in question
(http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Arabia/hijaz-Ali.gif) is a photograph of
[[Ali bin Hussein]], who died in 1935, and thus I thought there was a good
chance the image might be in the public domain by now, especially since it
might well have been taken in the Middle East before the currently-existing
states there were even established.
From: "Christopher J Buyers"
To: "Nathaniel Krause"
CC: jwales@
Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:31:56 +0100
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I realise that it has now become standard practice for people like yourself
who post supposedly "original" articles on wikipedia to copy their materials
from my website at the Royal Ark, but please note:
You certainly may not use any materials from my website, without my
permission under any circumstances whatever.
Copyright infringement is property theft and intellectual rape. Are you a
thief and rapist? Read on...
The text and images on the website are copyrighted and protected by United
States and international copyright conventions. Reproduction of ideas,
interpretations, words and graphics in any print or electronic form, except
for small portions for quotations and reviews, without the written
permission of the webmaster, is prohibited. These rules are not the
exclusive concern of academics and the publishing industry; they are
universal ethics.
While a few graphics on the website might be clipart in the public domain,
it is safest to assume that they are not. Users should go to clipart
archives to borrow such graphics.
Permission to reproduce major portions of text on other websites is normally
denied since this website is a living document and constantly subject to
updating and correction. Authors and webmasters do not want uncontrolled
and uncorrected versions of their texts floating around the internet.
Linking to a text is the most acceptable option since it relieves the linker
of responsibility for the changing content of the master copy of the
document.
If you do not understand copyright and intellectual property law, apply a
simple rule of courtesy: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If you can conceive of the hours, weeks, and years of research, skill and
education that can go into developing an idea, a text, an index, or a
graphic, you would doubtless not like to have somebody steal that work from
you and claim it as their own. Copyright infringement is plagiarism.
Plagiarism. n. the wrongful appropriation or purloining , and
publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the _expression of the ideas
(literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another. [Oxford English
Dictionary]
Plagiarise. vt., vi., to take and use as one's own the thoughts,
writings, or inventions of another. [Oxford English Dictionary] Due to
the ease of theft on the internet, international copyright laws are being
tightened. The penalties for copyright infringement can be severe. For a
better understanding of copyright and related ethical issues, you may wish
to explore these links:
Copyright Issues, by Cyndi Howells
10 Myths About Copyright Explained, by Brad Templeton
Intellectual Property Law
U.S. Copyright and Genealogy, by Michael Goad.
Restoring Ethics to Genealogy, by Barbara A. Brown.
The Copyright Wizard
Plagiarism, by Sharon Stoerger.
A final note of warning: Beware of web sites whose "copyright notice"
consists principally of a disclaimer to the effect that infringement on
their part is unintentional, and that they will consider negotiating with
challengers. They are, in effect, putting you on notice that they are
thieves, and consider themselves innocent until caught. Such lapses in
ethics call into question the reliability of any other information presented
on such web sites.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise fellow copyists on Wikipedia of
these facts.
Thank you
Christopher Buyers
----
From: "Nathaniel Krause"
To: "Christopher J Buyers"
Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. Buyers,
Well, thanks for getting back to me. Needless to say,
I was not very pleased with your response, in no small
part because you don't seem to have answered my
question very clearly. You say, "You certainly may not
use any materials from my website, without my
permission under any circumstances whatever," but this
is meaningless unless you actually own the copyright
on the picture in question. Do you? If you don't, who,
if anyone, does? That is what I was inquiring about in
my first e-mail.
Furthermore, if I wanted to steal materials from your
website in defiance of intellectual property laws, why
would I send you an e-mail telling you about it? It
was only because I have no desire to infringe on your
copyright that I contacted you in the first place.
You say, "If you can conceive of the hours, weeks, and
years of research, skill and education that can go
into developing an idea, a text, an index, or a
graphic, you would doubtless not like to have somebody
steal that work from you and claim it as their own."
What are you referring to here? Did you take this
picture of Sharif Ali bin Hussein, who died in 1935,
yourself? What are the countless hours that you spent
developing it? I do want to be clear that I am not
asking to use any text from your website, which I have
already linked to from the article.
The simple rule you suggest, "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you", is somewhat ironic,
because, in my case, and in the case of other
Wikipedia authors, we make the text we write and
photographs we take freely available to everyone.
You ask, "Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise
fellow copyists on Wikipedia of these facts", and I'm
happy to do so, although any Wikipedia editor who
knows what he's doing already knows it. I'm not sure
why this is our standard practice [here I made a typo;
I meant to say "why you think this is our standard
practice". Let's hope that didn't exacerbate the
problem. -NYK]. We sometimes have problems with
supposedly fair-use images, because fair use law is so
complicated, but we never use fair-use text, or anything
other than GFDL text, under any circumstances. In fact,
if you tell me which article is copied from Royal Ark,
I'll try to fix the problem myself.
Cheers,
Nat Krause
----
From: "Christopher J Buyers"
To: "Nathaniel Krause"
Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:38:59 +0100
Piss-off.
You and your kind are nothing more than a bunch of thieves and plagiarisers.
I am in no mood to help you or co-operate with you one bit. I shall of
course, ensure the registration of your name for future reference by others.
Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not
escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the appropriate
steps in the near future.
----
----
I'm sending this to the list, first, because I wanted to keep my word and
remind my fellow Wikipedians not to blatantly violate somebody's copyright.
Second, because I wanted to warn you that Mr. Buyers' second e-mail appears
to let the cat out of the bag regarding the shadowy conspiracy that may be
plotting against Wikipedia as even as you read this. Sadly, we have not
escaped their notice. In case you see somebody coming toward you, especially
in the near future, who looks like he may be in a position to take
appropriate steps, be extra careful.
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website
guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright
to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does. He just warns
me not to use it without elaboration. Considering his attitude, I'm not sure
I'd really believe him if he did claim to own it. On the other hand, I'm not
comfortable just assuming that it's public domain -- even if it doesn't
belong to Christopher J Buyers, there might be somebody else out there who
still has rights to it. [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] seems to imply that I should
tag it {{fairold}} and go ahead and use it, and it certainly appears to
count as "Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other
means". However, since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought
it would advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions.
Thanks,
Nat Krause (the eponymous user)
Angela wrote:
>The text is from [[MediaWiki:History copyright]]. The text on the
>English Wikipedia was added by Jamesday last year following a
>discussion on this mailing list where Tim made the addition to the
>history footers possible. See
>http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013706.html
>
>There is also related discussion at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Terms_of_use#Title_17
>
>Information is also at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_history which states the
>Wikimedia Foundation's official view on this matter. See this diff
>which Anthere and Jimmy both agreed to lasy July -
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Page_history&diff=48057…
>
>
I'm puzzled as to who came up with the idea that 17 USC 108 applies to
page histories. The section applies to "libraries and archives", but I
think it's a very strained reading to try and say it has anything to do
with Wikipedia.
Section 108 makes several references to premises, which suggests to me
that it has in mind libraries and archives as physical facilities in
"meatspace". Also, it limits reproduction/distribution to a single copy
(three for unpublished works). If we have copyright infringements in
page history, in many cases there will be more than one copy; the
violation may not have been discovered until a number of revisions passed.
The application of this section is quite limited, and I do not think we
should be relying on it. Congress apparently intended this section to
cover things like preservation or replacement of documents, and
interlibrary loans of excerpts or out-of-print materials. The notes for
this section are instructive:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000…
While I understand the concern about potentially infringing materials in
page histories, I don't think it warrants a special disclaimer. Since
every revision of an article is arguably licensed separately under the
GFDL, it would therefore require a statement that the GFDL applies. The
current software message does not satisfy that. I think it would be
better to use the same message that appears on current versions, which,
after all, have the same potential problem. I don't see this message on
history pages for our other projects, and we ought to keep this consistent.
If a copyright holder complains specifically about infringement in the
page history, I believe we can deal with the issue at that point. Based
on the discussions I've seen, I understand the developers can purge
portions of text from individual revisions if necessary. In the
meantime, I think this is an unnecessary and ultimately ineffective
disclaimer.
--Michael Snow
HowStuffWorks has a very nice article on "How Wikis Work" that
features Wikipedia quite prominently.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/wiki.htm
It uses the [[wing warping]] article as an example of how to edit
articles. While this will undoubtedly add more good faith edits than
bad faith edits, due to the typical HowStuffWorks reader (indeed, two
IPs have already added some good contributions), it wouldn't hurt to
add it to your watchlists, just in case.
-DPh
In re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
[[User:jtdirl]] reverted my edits to a series of articles on popes
without warning. He blocked me for vandalism. He has been edit
battling on these articles for weeks.
He says my edits were identical to others. Not so! I moved the title
in life of the dead pope to a 'Trivia' section. This resolves the
controversy over including the title in the first line of the article.
This title is reserved for the current pope. It is wrong to call a
deceased pope e.g. "His Holiness Pope Deceased XXII". If the pope in
death has a title he did not have in life e.g. "Saint" it is useful to
see the life style.
I tried to help and got yelled at.
--
Jim
Thanks to Mindspillage for spotting this one:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StBenedictsRule
This rule is, of course, how wikien-l actually works. I've just added it
to the list info page.
- d. (bad monk)
On 7/15/05, andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's possible to move my admin privleges from the AndyL account to homeontherange?
Yes it is possible, but please make it clear on the user page of
Homeontherange who you are so people don't get confused about who this
new admin is.
The place to request moving of privileges is
meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions since only Stewards
can remove the admin access from your old account.
Angela.
