On 07/04/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 07:17 -0400 7/4/06, Sydney Poore wrote:
> >Serious encyclopedia means leaving out material that is not
> >encyclopedic. Too many editors are stretching the meaning of
> >encyclopedic to include anything that can be sourced. During Afd, it
> >is very common for editors to cite tabloids, forums or publicly
> >written dictionaries such as Urban Dictionary.
> >http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Since it takes a super majority to
> >delete, often the outcome is no consensus and the material stays.
>
> But surely a word, a work or art, a meme, or artifact, can be created
> today and archived contemporaneously?
We require not only verifiability, but notability. I can create
something today and document it today, but - save in rare
circumstances - I cannot prove its importance today.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Why am I talking about lion's shares if we are dealing with
metaphorical leeches? I shouldn't undercut my own argument just for
the sake of wisecracking, but I can't resist saying "If life gives
you leeches, make hirudin."
See also
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/6900.htmlhttp://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/leech.html
But I think the University of Wisconsin may find that their leech
exceeds their grasp.
I say it's a bad idea. I don't know much about the phenomenon and are
trusting to your description of it. From your description, the people
this doing this are being fundamentally dishonest.
I believe that it is difficult for people who are fundamentally
honest to make a profit by serving people who are fundamentally
dishonest.
To put it more neutrally, the benefit to a transaction is likely to
be apportioned in a very lopsided way unless both parties are
following roughly comparable rules. When you are dealing with a lion,
he will get the lion's share, which will be close to 100% unless you,
too are a lion.
The Economist, April 8, 2006
In "Open, but not as usual" (March 18th), we said non-registered users
could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some
controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and
contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because
we used incomplete data. We apologise.
Don't know what to do, as I was wikify articles, I came to this one. as
usual I searched for copyvios and found http://www.complianceit.net/?p=31
The problem is that that page have copied wikipedia data without saying so,
as IANAL I ask you what to do.
/Carl
On 8 Apr 2006 at 22:12, "Steve Bennett" <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
> - elements of erotica,
> - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
If text of this nature were covered as well, you'd encompass a good
deal of Harry Potter fanfic!
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
The short story: Gator1, an admin, blocked a user for 3RR on Phaistos
Disc. The user retaliated by posting a message threatening to make life
miserable for Gator1 and then followed up on it, sending a letter to
Gator1's employer that caused lots of problems, and also caused him to
delete his user and talk page and leave the project.
Obviously, what this person did to attempt to ruin Gator's life is
entirely unacceptable. What can we do about it? We have the IP address.
- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFENzIrvCEYTv+mBWcRAlxLAJ0ehMJFJMyE1/WkKWpiLwOBaD1M8wCfV0EU
QqOsJEGUo/+OAIvl7XjpLOY=
=9XA0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gator was merely doing his "job" as an admin...after responding to AN/I
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=42067478&title=Wikipedi…
Gator issued blocks on a wide range of IP's thatwere violating 3RR and using the numerous IP's to evade a block. He was threatened that his life would be made miserable and the same vandal also demanded to know where Gator worked and what his lawyers license was as Gator is an attorney. Gator had blocked numerous accounts on 3/28/06
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=Gator…
all related to this incident. His payback for doing his job was to have his employers contacted and his privacy invaded. Gator also recieved an email from another Wikipedian that had run afoul of this vandal that also had their personal information posted in talk pages. This other Wikipedian was considering leaving the project and apparently told Gator in email that he knew who this vandal was. Apparently, the information provided to Gator stated (I was forwarded the email) that the vandal had a long history in Usenet circles for pushing the same POV in the same areas of interest, had invaded other's privacy and even filed lawsuits just to stir up trouble. The vandal is in Luxembourg and may post from work but more likely from somewhere else.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
AfD is evil. Long may it and the people who play there burn in wikihell.
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ1TdRbMAAH8MeUlWAQgM9Qf+IE8OqbeoofZQkkE/XGGPFQBNN11Lmykh
SS1uJ2VKPQkMdjjQufVpwDxVKFbY+IblPtqUsZDX2eJimnvYoP5ucY0zA8rFdd20
fisuuHmSYavM7UtY6yJtKcYVBzFfHd/OAUGpanvY87pSsrjIntPxzAzMIzPMwpU+
XB3Nk/ASwX8cpXTs0QO6UD0EI7XZXFFHRu8giRtzXY0V7ZdFUsnqaH/rXXbqUvA5
4ox7tYcF7P30sVEix+3s5EANTycuI7zw2XnFlxLPbxaoRXU6Et0cG5/UhNWSfF0N
arkm5jHrStaAR463BVoCBNA+QvxH6Hoxh2vUgs9JOD3eF4CvO+Mdaw==
=eogK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:45, Mikkerpikker <mikkerpikker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no
> reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very
> serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.
But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under
that protocol? The definition there is:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means,
of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities
or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily
sexual purposes.
The picture was a cartoon. This was clearly not "real". Maybe it
can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not
anything approximating a realistic simulation. The girl in question
was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were
actually shown. Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?
In the trailer for the SpongeBob SquarePants movie (approved for
general audiences by the MPAA), SpongeBob drops his SquarePants, and
you see a brief image of his cartoon butt. Is that pornographic?
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture
think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it
humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If
enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that
be classified as pornographic too?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/