>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 4, 2007 07:15 AM
>To: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Press coverage listing the HD-DVD key
>
>That's not responsibility. As reluctant as I am to use the word,
>that's caving to censorship. I'm 100% for curbing any attempts to spam
>the thing all over the place. We don't tolerate spamming campaigns,
>never have, never should. At the same time, the NYT, Wired, and the
>like are hardly "the mob". They're reliable sources that we cite
>across hundreds or probably thousands of articles. And "reliable
>sources are in control" is, if not stated that way specifically, fully
>in keeping with our core principles. The real mob (or, in this case,
>thug) here is the industry organization trying to prohibit mention of
>a number. The message we send if we cave is "Thugs are in control, if
>they're potentially big and nasty enough."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional_interrogation_techni…
Fred
On Thu May 3 12:32:31 UTC 2007 Anthony wrote:
>Ah yes, now I remember that.
>I've long been a believer though, that for many rules, consistency is
>more important than correctness. In fact, for many rules there is no
>correct answer, so long as one is picked. If we all stopped at green
>lights and went at red lights, the world would still work just fine.
>I think that analogy follows to some of the examples in [[WP:POINT]],
>especially the ones dealing with AfD.
>Anthony
Ha. I agree with you that consistency often has value. .. and I think
that the inability to achieve real consistency and the constant
bickering over inconsequential decisions are among the worst problems
with Enwiki's anti-authoritarian governance model.
That said, I don't agree that there are all that many things where
"any consistent solution" is okay. What is actually needed is "any
reasonably smart consistent solution". We just can't pick at random.
.. and to achieve that you need actual authority and judgement, and
not just a random number generator.
Your example is perfect for demonstrating this...
If every person went on red and stopped on green but we failed to
change the firing sequence of the lights... Cars would hit each other
during signaling patterns like "one direction left turn" which display
three red sides and one green.
It's not enough that behavior be consistent.. it must be considered,
intelligent, and generally 'good enough' as well. It doesn't need to
be perfect, or even the favorite of the majority in many cases.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony [mailto:wikilegal@inbox.org]
>Sent: Friday, May 4, 2007 06:25 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Press coverage listing the HD-DVD key
>
>On 5/3/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> For god's sake, the NYT -is- a publisher, and they linked to it all
>> over their official blog. You think their lawyers would have let them
>> do that, if there were any significant degree of risk?
>>
>Obviously they think the benefits outweigh the risks. But what does
>this have to do with my comment?
The New York Times can afford to put out a few hundred thousand dollars for legal fees and maybe pay a nominal fine should they lose. They have billions in assets. It's just a cost of doing business.
Fred
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2007/05/digglegal
Not a blog, actual press coverage. Online, but it's eminently Reliable
Source-worthy - real journalists, editors and money.
Will they dare DMCA legitimate press? If not, I really doubt they'll
DMCA an encyclopedia.
If they do DMCA an encyclopedia when not DMCAing the press, they will be buried.
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
- d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HD_DVD_encryption_key_controversy
There's a section on a proposed intro sentence containing the key in
an utterly defensible [1] encyclopedic fashion, and a list of proper
US-hosted media stories (not blog entries) quoting the key.
I still say wait at least a week, but I'm only saying that to let the
keyspam die down, and to try not to encourage the *next* bunch of
memespammers. Because you know this will happen again and again and
again.
- d.
[1] in my personal experience as a troublemaker for the last twelve
years dealing with legal threats against US and Australian hosted
content with real legal paper flying around which I could have been
left bankrupted by, and attempts to get me fired from my job because
of it. Because sometimes, you've just got to say "fuck this, I'm not
rolling over on this one." In an absolutely perfectly lined-up
academic and educational manner. Of course.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 08:16 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Press coverage listing the HD-DVD key
>
>For god's sake, the NYT -is- a publisher, and they linked to it all
>over their official blog. You think their lawyers would have let them
>do that, if there were any significant degree of risk?
Not a good way to decide your own course. Things can and have gone horribly wrong at the New York Times.
Fred
I don't recall any official stance. It was the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to cover likely damages, I'll back down.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 07:29 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?
>
>I noticed today that the Internets civil war or whatever that is underway
>for this has spread to Wikipedia, to the point it's now on DRV:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_2#09_9_…
>
>Zscout says here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zscout370#HD_DVD_Key
>
>"Regardless if it is popular or not, we cannot host the key on here and the
>Foundation has asked us to remove it on sight.
>User:Zscout370<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zscout370>
>*(Return Fire)* 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
>
>Did the WMF take that official stance? Where, if I missed it? The specific
>number/value I don't believe can be even copyrighted in the United States.
>
>Keep in mind that the hex/number itself is now notable.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Joe
>http://www.joeszilagyi.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held
company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on
en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia
pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an
arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so,
where? Thanks!
--
Regards,
Joe
