G'day Risker,
Thanks Mark Gallagher; that at least makes reasonable
sense.
Now, let me make sure I understand the copyright issue properly.
We don't
quote IRC logs because, despite the fact those channels are
exclusive to
Wikipedians of various classes and are moderated by Wikipedians,
and their
primary purpose (in theory) is to discuss Wikipedia-related issues
(yeah, I
said in theory) - the copyright on all content generated there is
in the
hands of people who have no direct relation to Wikipedia? Could
people even
quote themselves anywhere outside of IRC?
Copyright is not the only or even primary reason. It's just something to be aware of.
On Wikipedia and off, participants hold the copyright on their own words. I have
copyright on this email, for example. I would take a dim view of my words on IRC or on
this list being stolen by others, as would you, I imagine.
If I say something on Wikipedia, I hold the copyright but implicitly release it under the
GFDL. Anyone (other than me) wishing to republish what I contribute, whether it's to
an article or a talkpage, must comply with the GFDL. On IRC and the mailing list, I have
done no such thing.
But this pales in comparison to questions of privacy (IRCers trust that their privacy will
be respected) and Freenode policy (Freenode forbid public logging; if we are to continue
using their free service, we should respect their rules).
I believe that the Zsinj log should be released, or at least the parts of that log
relevant to his misbehaviour. However, it must be done with the consent of those who will
appear in that log (I'd be interested to know who the people are who would not
consent). Even without the log, Zsinj should explain himself on-wiki --- and I mean more
than he has already. I mean the who, what, when, how, and why of the advice he received
(if any), in detail. This should be the minimum we expect if he is to keep his admin
bit[0]. This would apply if he was discussing it on IRC or on the list or IRL. His
explanation was insufficient. His initial excuse --- that he was acting on the advice of
others --- was cowardly. This is not a reason to say that IRC is the problem. This is a
reason to say that he should stop being so cowardly and come up with a better
explanation.
There's at least one other admin in Canberra. She actually lives quite nearby to me.
If we happen to discuss Wikipedia in a pub one day, does this mean that you and those who
agree with you have recourse to control our relationship? Why/why not?
Sorry, I just find that absolutely hilarious.
I find a lot of serious statements hilarious. Sometimes it means that the speaker said
something incredibly silly. More often it means I wilfully misunderstood the intent of
the statement for the sake of a joke.
[0] I wonder how KP feels about the lack of trigger-happy admins now ...
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]