cprompt wrote:
>You seem familiar with copyright law. I have considered making Wikipedia
>a little prettier by finding suitable pictures for some articles. If I
>find a photograph of, say, a koala, and I want to add it to [[Koala]],
>is that permissable (if I can attribute the photo)?
My familiarity with copyright law is limited to having a general idea
of how the law affects my work as someone who writes primarily for
media outside the GNU Public License (GPL). I'm not an attorney, and
I don't claim special expertise. If anyone here challenges anything I
have written about copyright and fair use, I'll defer to their
judgment.
That said, I think there's a difference between a photograph as
opposed to text. To begin with, reproducing a photo amounts to
reproducing the entire work, not just an excerpt. In the field of
music, I believe there are strict rules against reproducing even
brief excerpts of someone else's work without express permission.
There's been a fair amount of legal wrangling over the practice of
"sampling" by Hip Hop artists.
When it comes to trademarks or brands, there are other issues. Disney
is very aggressive against anyone who uses the image of Mickey Mouse
without their permission, and McDonald's has taken people to court
for allegedly infringing their proprietary ownership of the letters
"Mc." In one case, they sued a guy in California for calling his
organic fast-food restaurant "McDharma's."
Personally, I think some of these restrictions are ridiculous. In
fact, I've been toying with the idea of starting an online open
source fiction novel, using the Wiki rules that allow anyone to
contribute and edit. It would be a murder mystery, set at Disney
World and titled "Steal This Mouse." The plot would revolve around a
series of murders that appear to be linked to some coverup within the
company. The protagonist would be a Disney PR consultant who is torn
by the conflict of having to defend the company's reputation while
simultaneously trying to help the cops catch the killer. The novel
would use Disney-branded characters and symbols and would also
comment on the company's obsession with controlling its brands. In
addition to discussing issues of censorship and intellectual
property, "Steal This Mouse" would itself constitute an act of civil
disobedience, daring the company to crack down in the real world and
mocking any attempts to do so.
I haven't done it yet, though...just an idea... ;)
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
One problem with relying on google. It still does not carry all wikipedia
pages. I wanted to check something on the Papal Coronation page but google
couldn't find it. I also wanted to check something on the Papal Tiara page.
Again google never heard of it. Yet these pages definitely do exist. I know.
I created them. I have been in them since I first created them. And I could
find them on our search engine but not via google. (I ended up using my
watchlist to track them down.) And if those two pages don't exist according
to goodle, what other wiki pages does it not recognise and why?
JT
>
>And for any doubters, this is NOT NOT NOT intended to be permanent or
>semi-permanent. It should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
><< signature.asc >>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Ed Poor wrote:
>My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is
>that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply
>*must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but
>does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict
>its hypotheses.
I think Ed is using an entirely personal definition of
"pseudoscience" that doesn't have much in common with the term as it
is generally used. The Wikipedia article on "pseudoscience" does a
good job of explaining it, but if you want some further explanation,
here's how I discussed the term in my book, "Trust Us, We're Experts":
>The very prestige that science enjoys, however, has also given rise to
>a variety of scientific pretenders--disciplines such as phrenology or eugenics
>that merely claim to be scientific. The renowned philosopher of science
>Karl Popper gave a great deal of consideration to this problem and
>coined the term "pseudoscience" to help separate the wheat from the
>chaff. The difference between science and pseudoscience, he concluded,
>is that genuinely scientific theories are "falsifiable"--that is,
>they are formulated
>in such a way that if they are wrong, they can be proven false
>through experiments. By contrast, pseudosciences are formulated so
>vaguely that they can never be proven or disproven. "The difference between
>a science and a pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be
>proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot," says Robert Youngson
>in his book Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists
>Can Sometimes Be. "By this criterion you will find that a surprising
>number of seemingly scientific assertions--perhaps even many in which
>you devoutly believe--are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is
>not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may
>be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the
>cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific
>facts."
> Judged by this standard, many of the "social sciences"--including
>the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, Jung, and others--are actually
>pseudosciences
>rather than the real thing. This does not mean that Freud and
>Jung were charlatans or fools. Both were creative thinkers with fascinating
>insights into the human psyche, but a research methodology that derives
>its data from the dreams of mentally ill patients is a far cry from the
>orderly system of measurements that we associate with hard sciences like
>physics and chemistry.
These points, including Popper's criterion of "falsifiability," are
already clear in the Wikipedia article as it currently stands.
"Falsifiability" is an excellent conceptual tool. It avoids character
assassination and sticks strictly to the question of whether a
purported "scientific" claim can be tied to the empiricist
methodology that we expect from science.
"Junk science," by contrast, is quite a different beast. Here are a
couple of examples of the term in actual use:
>Unfortunately, and increasingly today, one can find examples of junk
>science that compromise the integrity of the field of science and,
>at the same time, create a scare environment where unnecessary
>regulations on industry in general, and on the consumer products
>industry in particular, are rammed through without respect to rhyme,
>reason, effect or cause.
---Michael A. Miles, former CEO of the Philip Morris tobacco company
Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute defines "junk science" as "a
hodgepodge of biased data, spurious inference and logical
legerdemain, patched together by researchers whose
enthusiasm for discovery and diagnosis far outstrips their skill" and
accuses its practitioners of "data dredging, wishful thinking,
truculent dogmatism, and, now and again, outright fraud."
Steven Milloy (who calls himself the "Junkman" and runs the "Junk
Science Home Page" at www.junkscience.com) defines junk science as
"bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,'
environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and
unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky
social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and
fortune." He habitually refers to the alleged practitioners of "junk
science" using language such as "psychologically challenged,"
"bogus," "scare mongers," "blowhards," "turkeys," "wacko enviros,"
etc.
What is striking about all three of these examples is that (unlike
the "falsifiability" standard used to define "pseudoscience") they
offer no methodological test for distinguishing between "good
science" and "bad science." Instead, the authors rely on name-calling
and ad hominem attacks on the motives, morals, or competence of
people whose conclusions differ from their own. This is fairly
typical of people who use the term "junk science," but it isn't
typical of people who use the term "pseudoscience."
As for Ed's invitation that I do something with the global warming
article -- right now I'm pretty busy with the Disinfopedia and some
other projects, but I'll try and take a look at it when I get some
time.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
I'd love to turn this mailing list into a debate forum, and I consider it an honor to have attracted the attention of such an awesome exponent of personal liberty as the Cunctator.
But Jimbo would probably not like it.
So I guess I'll just get back to work.
Pacifically,
Uncle Ed
Sorry, I just misinterperated him.
>This exchange really does not belong on the mailing list.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>Some slogans, even hateful slogans, are of sufficient historical
>(or other) importance that they can deserve a separate article.
I respectfully disagree with this. It does seem to be a vague "policy", and
begs for a test as to its consistency. But the tribe has spoken.
And my adding the second "slogan" article was to see if the informal
consensus was consistent, or if there was some sort of anti-gay complacency.
Given the controversial nature of the subject, not to mention that I did it
hastily and in what amounts to very, very, poor taste, I owe all an apology.
I was surprised to find that despite my explanations, my stated intent was
completely misunderstood and misrepresented. Nevertheless, this is not the
place for such frustrated experiments, and I was, as Vicki said, guilty of
'not being clear.' I am guilty, also of letting myself be distracted into
arguments for which there are no winners, and for which there is nothing to
gain, without willingness for mutual understanding. Ed was completely
correct in his description of my excess zeal; and I was wrong to treat Vicki
and Robert in a condescending manner for what, to them, were valid
questions.
>Are you accusing him of using sysop powers "in a fight" or >merely of using
ordinary wiki editing in a way that you don't like?
If you read the text attachment of the background of the VFD page, regarding
these articles, it shows some degree on Cuncators part of being a bit
monolithic in his treatment of the article. James even at one point, was
left to ask Cuncator himself to delete a useless page he made so he could
revert it back. I dont know how bad that got, or if its even the way i
characterize it.. nor do I expect you to be everyones babysitter and private
investigator... This is just an explanation. I wouldnt mind if it simply
rested here.
I generally find that if I keep my mouth shut for awhile, NPOV
emerges. In this cases, we went over all this with the "Aids" slogan, and I
thought the result was fine. I said my piece there.
Yes, I'm finding this out. -S
So whether or not somehting is "science" or "pseudoscience" depends on the
context, not the content?
>My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it
>doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true.
>"Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively,
>deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.
>
>I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on
>pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.
>
>For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the
>relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and
>observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the
>upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which
>observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great
>contribution here.
>
>I think Sheldon is the best-qualified person to do this, as he has the most
>facts at his command.
>
>Uncle Ed
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Sheldon Rampton brilliantly wrote:
>The very prestige that science enjoys, however, has also given rise to
>a variety of scientific pretenders--disciplines such as phrenology or eugenics
>that merely claim to be scientific. The renowned philosopher of science
>Karl Popper gave a great deal of consideration to this problem and
>coined the term "pseudoscience" to help separate the wheat from the
>chaff. The difference between science and pseudoscience, he concluded,
>is that genuinely scientific theories are "falsifiable"--that is,
>they are formulated
>in such a way that if they are wrong, they can be proven false
>through experiments. By contrast, pseudosciences are formulated so
>vaguely that they can never be proven or disproven. "The difference between
>a science and a pseudoscience is that scientific statements can be
>proved wrong and pseudoscientific statements cannot," says Robert Youngson
>in his book Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists
>Can Sometimes Be. "By this criterion you will find that a surprising
>number of seemingly scientific assertions--perhaps even many in which
>you devoutly believe--are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly this is
>not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may
>be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the
>cast-iron assurance and reliance that you can have, and place, in scientific
>facts."
> Judged by this standard, many of the "social sciences"--including
>the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, Jung, and others--are actually
>pseudosciences
>rather than the real thing. This does not mean that Freud and
>Jung were charlatans or fools. Both were creative thinkers with fascinating
>insights into the human psyche, but a research methodology that derives
>its data from the dreams of mentally ill patients is a far cry from the
>orderly system of measurements that we associate with hard sciences like
>physics and chemistry.
I beg you to donate this passage, which is from your book "Trust Us We're Experts" to Wikipedia, Sheldon. May we have your permission to incorporate it into the [[pseudoscience]] article?
For that matter, what are the legal technicalities involved in the case where a published author wants to donate a tiny portion of a copyrighted work, to the public via the GPL? (I'm not saying Sheldon would want to do so in this case: this is brilliant prose, and he's entitled to make money off it; more power to him!)
Jimbo, Cunctator, do you know whether an author can simply announce something like the following?
* "I hereby license the following text under the GPL."
Or is it more complicated than that? I'd hate to have to spend an hour or two massaging Sheldon's brilliant prose into unrecognizeability just to evade copyright restrictions. And it wouldn't be brilliant any more either. :-(
exhaustedly,
Uncle Ed
Eclecticology wrote:
> As a first impression for distinguishing between the
> debates about pseudoscience from those about junk science
> is as follow:
>
> "Pseudoscience" tends to relate to theoretical concepts
> that are on the fringes of science, and usually involve
> supporters of "mainstream" science versus supporters of
> alternative theoretical concepts.
>
> "Junk science" depends on divergent interpretations or
> applications of principles which in themselves are
> already accepted by mainstream science.
>
> "Pseudoscience" tends to focus on theory. "Junk science"
> tends to focus on application".
>
> All parties to both debates tend to cite facts, or at
> least perceived facts.
>
> There is nothing wrong with saying that a hypothesis must
> be true as long as it remains nothing more than a
> hypothesis. i.e. a statement that is subject to be
> tested, and a basis for experimental design.
Thanks. If that info is not in the [[pseudoscience]] and
[[junk science]] articles, it should be.
Uncle Ed
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 09:23 pm, Graham Burnett wrote:
> Well I'm quite new to this mailing list, so forgive my ignorance, but it
> seems that alot goes on 'behind the scenes' of wikipedia here,
Behind the scenes? This is a publicly readable, unmoderated mailing list that
is open to anybody with an email account. In addition, a link is on the Main
Page says "Mailing lists" and you might have noticed the same link at the top
of Recent Changes. Oh and on the "Mailing lists" page is a direct link to the
archives where every single post that has ever been made resides - we hide
nothing here.
Now how in the world is that behind the scenes? Saying this is "behind the
scenes" is like saying the the general proceedings of the US Congress are
behind the scenes just because you don't bother to watch CSPAN (yeah I know,
not everybody who can vote has cable, but everybody who contributes to
Wikipedia has access to an Internet connection so our proceeding are in fact
/more/ open than Congress - that's not to say that we shouldn't become more
open).
> so again
> I'll repeat my question, what did Lir do that made them so utterly
> iredeemable (this is a genuine question, not rhetoric), and what is so
> wrong with Susan Mason's edits? I just did a random trawl through a
> selection of SM's contributions and they seem basically OK to me. She is
> alot more useful, constructive and coherent than Micheal who is a complete
> nuisance who has to be cleaned up after all the time (not that I want him
> banned either).
Lir is a troll - plain and simple. IMO Vera and Susan are just /really/
annoying but since it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Vera Cruz =
Lir /and/ Vera acted in a similar way (albeit not as bad IMO) then that is
why Vera was banned (We know Lir = Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] and that the email account
Vera used was registered to a Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]). I'm not so sure about Susan's
ban but if Susan = Lir then I guess the ban is valid (I don't have a strong
opinion on that one way or the other).
> If Zoe doesn't have the patience to explain what is obviously utter crystal
> clear to everybody else perhaps somebody else could spare a few seconds,
> thanks,
>
> Graham (Quercus Robur)
The case for Lir is very clear, crystal you might say. I in fact was one of
the people who advocated banning Lir. But I've been largely silent about Vera
and Susan because as bad as they were/are they both are improvements over
Lir's outrageous behavior (I do believe that Susan = Lir but I haven't seen
undeniable evidence for this yet - but she does tend to stir-up more than her
fair share of trouble).
Below are links to the archives with the relevant subject titles below the
links - happy reading (you could have just as easily looked this up BTW -
that is one reason why some people have been impatient with these types of
questions):
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/subject.html
129.186.80.133 (aka Lir)
lir collateral damage: Stop! In the name of love
Lir and Wikipetiquette
Lir needs to go
RE: Lir needs to go
My vacation, dealing with Lir
Re: [Wikipedia-l] My vacation, dealing with Lir
Re: This whole Lir and Americanization thing
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/subject.html
Lir yet again
Lir's demands
Lir, yet again.
O.k., let's ban Lir
why am I banned? :<
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/subject.html
vera cruz is a troll
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-February/subject.html
"Susan Mason"
Please let Lir back
Please don't let Lir back
The Lir situation
User banned, why?
User:Vera Cruz
Vera Cruz is up to her old bad habits already
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-March/subject.html
Problems with Susan Mason
And of course, Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is,
Re. Susan Mason, I'm not clear what the problem is and
Susan Mason banned (was: User:RachelCorrie)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 16]]