Here is an answer I sent to Kurt Kawohl on a request to oppose the deletion
of his material:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Kkawohl wrote:
> Please voice your opinion on deletion.
>
> 21st Century Transcendentalism is not a religion and does not advocate
> (request belief, membership or anything else) anything; it stands for
> religious rationality in the 21st Century. If Wikipedia can describe what
> atheists, Christianity, Islam, Bokononism thinks then why can not I as a
> 21st Century Transcendentalist describe what I think? Bias, maybe?
The reason is exactly that this is about what _you_ think. When we describe
atheism, Christianity, Islam, we describe the common belief system of a
large group of people, a belief system that makes an important impact on
society as a whole. On the other hand, 21st Century Transcendentalism is
just your ideas. If you get a reasonably large following for it, or if it
otherwise becomes influential, then I would be in favor of addition. But
I see no evidence whatsoever for it now.
Andre Engels
> What course of action is left?
Here's my suggestion:
1. Robert accepts that it is wrong to insult people on Wikipedia, apologises, and
agrees not to do so in the future.
2. Those who Robert has insulted accept his apology, forgive him, and agree not to
bring up the subject in the future.
3. Robert accepts that it is wrong to ask for bona fide Wikipedians to be banned,
apologises, and stops doing so.
4. Those who Robert has asked to be banned accept his apology, forgive him, and
agree not to bring up the subject in the future.
5. Robert accepts that it is wrong to accuse bona fide Wikipedians of being vandals,
apologises, and stops doing so.
6. Those who Robert has accused of being vandals accept his apology, forgive him,
and agree not to bring up the subject in the future.
7. Those who created all the junk on this topic accept that it was wrong to create so
much junk, apologise for doing so, and agree not to do so in the future.
8. Those who were affected by all the junk on the subject accept the collective
apology, forgive those who created it, and agree not to bring up the subject in the
future.
9. All the junk on this topic, scattered over various talk pages, user talk pages, ban
pages, mailing lists, etc, is all sent to the big recycle bin in the sky.
10. Time passes.
11. People start to forgive.
12. People start to forget.
This 12 step procedure will make everyone happy, I believe. However, I welcome
alternative suggestions, or improvements. If you want to edit it, it'll be at
[[Wikipedia:Community case RK]], replacing the big pile of junk previously located
there.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to sort out step zero: filling in my tax return... ;-)
Love,
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Cross post with Wikipedia-l (please respond there)
Delirium wrote:
>I think this whole thing is unfortunate though,
>and it's becoming increasingly clear that the
>GFDL exactly as written isn't *really* what
>we want to do. I think most Wikipedians would
>be happier with a license that required Wikipedia
>to be credited rather than five authors. As it
>stands now, the republisher *has* to credit five
>authors, but does *not* have to credit Wikipedia
>at all. They could give it their own name and
>not mention its connection to us at all, as long
>as they list the authors properly. I think most
>of us would prefer the opposite -- that they be
>required to credit Wikipedia, and not be required
>to credit the individual authors. But this would
>require a license change, which may be impossible
>at this point.
1) This is more appropriate for Wikipedia-L
2) On Textbook-L we are already talking about
persuading the GNU people make a FDL 2.0 that states
that anything licensed under the GNU FDL 2.0 or later
that does /not/ have invariant sections or cover
texts, can also be licensed under a "GNU LFDL" which
would be written more along the lines of the Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike License (and the LFDL
would also explicitly state that any LFDL text can be
used under the CC-Att/SA, the GNU FDL 2.0 or later or,
of course, the LFDL). The idea is to dump the GNU FDL
and its problems and relicense all Wikimedia content
under the less restrictive and less complex LFDL. See
the archives: Look for the "wikiversity licensing"
thread at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-August/subject.html#sta…
Which reminds me again; we really need a Wikimedia-l
mailing list to talk about these types of
Wikimedia-wide issues and also discus new project
ideas like Wikiversity.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
See also:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
(a copyleft content license)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
JT wrote:
>Does this mean that wikipedians outside the US can
>break their own native copyright rules when loading
>something onto wiki and are covered because of US law?
If something is illegal to upload in the nation you live in, then it is your
choice on whether or not to break your laws; you are the one that will end up
fined or in jail if you get caught. But what is legal to have on the
Wikimedia server is a separate issue and only the laws of the United States
and California apply to that. But IANAL so what do I know....
>Or would the presumption be that as they had broken
>native copyright rules in scanning or copying the image,
>they or wiki would be liable in their country?
Which "wiki" are you talking about here? I know this may be shocking to you
but even in the Wikimedia family there are 4 different wiki projects and one
of those projects has at least 40 different versions; each of these are also
their own wiki in a technical sense.
Wikipedia is not the only wiki.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>Tarquin wrote
>I am fed up with this mailing list churning out all this yelling.
>
>I no longer know who did what, who said what, and who is to blame.
That is why I called for one message, and only one, from each, with no right
to comeback. The idea was to say - explain in 1 letter your behaviour then
stop revisiting the issue. Otherwise this will go on and on and on ad
nausaum.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
I don't think brushing the issues under the carpet
help. The RK issues keep on coming up. Telling
everyone to stop discussing them doesn't solve the
problem.
Angela.
>There's another option. Jimbo, from on high, declares
that this situation
>is OVER. No discussion, no nothing. No one mentions
it, it's gone, done,
>in the past. The first person who violates this fiat
gets tossed out on
>his/her ear. ;)
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html
>Any user name is a copyright pseudonym if it is not a real user's name.
>The user name (or IP address) is the only way to trace the attribution
>rights
>(this is especially inportant in droit d'auteur countries such as Canada
>where
>an author's moral rights must be respected, and if someone has questions
>about the validity of the copyright of the underlying text submitted to
>Wikipedia the only way to check that is to contact the contributor from
>Wikipedia (they usually call that 'due diligence' in the copyright chain of
>title
>review industry).
>
>The GFDL requires that the last five authors of a document released be
>listed
>(see section 4(B) of the license). Thus, five contributors to a page may
>technically have to be listed by any GFDL republisher of that page.
>
>Imagine someone who wants to publish a page and finds that one of the
>authors has an offensive name; they may decide that they cannot morally
>accept to use such a page because of the offensive character of the
>author's
>name which they must acknowledge.
>
> If there is an offense username, a controversial name, or one which
>involves
> profanity, then this would tend to discourage the redistribution of
>Wikipedia
> content. Thus IMHO using an offensive user name is in violation of the
>spirit of the licensing scheme that we use in order to encourage
>redistribution
> of our work. That should be enough reason to prohibit the use of such
>names.
>
>Alex756
>
That is an /extremely/ interesting point which pretty much shows that
dealing with issue is a necessity.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Someone calling himself Dante Alighieri but not named Dante wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I don't suppose there's any way that you
> could prove that my name /isn't/ legally Dante Alighieri.
Hmm...I think I remember something...<goes to Google, searches
WikiEN-l archives>
In
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003655.html
the same e-mail address <dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that last one from Karim Moussally was from me. That's my real name.
> Darn multiple sig files. ;)
Q.E.D. ;-)
-[[User:Geoffrey|Geoffrey Thomas]] (which is my real name)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
There are a lot of Adam Bishops too, I even went to high school with another
one. If there was a real name policy, maybe it would have to include middle
names, even though that wouldn't always solve the problem either (but I
don't think there should be a real-name policy anyway :))
>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org>
>Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language
>Wikipedia<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Controversial user nicknames
>Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:00:58 -0400
>
>At 09:57 AM 8/27/03 +0100, sannse wrote:
>>Adam Bishop wrote:
>>
>>
>> > How would you stop people from creating fake "real" names? They could
>>just
>> > use the random name generator that Tim Starling posted on Saddam
>>Hussein's
>> > talk page.
>>
>>As I understand it, the way the "use real names" policy is used elsewhere
>>is
>>to simply ask new users if the name they are using is theirs. So the
>>choice
>>is to either use a real name or to lie. This doesn't seem that useful to
>>me, those likely to cause trouble are the same people as those likely to
>>lie. For myself, I don't wish to use my real name and I wouldn't lie - so
>>I
>>would not participate in a community with a "use real names" policy.
>
>There's another problem with "use real names." I'm using mine. If the other
>Vicki Rosenzweig I'm aware of wants to participate in Wikipedia, I doubt
>either of us would think it a good idea for her to edit as "Vicki
>Rosenzweig 2".
>
>And that's with an unusual name: there are a *lot* of "John Smith"s out
>there.
>--
>Vicki Rosenzweig
>vr(a)redbird.org
>http://www.redbird.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>Anthere wrote:
>
>Here's my suggestion:
>1. Robert accepts that it is wrong to insult people on
>Wikipedia, apologises, and agrees not to do so in the
>future.
>2. Those who Robert has insulted accept his apology,
>forgive him, and agree not to
>bring up the subject in the future.
>3. Robert accepts that it is wrong to ask for bona
>fide Wikipedians to be banned, apologises, and stops
>doing so.
>4. Those who Robert has asked to be banned accept his
>apology, forgive him, and agree not to bring up the
>subject in the future.
>5. Robert accepts that it is wrong to accuse bona fide
>Wikipedians of being vandals, apologises, and stops
>doing so.
>6. Those who Robert has accused of being vandals
>accept his apology, forgive him, and agree not to
>bring up the subject in the future.
>7. Those who created all the junk on this topic accept
>that it was wrong to create so much junk, apologise
>for doing so, and agree not to do so in the future.
>8. Those who were affected by all the junk on the
>subject accept the collective apology, forgive those
>who created it, and agree not to bring up the subject
>in the future.
>9. All the junk on this topic, scattered over various
>talk pages, user talk pages, ban pages, mailing lists,
>etc, is all sent to the big recycle bin in the sky.
>10. Time passes.
>11. People start to forgive.
>12. People start to forget.
>
>This 12 step procedure will make everyone happy, I
>believe. However, I welcome alternative suggestions,
>or improvements. If you want to edit it, it'll be at
>[[Wikipedia:Community case RK]], replacing the big
>pile of junk previously located there.
Forgetting and forgiving is hard when everyone still feels that /they/ are
the wronged person. So I'll suggest a simple course of action for RK and
EoT, since they seem to be the main protagonists.
1. Each writes ONE message to the wiki list explaining:
a. Why they are behaving as they are:
b. Why they perceive the need to act as they have.
c. What regrets if any they have for their behaviour.
2. Once each has explained their actions, both are BANNED from discussing
each other's contributions on the wiki-list until 30th September. It is
/one/ message and no more. If either tries to get in a reply, the person who
tries to come back with a reply will be instantly banned from wiki for one
week, and one week for every subsequent attempt to get in another reply.
3. EoT /immediately/ deletes or has deleted ALL his /pages about RK without
exception. A failure to do so will be followed by their forced deletion and
his banning for one month.
4. RK promises to stop making wild accusations of anti-semitism and
jew-baiting against members. Any more wild exaggurated claims will be
followed by his banning for one month. If between now and the 30th September
he feels there is a genuine case of anti-semitism or jew-baiting, he should
raise it first with a sysop or with Jimbo. If they independently concur, he
can bring it to the wiki list, but only in a restrained and responsible
manner. After 30th September he can make allegations directly, but only in a
restrained and responsible manner.
5. Both are asked to take a week's break from wiki, to allow tempers to cool
down.
6. Any return to the past behaviour will earn that user a month's ban on
each occasion it happens.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail