WikiEN-l May 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

118 participants
211 discussions

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate
by MPerel 16 May '05

16 May '05

I would like to draw attention to and encourage participation regarding slrubenstein's policy proposal/discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate . --Miri

1 0

BAn
by John Bradley 16 May '05

16 May '05

Why have you banned me from the mailing list again. Of course with no explanation. Just a continuation of the high kacking of wikipedia by fools and idiots. Who are quety happy to pervert the system to there won ends. There in general cowardly actions are hidden behind a human sheild of wikipedia users. Interms of social skills what does it say about someone who annony mously Yours John Bradley Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john(a)ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk

14 16

Re: [WikiEN-l] Irate impersonating me on IRC
by Matt R 16 May '05

16 May '05

--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: > David 'DJ' Hedley (spyders(a)btinternet.com) [050515 23:47]: > > From: "David Gerard" <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> > > > > If you see someone on IRC coming from 217.44.0.0/16 with a nick that's a > > > variation on my name, it's not me, it's Irate. > > > User:The Number comes from the same range (it's btcentralplus.com, so > > > that's giving away approximately nothing) and may or may not be the same > > > person. Although The Number doesn't use trademark Irate typos. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Number suggests a very similiar > > character so I wouldn't be at all surprised. > > I'll check for typos. Irate's habit of typing too fast and not bothering to > correct himself leads to various trademark typos. If The Number is Irate, > The Number can be blocked promptly as Irate trolling. >From a quick check, I would suspect User:The Number to be a different entity from User:Irate. Bradley/Irate has a very distinctive writing style characterised by typos (as you note above) and poor grammar to the point of incomprehensibility (e.g. "her is the news it is Gerard that does not understand anything excpect manipulation" from a recent email). User:The Number doesn't seem to have the same problems with his/her writing. Irate's IRC impersonations are out of order, of course -- and yes, "DavidGerard2" does indeed count as impersonation... -- Matt ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

3 3

Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected
by Fastfission 16 May '05

16 May '05

On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote: > Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be used in any > other way than to illustrate an article about animated characters > or Disney? Fair use is for commentary and criticism. In an ideal form, a Wikipedia article with photos of Mickey might count as "commentary". There is also the question of whether or not we would be using it in a way which deprives Disney of any income, which is more open to interpretation, and the question of whether or not someone visiting Wikipedia would be confused as to whether or not it was affiliated with Disney ("Sure," the lawyers say, "it says Wikipedia up in the corner. But it says 'Mickey Mouse' at the top of the page, and then goes on to describe it in an authoratative manner, with copyrighted images all over the place!"). Are we using it as a commentary on Mickey Mouse or just using it to illustrate and describe Mickey Mouse? As I understand it, "fair use" does not necessarily apply if you just want to illustrate an encyclopedia article on a subject, whether you charge for it or not. Images are a much more difficult media to deal with than is text. Text can be easily re-written or paraphrased and be a legally distinct new form. Images are more difficult, and the way the courts rule can be highly arbitrary (viz. the cases at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.ht…). Let's move beyond Disney and to another pet peeve of mine: historical images by news corporations. For example, the wonderful image of Bryan and Darrow at [[Scopes Trial]]. Iconic image, very famous! But also likely owned by a stock photography company, i.e. Corbis or Getty Images. These guys make their entire income on licensing pictures and asserting their copyright on them -- Wikipedia "giving them away for free" seems like it would definitely fall into a questionable category. Is it "commentary" on the copyrighted work itself, or are we just using it to illustrate an article? > One of WP's most useful defenses is to become even more popular > and respected. We want to be in a position where all the judges > in the building have to recuse themselves because they and their > clerks consult WP on a daily basis, or have them find lawyers in > contempt for merely suggesting that WP has any evil intentions. :-) Evil need not be intended -- if a company makes its money by the selling of copyrighted material and we "give it away", that's problematic. Robin Hood wasn't evil, but he certainly broke the law. > Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely > used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will > cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and > backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law > firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of > dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of > good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats. I don't think this will cut it -- some of these companies (RIAA, MPAA) don't seem to have any problems with negative PR. At least, that's what I took away from Lawrence Lessig's book on copyright law ("Free Culture", available at http://free-culture.org/freecontent/) which I found quite interesting thought a bit scary. Personally I think the best approach would be to have a much stricter rule about "fair use" for pictoral and sound content (the latter doesn't seem to be as much of an issue, yet). Again, the effects of "fair use" and the reach of copyright seems to vary widely by the media in question: it is easy to make text "free", it is hard to make images (especially historical or commercial) "free". This might mean sacrificing some of our aesthetic appearances and make us look a bit different from the standard "encyclopedia" in many respects -- we don't pay the sorts of licensing fees that EB pays for this sort of content. I think this is one of the things WP is going to get bit on the butt about at some point, but hopefully I'm wrong! FF

3 2

Irate impersonating me on IRC
by David Gerard 15 May '05

15 May '05

If you see someone on IRC coming from 217.44.0.0/16 with a nick that's a variation on my name, it's not me, it's Irate. User:The Number comes from the same range (it's btcentralplus.com, so that's giving away approximately nothing) and may or may not be the same person. Although The Number doesn't use trademark Irate typos. - d.

3 5

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
by Poor, Edmund W 15 May '05

15 May '05

> There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party > elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant. If not on legal grounds, how about on the general principle of being nice? Is it crucial to Wikipedia's integrity that we INCLUDE a mention of the fact that some anonymous troublemakers have branded a non-notable private citizen with a very annoying label? Uncle Ed thinks not.

16 39

RE: Corrected (was: Abuse of your services)
by Poor, Edmund W 15 May '05

15 May '05

> I demand that my name be removed immediately. This is your > last chance to explain why you choose to defame my companies. I see nothing in the article that defames you or your companies. The fact that some anonymous idiot labelled you a "kook" means nothing. And it's not an offense for Wikipedia to report that fact. Note carefully the distinction: A. Wikipedia is NOT calling you a kook (that would violate our policy, and I personally won't tolerate that). B. Wikipedia *MAY* report that those jerks on Usenet have branded you a kook. (Read the part about Wikipedia NOT endorsing that label.) I think I've said enough about this. Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

18 58

RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41
by Michael Plasmeier 15 May '05

15 May '05

help -Michael -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:56 PM To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41 Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Ray Saintonge) 2. Re: RE: Corrected (Ray Saintonge) 3. Re: RE: Corrected (Tony Sidaway) 4. Re: RE: Corrected (Tony Sidaway) 5. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway) 6. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway) 7. Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected (Fastfission) 8. Re: RE: Corrected (Delirium) 9. Re: RE: Corrected (Skyring) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 07:44:26 -0700 From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann) To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <42860ECA.7010908(a)telus.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed David Gerard wrote: >Phil Boswell (phil.boswell(a)gmail.com) [050513 18:42]: > > >>Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia is >>to gather together crumbs of information that individually are not >>particularly helpful to construct a whole which is. >>There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the centre >>of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then implode under its own >>weight. >>The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an >>article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we turn >>into just a list of people *everybody* knows about already. >> >> >That's what I mean by "immune system turning into autoimmune disease". > >I also find the argument that Wollmann's article was VFDed therefore we >must purge all mention of him to be utterly unconvincing. > > The add thing about this is that the article about Wollmann could be a vehicle for some objective facts in the matter. That's better than finding things piecemeal on the mailing list. Ec ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 08:21:22 -0700 From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected To: minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <42861772.1010905(a)telus.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Tony Sidaway wrote: >Ray Saintonge said: > > >>should review the four criteria >>for fair use found in U.S. law. >> >> >Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide. > The four criteria provide an objective and accessible framework for evaluating fair use. This does not mean that we are imposing US law. If you can point to criteria from elsewhere that accomplish the same thing, that would be fine too. Ec ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:53:48 +0100 (BST) From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <42197.62.252.0.4.1116096828.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Skyring said: > > What sort of payouts have been involved? Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed. One serial plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:55:56 +0100 (BST) From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <53573.62.252.0.4.1116096956.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 geni said: > On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >> Ray Saintonge said: >> > should review the four criteria >> > for fair use found in U.S. law. >> >> Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide. > > > The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that > state and the laws of the US federal goverment. Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue non-payment of UK judgements in US courts. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:00:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann) To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <12610.62.252.0.4.1116097250.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Ray Saintonge said: >> > Interesting observation. Whatever the merits of their cases > Scientology is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when > it comes to the experience and funding needed to carry on a suit. > Maybe that experience has also taught them when not to sue. ;-) > They tend to sue under the laws of copyright and trade secrets. Their lawsuits do seem to be counter-productive, but the effect on the defendant is usually disproportionately brutal. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:06:14 +0100 (BST) From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann) To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <39539.62.252.0.4.1116097574.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Ray Saintonge said: >> > If both parties fail to appear the case > would be dismissed for lack of prosecution. > Yes, he'd need to retain and brief counsel to prepare and present a pro forma complaint alongside evidence to satisfy the court. He'd have to ensure that the defendant was served. He wouldn't have to show up in court. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 15:43:09 -0400 From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <98dd099a05051412431a2bc1b4(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 5/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote: > Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be used in any > other way than to illustrate an article about animated characters > or Disney? Fair use is for commentary and criticism. In an ideal form, a Wikipedia article with photos of Mickey might count as "commentary". There is also the question of whether or not we would be using it in a way which deprives Disney of any income, which is more open to interpretation, and the question of whether or not someone visiting Wikipedia would be confused as to whether or not it was affiliated with Disney ("Sure," the lawyers say, "it says Wikipedia up in the corner. But it says 'Mickey Mouse' at the top of the page, and then goes on to describe it in an authoratative manner, with copyrighted images all over the place!"). Are we using it as a commentary on Mickey Mouse or just using it to illustrate and describe Mickey Mouse? As I understand it, "fair use" does not necessarily apply if you just want to illustrate an encyclopedia article on a subject, whether you charge for it or not. Images are a much more difficult media to deal with than is text. Text can be easily re-written or paraphrased and be a legally distinct new form. Images are more difficult, and the way the courts rule can be highly arbitrary (viz. the cases at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.htm l#3). Let's move beyond Disney and to another pet peeve of mine: historical images by news corporations. For example, the wonderful image of Bryan and Darrow at [[Scopes Trial]]. Iconic image, very famous! But also likely owned by a stock photography company, i.e. Corbis or Getty Images. These guys make their entire income on licensing pictures and asserting their copyright on them -- Wikipedia "giving them away for free" seems like it would definitely fall into a questionable category. Is it "commentary" on the copyrighted work itself, or are we just using it to illustrate an article? > One of WP's most useful defenses is to become even more popular > and respected. We want to be in a position where all the judges > in the building have to recuse themselves because they and their > clerks consult WP on a daily basis, or have them find lawyers in > contempt for merely suggesting that WP has any evil intentions. :-) Evil need not be intended -- if a company makes its money by the selling of copyrighted material and we "give it away", that's problematic. Robin Hood wasn't evil, but he certainly broke the law. > Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely > used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will > cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and > backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law > firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of > dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of > good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats. I don't think this will cut it -- some of these companies (RIAA, MPAA) don't seem to have any problems with negative PR. At least, that's what I took away from Lawrence Lessig's book on copyright law ("Free Culture", available at http://free-culture.org/freecontent/) which I found quite interesting thought a bit scary. Personally I think the best approach would be to have a much stricter rule about "fair use" for pictoral and sound content (the latter doesn't seem to be as much of an issue, yet). Again, the effects of "fair use" and the reach of copyright seems to vary widely by the media in question: it is easy to make text "free", it is hard to make images (especially historical or commercial) "free". This might mean sacrificing some of our aesthetic appearances and make us look a bit different from the standard "encyclopedia" in many respects -- we don't pay the sorts of licensing fees that EB pays for this sort of content. I think this is one of the things WP is going to get bit on the butt about at some point, but hopefully I'm wrong! FF ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:48:57 -0400 From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <42867249.2030301(a)hackish.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Tony Sidaway wrote: >geni said: > > >>On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Ray Saintonge said: >>> >>> >>>>should review the four criteria >>>>for fair use found in U.S. law. >>>> >>>> >>>Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide. >>> >>> >>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that >>state and the laws of the US federal goverment. >> >> > >Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal >legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue >non-payment of UK judgements in US courts. > > Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point. UK courts take the view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they would not be able to sue in UK courts. -Mark ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:56:02 +1000 From: Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Message-ID: <550ccb820505141456da5d802(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 5/15/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: > Tony Sidaway wrote: > > >geni said: > >>The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that > >>state and the laws of the US federal goverment. > >> > >> > > > >Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal > >legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue > >non-payment of UK judgements in US courts. > > > > > Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point. UK courts take the > view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For > example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they > would not be able to sue in UK courts. I don't think any court would see Wikipedia as being a newspaper. -- Peter in Canberra ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 41 ****************************************

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
by Poor, Edmund W 14 May '05

14 May '05

Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable". Ed

11 19

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
by Rick 14 May '05

14 May '05

--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Rick wrote: > > >--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's > >>that fascinating? If it > >>survives the VFD process, than that might give us > an > >>excuse to mention > >>him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it > fails > >>a vfd vote, that's > >>pretty conclusive evidence that he's > "non-notable". > >> > >>Ed > >> > >> > > > >He's already been deleted following a VfD vote. > > > > > > > If we were to follow both the policy that if > something is deleted via a > VfD then a new article about it should never be > created, and also the > policy that VfD is a quality-control mechanism (as > you suggest in your > other posting sent around the same time as this > one), this would lead to > some articles being declared forever uncreatable > simply because the > first attempt to make it was unmitigatedly bad even > if there's a > legitimate interest in having an article on that > subject. Since deletion > removes old versions from history entirely I don't > see what the point > would be, they're gone either way. I never advocated that no article should be created on this person. I merely reported the situation as it now stands. RickK Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html

1 0

← Newer
1
...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l May 2005