On Mon Jul 11 15:30:23 UTC 2005, Jack Lynch (Sam Spade) wrote:
bump
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/10/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please have a look @
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Image_use
>
> we have a rather difficult situation, spanning several pages and a
> number of policies, which I would like to see handled promptly and
> effectually.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
There is no 8th Duke of Wellington image crisis. It was amicably
resolved with mutual apologies on July 10, and I do not understand
why Sam Spade keeps trying to re-awaken it. Some hours after Richard
Harvey had posted a conciliatory message at [[Talk:Arthur Wellesley,
8th Duke of Wellington]], stating that he wasn't upset with John
Kenney and would gladly buy him a pint, Sam posted an urgent-sounding
crisis warning at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=18530575&oldid=185298
75
And despite Fred Bauder's soothing reply, and John Kenney's apology
slightly later on the 10th, Sam has now posted *and re-posted* his
call for "handling" of the "difficult situation" to the mailing list.
Please try to get over it, Sam. Everybody else has.
Best wishes
Bishonen
There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about "open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.
As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1Jon wrote:> I've recently noticed that we have a small number of self-confessed paedophile Wikipedians - who, as you can imagine, edit paedophile-related articles apologising for paedophilia, encouraging us to accept it as normal. Should we not kick these people out of Wikipedia. At the very least they are encouraging others to commit crimes (by arguing that paedophilia is perfectly acceptable).> > By way of example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon.> > I know Wikipedia is a broad church, full of people with different backgrounds and beliefs. But whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is against societal norms. As it is we have to warn teachers and parents that Wikipedia is not child-safe because of certain explicit images - do we also want to have to tell them it isn't child-safe as we welcome paedophiles as equals?> > (Incidentally, the developers would be well-advised
to do IP checks on these users and tell the police whatever they find out, as it is clear that self-confessed paedophiles need to be watched very carefully.)> > Jon (jguk) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must remain balanced. We don't saywhether paedophilia is right or wrong, we say what it is, why people maydo it, what causes them to do it, and society's views on it.If these people are making statements saying paedophilia is morallyright, or in fact, morally wrong, then that is not acceptable. If theyare providing encylopediac information relating to why people may bepaedophiles, etc. I think that is beneficial for Wikipedia.Be careful of using emotive language, and banning people for theirthoughts is not what I'd like to see. Ban people for their actions, butnot for what they think.Chris
- --Chris Jenkinsonchris at starglade.org-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.orgiD8DBQFC0AuOEq6+ijeBrJ8RAvceAJ9GOw+isv9G8DUER3JVe… PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
James D. Forrester wrote:
>Fastfission wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>
>
>>Now, if you say ahead of time, "Well, we're not going to sue you" --
>>does that change anything? Not really. What if you changed your mind?
>>You're not bound *not* to sue us (or, put in a less accusatory way:
>>what if your group was suddenly acquired by someone else who did not
>>want to honor your previous informal agreement?).
>>
>>
>Indeed; under 'Common Law' (at least in the UK, but I imagine that it is
>the same or at least very similar in the various districts of the United
>States), as contracts must have 'benefit' to both parties, thus promises
>not to sue cannot be contractual terms, merely nice frippery words. They
>are not legally binding in any way.
>
>
The general principle certainly does apply to the US. Because of the
importance placed on the availability of recourse to the legal system,
courts generally disfavor agreements to surrender that right. Even if a
promise not to sue was framed in contractual terms, it would have to be
fairly explicit.
However, back to the situation that prompted this discussion, the
statement in question is not a promise not to sue. Rather, it's a
statement that would be held against the plaintiff if they exercised
their right to sue.
--Michael Snow
Actually, as a publisher, PRA gets people who ask us if we think a
particular use of our copyrighted material is "Fair Use" all the time.
If Wikipedia asserts a "Fair Use" and PRA recognizes this claim and
agrees with it, there is no copyright violation. If PRA later changes
its mind and asks that something be removed, it could not effectively
argue that the prior use was not appropriate, because it had agreed to
it. All archived pages would be covered by that prior use authorization.
Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:37 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: New fair use tag proposal
>
>
> The problem here is that you can't "give" fair use
> privileges. Fair use is a defense, not a form of permission.
> When we post a fair use tag, it is really a pre-emptive
> statement that says, "If you sue us, this is what we'll say
> in court, and we think we'll win."
>
> Now, if you say ahead of time, "Well, we're not going to sue
> you" -- does that change anything? Not really. What if you
> changed your mind? You're not bound *not* to sue us (or, put
> in a less accusatory way: what if your group was suddenly
> acquired by someone else who did not want to honor your
> previous informal agreement?).
>
> So whether or not the usage of the materials is "fair use" is
> totally unrelated to whether or not your group approves. The
> transference of privileges you are talking about is really
> just a form of licensing, which is *not* what fair use is about.
>
> Whether that means we can or can't use your content depends
> on its use. I suspect it would still be mostly fair -- a
> picture of you and a simple table don't sound like things
> which are going to defraud anybody. And if we trust you not
> to sue, that would probably bend the "is it fair?"-ometer
> towards the "not going to sue us" section of things, so it
> probably isn't a problem. But it isn't so simple as just
> "granting" fair use -- it is not a license, it is a defense
> against allegations of violating a license. That's an
> important difference!
>
> FF
James D. Forrester said:
>Indeed; under 'Common Law' (at least in the UK, but I imagine that it is
>the same or at least very similar in the various districts of the United
>States), as contracts must have 'benefit' to both parties, thus promises
>not to sue cannot be contractual terms, merely nice frippery words. They
>are not legally binding in any way.
If both parties agree and are benefitted by the promise, it's called a
contract. If one party unilaterally makes a promise to another party for no
consideration, it's called a waiver. When one waives the right to sue
someone else for copyright infringement, it's called a license. In the US,
at least, but almost certainly in the UK as well, all of these are legally
binding. For example, according to Eben Moglen, the GFDL is not a contract,
because it is a unilateral grant of permission, but Eben Moglen isn't saying
that the GFDL is not legally binding.
Haukur said:
>I think you are still unnecessarily conflating
>"fair use" with "licensing". Saying that a copyright
>holder agrees in advance that certain use is "fair
>use" is a rather convoluted way of licensing an image.
>You can simply say "I allow this image to be used for
>such and such purposes" without mentioning "fair use"
>at all.
Agreed
Haukur also said:
>Nevertheless, even though your proposal doesn't make
>any sense to me it is actually currently in use on
>Wikipedia :) We have a tag for images that are "used
>with permission and fair use".
Yes, this points out just how strange it is that we allow so called "fair
use images" (*) on Wikipedia but don't allow "by permission images". If
we're not going to allow by permission images, or non-commercial use only
images, then it makes no sense to allow an image which can only be used
under fair use by us, or by non-commercial entities.
I agree that allowing some fair use is inevitable. But if a fair use
defense isn't available to commercial redistributors, then a "fair use
image" is no better than a non-commercial only image.
"Fair use", within the context of text and images allowed in Wikipedia,
should mean fair use for everyone, at least everyone producing and
distributing an encyclopedia of some sort within the United States.
Otherwise, the term is rather meaningless.
Anthony
(*) I refuse to use that misnomer of a phrase without quotes. "Fair use" is
a description of use, not a description of a type of image.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
For non-profits the "benefit" can be furtherance of the stated mission,
which for many is educational. The benefit to a commercial photographer
might be getting their work and their name out for publicity value and
public exposure. A copyright holder agreeing in advance that a use is
"fair use" would make a subsequent attempt to litigate very difficult to
pursue. A note that a copyrighted image or text is used by permission
and considered "fair use" so long as it is for a non-commercial
educational purpose and properly credited should be an option on
Wikipedia.
Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of James D.
> Forrester
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:54 PM
> To: Fastfission; English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: New fair use tag proposal
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fastfission wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > Now, if you say ahead of time, "Well, we're not going to
> sue you" --
> > does that change anything? Not really. What if you changed
> your mind?
> > You're not bound *not* to sue us (or, put in a less accusatory way:
> > what if your group was suddenly acquired by someone else
> who did not
> > want to honor your previous informal agreement?).
>
> Indeed; under 'Common Law' (at least in the UK, but I imagine
> that it is the same or at least very similar in the various
> districts of the United States), as contracts must have
> 'benefit' to both parties, thus promises not to sue cannot be
> contractual terms, merely nice frippery words. They are not
> legally binding in any way.
>
> [Snip]
>
> Yours,
> - --
> James D. Forrester
> Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
> E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org
> IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFC0upakn3kUxZyJx0RAmWfAKCGcYwwXsnrXlFEoVWST9AbxPilZQCfeKw9
> GGGKau01l59+1M3WHgmL5fc=
> =nwgm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On 11/07/05, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>I must stress this point. Zero connection.
>Zero communication. Not a sockpuppet, not a friend, not anything at
>all.
I must say, you really can't blame anyone for being suspicious given
your intimation that you would indeed use "a different IP address every
day" and find "some other editor(s) to present the same facts." I
certainly believe those comments to be more than mere braggadocio.
>I would like to know what is going on,
>because it looks to me like an editor in good faith has been treated
>very poorly indeed, and that both he and I deserve apologies,
>especially from the admin who blocked him.
I think it's plainly obvious to you what is going on, and your
involvement is not something that can be ruled out just because you say
so. However, I do believe Jtdirl may have unintentionally jumped the
gun. On the face of it, I suspect that because Jtdirl joined the
discussion after the obvious sock puppetry of one "Kangaroopedia", he
mistook both Kangaroopedia and Pwqn to be incontestable sock puppets,
not knowing of Pwqn's history. I don't believe Pwqn is a sock puppet.
Nevertheless, I do find it entirely strange that s/he would just,
completely out-of-the-blue, and in contrast to prior edits, edit an
obscure topic on Australian government and rehash the same flawed
understanding as Skyring. We can all draw conclusions, but I don't
suppose there is anyway prove such duplicity. It is good that Pwqn has
been unblocked, and s/he does deserve an apology of sorts from Jtdirl.
Skyring doesn't.
>I see his intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith
>editor as something warranting discussion.
I encourage everyone to recognise the emotiveness of this seemingly
irrelevant issue. The harassment Jtdirl was subjected to should be
considered, and he ought to be given a little bit of leeway. If Pwqn and
Kangaroopedia are in some way linked to Skyring, then his actions would
be perfectly justifiable. As it is, such a link may not exist or may and
not be proven. But let's be clear, there was no abusiveness here and it
is bad faith to assume bad faith.
Cyberjunkie
I see that Trey Stone is still active. As I recall, he was tempbanned a few months ago and persisted in circumventing the ban. I would have thought this would have resulted in a longer, if not indefinite ban, being implemented against him. Can anyone bring me up to speed on his case?
Thanks,
AndyL