I'm more than a little suprised that no one is angry about the fact that
companies admit to subtle PR-pushing on Wikipedia. ("planting of viral
information in entries, modification of entries to point to new
promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of
information.") Where's the outrage? Why aren't people upset about this?
--Mark
> From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
>
> And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would
> easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial
> part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal
> purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are
> non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them
> in any way; we are not even looking at the content itself, just
> bibliographic information.
There is paranoia, and then there is prudence.
SCO's various lawsuits may not have much merit, and it is possible
that their case could be on the verge of a spectacular legal
meltdown. However, they have managed to cause an enormous amount of
expensive trouble. In SCO's case, they are attacking deep-pocketed
companies like IBM and Autozone, so there is no point in doing so
unless they really hope to win.
If a traditional encyclopedia wanted to attack Wikipedia--and I don't
think you need to be paranoid to assume such a wish--they don't need
to win, but only to bankrupt the entity they're suing. Their case
doesn't need to be good enough to win. It only needs to be good
enough that court couldn't refuse to consider it.
Using the list of articles from other encyclopedias, merged, edited,
what-have-you, sounds like gloriously complicated legal territory to
me. It's concrete evidence of copying _something._ Sort of. Kind of.
Could they win? I don't think it matters. Anyone knows who won
Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce?
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
As requested by Mark on #wikipedia.
--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3420
University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
>Why do you distinguish offsite and onsite lists?
> From memory, these lists [...]
>-Mark
I was only trying to follow the emphasis in the opposition's own argument,
that no-edits-on-Wikipedia translates into something distinct, in that sense
-- no other reason.
I'm in favour of having many more more experiences, parallels, lessons,
etc., to draw from.
El_C
Hi all.
I'm wanting to expand the [[Nihilartikel]] article, by discussing the
occurence of nihilartikels - deliberately fictional articles - in open
publications like Wikipedia. We mention a couple, which were articles
about famous hoaxes themselves presented as real ([[Uqbar]] and [[San
Serriffe]]) before being fixed. And, of course, there was [[Jamie
Kane]] recently. Things like [[Battle of Blenau]] Does anyone remember
any cases?
(Myself, I found three fictional Aztec gods. First reference here June
10, deleted mid August.)
However, what I'm looking for are cases of purely false information,
not particularly intended for humorous effect or linked to popular
culture - which if memory serves do get caught and hauled onto VfD
every now and again. This is a developing role of the nihilartikel -
rather than being inserted "from high", they get added from below,
almost as part of a [[breaching experiment]] ("let's see if this
lasts")
I do know we have people actively inserting false information into
wikipedia. Not all of it is fiction presented as fact; some is fantasy
presented as fact. But hard to discuss it without cases, without
knowing how long these last "in the wild"...
Thanks,
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Case law has consistently held that an index of a work
may be independently subject to copyright. We are
certainly not using an insubstantial portion of their
index.
I've discussed this here and other places before, but
I do not believe we have a defensible fair use claim
in this case. Since I have always been on the losing
side of those arguments, I am just surprised something
changed.
-DF
> And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here
> before, that it would easily fall under the "fair
> use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of
> their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own
> internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia
> namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are
> not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them >
in any way; we are not even looking at the content >
itself, just bibliographic information.
>
> FF
We are all beggars. No one can insist on a standard of fairness when
editing articles. You and I can only make a good faith edit and explain
it on the article's discussion page. If others aren't convinced, there's
little you or I can do about it.
While your account is blocked you can make editorial suggestions on your
user talk page. Please tell me your Wikipedia username, and I'll
dialogue further with you there.
(If you choose to reply only by private email, please use my Yahoo
address.
Ed Poor
Wikipedia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: megaknee(a)btopenworld.com [mailto:megaknee@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:48 PM
> To: Poor, Edmund W
> Subject: what you wrote on wikipedia blocks
>
>
> "Anyone who has 'trouble' following the rules should
> get a standard
> time-out for each violation, until they either
>
> 1. Get a clue, or
> 2. Choose to be elsewhere"
>
> I saw this.It's not what happened to me, in getting
> permanently kicked out on the argument that to claim
> to be entitled to any standards of fairness instead of
> always being a beggar for them as discretionary,
> constituted "legal threats"! And this was done near
> the expiry of a 2-day block for accused "link spam"
> that was flagrantly biased because it wasn't put on
> the other side of the argument concerned who were
> repeatedly reinstating their link while I was trying
> to achieve a neutral balance with it.
>
> Both blocks had the effect of preventing me taking the
> issue to RfC, or nominating a relevant VfD, after I
> had been bullied by a group with personal attacks
> started out of nowhere, sourced from a feud outside
> Wikipedia, and an attitude that to call them unfair
> proved them right! As can be read at talk:Asperger's
> Syndrome, Aug 18-27.
>
> Unless the blocks don't prevent there existing a
> contest proceeding exists against them where this
> evidence of bias can be presented and answered, that
> evidences to the world that Wikipedia is corrupt. That
> is not a "legal threat" because Wikipedia can't opt
> out of the world! so has definite responsibilities
> never to side with group bullying or stalking of any
> user, no matter if it would be cynically expedient to.
>
> Have you any user instructions on how, when
> thwarted by exactly the indefinite block whose
> abusiveness on bullies's side I'm seeking to
> challenge, and whose open purpose is already to
> prevent me making other challenges - how I can convey
> this challenge on an official basis to the highest
> levels of Wikipedia in the terms shown in this email.
> If not, shouldn't you abandon Wikipedia, concluding
> it does not match your own stated standards of
> fairness and is corrupt?
>
> I have set out all this both in Wikien-l and on my
> user page. It's as simple as this:
>
> The only way the NPOV policy genuinely exists and is
> not a public lie, is if unconditionally anyone who
> falls victim to crowd psychology can lay claim to by
> right, not have to beg for by favour, any measure that
> prevents a force of group numbers keeping a bullying
> bias in place. Now, "laying claim to" anything,
> inherently means being entitled to anything. This is
> actually a case-study in how society emerged from the
> Middle Ages. To have any credible claim to work by any
> principles, a society must show they operate reliably fairly,
> and to do that means that people are entitled to it. No way
> out of that. Hence, as soon as any group tries to follow any
> policy code like neutral POV, immediately people are entitled
> to things and all things are not dependent on favour. So, it
> stands absolutely logically proved:
>
> either * it's wrong to say to any user ever "you're
> not entitled to anything",
>
> or * it's wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia
> has a neutrality policy that works.
>
> They can't both be right because anyone can see they
> contradict each other head-on. At least one must be
> wrong. Which is it? What this means is perfectly
> clear. Unless Wikipedia can answer that, then
> Wikipedia is illegal and I have uncovered the point
> where its present structure makes it so.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
>
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> There are problems with that:
> 1) I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
> distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to
> Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block
> Iran from its readership.
> 2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue
> the Wikimedia Foundation.
Well, although I agree with you about the ultimate point here (we should
not violate Iranian copyrights, even if it is legal to do so in the US),
I don't find these two arguments to be the most compelling.
First, if we are breaking Iranian censorship laws, then so be it. (I
have no idea, actually, but I would imagine that we are.) Merely
"breaking Iranian law" isn't particularly worrisome.
Second, I think the point is that such use would be legal in the US, and
if so, I don't see that Iranians would have much of a way to sue us,
except perhaps in Iran, which would be more or less pointless.
I think the most compelling argument is that we want to encourage broad
re-use, including in Iran, and if Iranian copyright laws are more or
less as sensible as the laws of other places, then we should follow
those laws, regardless of ongoing disputes between the US and Iran which
may prevent an actual treaty.
--Jimbo
>Having frequently engaged in such pedantic drivel myself, I can
perfectly understand what you say.
>Unfortunately, sometimes "a cigar is only a cigar".
>Ec
I realize that one-liners are key in this medium, Eclecticology, but
utmost concision often proves constricting.
I appreciate the helpful tone, though.
El_C
>I think the Arbcom should accomodate a separate "case-review"
facility, and that the Arbcom should grow to accomodate the growing
need for clear and documented review.
There is something of this in the blocking policy.
>From WP:BLOCK:
~Personal attacks which place users in danger
~Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions
performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other
Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by
government, their employer or any others. In such a case a block for a
period of time may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery.
Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of
the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.
See No personal attacks.
~This provision is rarely used.
"Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of
the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why."
Sounds to me like there is a proceedure built in for the ArbCom and Jimbo to
review such blocks. Whether or not this proceedure is followed, or even if
most admins are aware of it, I cannot say, but there does seem to be a
saftey valve in the system. I know that if I ever placed such a block, I'd
make the notification, whether it was policy or not, because the actions
leading to the block are the sort of things the "higher-ups" should be aware
of.
Essjay
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
www.wikipedia.org
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/