http://kevan.org/catfishing.php is one of the most delightful uses of
Wikipedia I've ever found.
Probably not a reason to maintain some of the stupider categories
(which tend to be the ones that make the game the most fun), but a
pleasant diversion, if nothing else, and, as I said, one of the best
uses of Wikipedia content I've seen yet.
-Phil
It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies. This suggestion has come up in the context of Daniel Brandt, who has long complained, but please address the general question.
I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its content, there is some risk just from having it.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:42 PM
To: 'Todd Allen'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:30 PM
>To: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>
>On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe@gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM
>> >To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>> >
>> >Hi everyone,
>> >
>> >Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend
>> >of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of
>> >the HD-DVD decryption key.
>> >
>> >As far as I know:
>> >* the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
>> >* the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
>> >* the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
>> >
>> >For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from
>> >articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on
>> >draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks
>> >with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
>> >
>> >Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not
>> >forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are
>> >paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being
>> >cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators
>> >such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon
>> >our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing
>> >an official stance or community consensus.
>> >
>> >So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
>> >
>> >Yours sincerely,
>> >Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
>> >
>> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >From: mitchell_bingemann(a)idg.com.au <mitchell_bingemann(a)idg.com.au>
>> >Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy
>> >To: netsnipe(a)gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> >I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle.
>> >Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you
>> >guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
>> >
>> >Mitchell Bingemann
>> >Journalist
>> >IDG Online
>> >(02) 9902 2711
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're
>certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far
>from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube
>again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others
>-deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's
>already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be
>considered a trade secret), we're publishing it for educational
>purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised
>flip-em-the-finger attempt), and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing
>dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some
>mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...). Overall,
>even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and
>vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a
>judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting
>targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they
>don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in
>question is something of a "test case").
>
>Now, is that to say it -couldn't- happen? Of course not. But there
>might be a time to say "Well, look, this particular numeral does have
>an educational and cultural value. We have an interest in publishing
>it, because we intend to create an educational resource. If someone
>wants to fight over this, that just might be a fight worth having."
>It's not -impossible- that the AP would come after us for use of a
>fair-use photo either, but in that case, we've made a conscious
>decision that if a truly iconic photo or image cannot have an article
>on it without the image itself, we'll use it, and see if anyone
>challenges it. So why not do the same with the number? Put it into the
>relevant articles (only the -very- relevant ones, of course, not
>anywhere some spammer might conceivably be able to wedge it), if we
>get a C&D, take it down temporarily and talk to the EFF/ACLU.
>
>There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared
>to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references
>to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-. (And despite the fancy hex
>coding, I could easily convert that into decimal, and it would just
>look like any other number in the world. It really is just a number.)
>Now, you'll tell me that's not necessarily Wikipedia's battle, and
>I'll tell you you're right. But must we be pushed around so easily
>(and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they
>might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some
>articles? We already have a DeCSS image on that article, no one's come
>after us yet.
>
>--
>Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
I have enough experience that I don't know what courts or aggrieved parties will do. I would avoid finding out. A fully comprehensive article can be written about this affair without using the code.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Raymond [mailto:jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 10:39 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?
>
>
>Kat Walsh wrote:
>
>> If deleting something illegal is "out of process", process is broken
>> and should be ignored. (And possibly changed. Either way, the result
>> should be the same.)
>
>You misunderstand, then. Illegal things *should* be deleted - they should
>*not* be ruled illegal by one - or many - administrators with no legal
>background, little legal background, or a legal background not verified by
>the Foundation.
Hot news: Laws do not apply only to lawyers. Everyone is expected to conform. We are in an activity to which certain laws apply. We are all responsible for having some familiarity with what is permissible and what is not and applying it.
Fred
<Mr_Gustafson> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV
<DavidGerard> us-based?
* [Mr_Gustafson] is away (User is away.)
<Mr_Gustafson> Yup
<Mr_Gustafson> They have a daily news segment that airs a few times a
day. It started out by showing a YouTube video of some guy's song of
the code, then listed the code on screen while talking about it
<Mr_Gustafson> Another segment directed people to Digg
<DavidGerard> oh man. yep, note on article talk and wikien-l please.
<Mr_Gustafson> I don't post to the mailing lists, you can forward this
log if you wish
<DavidGerard> ok thanks :-)
[[Current TV]] is part-owned by Al Gore.
This should be fun.
- d.
Mathias Schindler forwarded me this link:
http://searchengineland.com/070503-065513.php
"The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect"
On face value, this article could be the best I've ever seen from
our perspective. To summarise the recommendations: "Don't be a dick."
But I want to run it past the rabid ferrets of wikien-l for your view.
Is this guy actually on the level?
- d.
Just a quick reminder that the subject line of this message (and it
was repeated in the 2007-04-30 Signpost) is slightly incorrect. The
data memo says that about 36% of *online American adults* have
consulted Wikipedia. Two important words there were left out of the
subject line: online and adults. I assert that both of those are very
important.
*If* we assume that the original 2200 participants in Pew's surveys
are representative of the American adult population (a dubious
assumption without additional data), then the actual percentage of
adult Americans who have used Wikipedia drops to just under 25%.
That's still a lot but that's a pretty big drop from 36%. If one
wanted a more accurate number, one should consult some Internet
penetration numbers for the U.S. to see what proportion of the adult
population that 36% of Internet users comes out to be.
The "adult" part of their study is probably also very important but
the data is much more sketchy. It's likely that younger Americans use
Wikipedia more than adults. There is definitely a trend in the Pew
data but it would be poor science to extend that trend without data.
Does anyone know of any data to support or reject this educated guess:
Do more a higher or different proportion of teens and children use
Wikipedia?
Kevin
>From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
>Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:32:37 +1000
>* "Wiki" is a perennial favourite, which I find a bit bizarre.
One possible explanation:
A great many people I know use "wiki" in search engines as a shortcut
to get to Wikipedia. If they want to know about Naruto, they'll
type "wiki naruto" into their browser's search box. I imagine there
are many more who just type "wiki", go to the wiki article, and then
use Wikipedia's search box from there to get where they really want to go.
Catherine
I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend
>of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of
>the HD-DVD decryption key.
>
>As far as I know:
>* the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
>* the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
>* the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
>
>For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from
>articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on
>draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks
>with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
>
>Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not
>forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are
>paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being
>cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators
>such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon
>our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing
>an official stance or community consensus.
>
>So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
>
>Yours sincerely,
>Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: mitchell_bingemann(a)idg.com.au <mitchell_bingemann(a)idg.com.au>
>Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy
>To: netsnipe(a)gmail.com
>
>
>Hi Andrew,
>
>I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle.
>Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you
>guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
>
>Mitchell Bingemann
>Journalist
>IDG Online
>(02) 9902 2711
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>