We actually have an article , "Depictions of Muhammad". Illustrations
are greatly overrated in my opinion.
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
article, say that they're there in the other article, and get on with
the rest of our lives secure in the knowledge that yet another
Alexandrian immolation has been averted by the use of commonsense.
In a message dated 2/24/2008 1:37:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
The Bot is applying a section of the rules as written no more no less.>>
-------------------
I disagree that the Bot is doing this.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Forgive me for resurrecting a topic which has previously been written
off by trolling by a 'known troll', and further forgive me for linking
to Wikipedia Review.
Armed Blowfish claims to have received a series of threatening emails
from an anonymous Wikipedian, in what seems to be a sloppy and
worrying vigilante action. The guy who runs Wikipedia Review has
supported Armed Blowfish's story (not that I'm sure that says a lot),
and posted the whole lot of emails, with certain names redacted, to
Wikipedia Review. Take a read for yourself:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053
I tend towards believing Armed Blowfish's account, but even if you
don't, it raises some important questions about how we deal with such
off-wiki behaviour of Wikipedia users and editors.
Firstly, if we were to find out who this user was, should we allow
them to continue as part of the community? How appropriate is it for a
user to threaten to cut off the fingers of another person unless they
get discredited by the ArbCom? If the evidence is off-wiki and shaky,
how does that change things?
Can Wikimedia/Wikipedia take any further steps to emphasise that such
vigilante-style idiots are not acting on behalf of the Foundation? Did
anything like this happen with the Daniel Brandt situation? Anyone
demanding things of him on behalf of the Foundation when they had no
right to do so?
Should Wikimedia do more in the way of reducing online crime, by
establishing relationships with the online branches of law enforcement
agencies?
Finally, if the ArbCom member whose name is redacted in the Wikipedia
Review emails really did receive those threatening emails, is he or
she prepared to publicly acknowledge that they were indeed sent to
him/her?
~Mark Ryan
Right. Arbcom members are in a position where they are more likely
than most to receive information pertaining to real crimes. They
should definitely contact the authorities when something like that
comes their way.
I recognize that Arbcom members are volunteers, and not experts, but
they definitely should not be quietly sitting on threats of violence.
I don't know if that's what happened, but if it did, they need to
recognize that it was the wrong thing to do.
Victims of crimes, particularly ones involving intimidation, can't
always think rationally about the problem, so putting it off on them
is a bad idea.
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:11:39 -0800
> From: "Todd Allen"
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 25/02/2008, Matt Jacobs wrote:
> > > I do wonder why this apparently hasn't been reported yet. If an
> > > arbcom member does have knowledge of this, they should know to forward
> > > it to the authorities. Keeping it to themselves is the last thing
> > > they should do, because these kinds of idiots (weak morons trying to
> > > make themselves feel strong by threatening someone they consider
> > > weaker) thrive on secrecy.
> >
> > It's not up to ArbCom to report it, it's up to the person being threatened.
> >
> >
>
> Anyone who knows or has good reason to believe a crime has occurred
> can (and in theory is obligated to) report it to the police, not just
> its victim.
>
> --
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
In a message dated 2/24/2008 2:18:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
You tell me. You are the one who appears to think that these
complaints have merit so you must know what they are.>>
------------------------
I see.
So you're arguing with no actual knowledge of what is the situation.
Just arguing to argue. Very helpful.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
I do wonder why this apparently hasn't been reported yet. If an
arbcom member does have knowledge of this, they should know to forward
it to the authorities. Keeping it to themselves is the last thing
they should do, because these kinds of idiots (weak morons trying to
make themselves feel strong by threatening someone they consider
weaker) thrive on secrecy.
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:48:57 +0000
> From: "Thomas Dalton"
>
> > Armed Blowfish claims to have received a series of threatening emails
> > from an anonymous Wikipedian, in what seems to be a sloppy and
> > worrying vigilante action.
>
> Threats should be reported to the police, and the police can take the
> appropriate action. I'm sure the WMF will cooperate with any
> appropriately made requests for information, that's the only action
> they need to take. I don't think we should take it upon ourselves to
> investigate the matter - investigations of criminal acts should be
> left to the appropriate authorities.
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:17:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
False. BCB isn't getting involved with images tagged with free licenses.>>
------------------
The point is, that the legalistic interpretation of what is "free" under the
license is so narrow that we've been blocked from posting for example images
off book covers, which is tendentious.
No author, or publisher, to my knowledge has ever complained *to* us about
these. Tendentious editors who want only *self-created* photographs are
disrupting the project.
That's my opinion.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:39:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Where a reasonable fair use justification can be made book covers are
usable under existing policy.>>
------------------------------------
That has not been the actual experience.
"Reasonable" is an added herring. Fair use is fair use. Book covers should
be allowed to be used, without restriction. All book covers are fair use.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/24/2008 12:39:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
I don't think anyone has ever claimed the Foundation *does* say this...>>
----------------------
Good, now that we agree that Fair Use images may be used.
Is there a way for a bot to recognize what context an image is being used
in, for it to know which ones *may* be in violation of some contextual issue?
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Interested folks should take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betaco…>.
It is a hopefully centralized discussion aimed at finding a solution to the
ongoing problems with Betacommand, BetacommandBot and image tagging. There
is also some question about the "deadline" that is upcoming for removing
non-free images, a question that could perhaps be directed to Foundation
reps. That I think is at a different thread at WP:AN, since it doesn't
directly relate to Betacommand.
Nathan