http://www.bustedtees.com/Wikipedia
WIKIPEDIA
IS ACCURATE
(citation needed)
Whoever was actually responsible for coming up with {{fact}}, they may
want to resign themselves to it perhaps being the most prolific thing
they will ever have created...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
We have EFF onside, so I think we have some confidence of eing cleared
on this one :-)
- d.
EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case
Federal Law Protects Popular User-Created Encyclopedia From Liability
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the law
firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Thursday filed a motion to
dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the popular online
encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes it against
suits over statements made by its users.
Literary agent Barbara Bauer filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior
Court in January against Wikipedia posters as well as the site itself,
claiming in part that the Wikimedia Foundation was liable for
statements identifying her as one the "dumbest of the twenty worst"
agents and that she had "no documented sales at all." In court papers
filed Thursday, Wikimedia argues that under Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, operators of "interactive computer
services" such as Wikipedia cannot be held liable for users' comments.
In addition, Wikimedia argues that the statements are protected speech
under the First Amendment and New Jersey law.
The ability to utilize the collaborative input of its users without
fear of costly lawsuits is essential to Wikipedia's ongoing success,
said Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Mike Godwin.
"We provide a platform through Wikipedia for smart citizens to give
their knowledge back to a larger culture," Godwin said. "Our ability
to offer citizens that platform is what's at stake in this case."
Since it was signed into law over a decade ago, courts across the
country have consistently applied the protections of Section 230
broadly, fulfilling Congress' intent "to preserve the vibrant and
competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and
other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State
regulation."
"Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in
order to protect websites' operators like Wikipedia from suits like
this one," said James Chadwick of Sheppard Mullin. "It's simple but
it's fundamental: Congress has decided that Internet censorship isn't
the answer, so websites aren't liable for statements posted by their
users."
Section 230's blanket protection of sites like Wikipedia does not mean
that alleged defamation on the Internet cannot be challenged in court.
Instead, the law requires that litigants direct their efforts at the
speakers themselves and not the forums where statements were made.
"Wikipedia continues to be a tremendous resource for people around the
globe," added EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Without
strong liability protection, it would be difficult for Wikipedia to
continue to provide a platform for user-created encyclopedia content."
For the full motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/motiontoquashmemo-wikimedia....
Contacts:
Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz(a)eff.org
Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org
James Chadwick
Partner
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
jchadwick(a)sheppardmullin.com
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 13:34:58, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Jonas Rand <joeyyuan(a)cox.net> wrote:
>> Sometimes, the background of Wikipedia is grey, and sometimes it is white
>> (see http://jonasrand.110mb.com/images/Greywiki-screenshot.PNG and
>> http://jonasrand.110mb.com/images/Whitewiki-screenshot.PNG). This is
>> both on
>> Simple English Wikipedia (shown) and the regilar English Wikipedia. Can
>> someone explain this phenomenon?
>
> These links are dead.
>
> --
> Chris Howie
> http://www.chrishowie.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
The links were dead and refirected to the 404 page right after I uploaded
them last night, but now they seem fine. It's odd that you seem to be the
only one who doesn't see the images, it might just be your connection.
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:46:37, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/5/5 Majorly <axel9891(a)googlemail.com>:
>> On 05/05/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Maybe I'm blind, but I'm not seeing a clear difference between the
>> > backgrounds on those two images.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nathan
>> >
>>
>> The first image has a grey background on the menu bar on the left,
>> whereas
>> the second image has a white one.
>
> It does? Count me in the "blind" camp...
Are you looking at the background of the page, or are you looking at the
background of the "article" content? I'm talking about the background behind
the whole page.
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:20:24, Usamah al-Amin <usamah1228(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This does not need be called a "phenomenon", nor a "blind camp" to
> explain it. :)
>
> Simply the gray colors comes from the CSS background declaration on
> the body element:
>
> background: #F9F9F9 url (headbg.jpg) no-repeat scroll 0pt 0pt;
>
> Sometimes. browsers fail to pick up every background image or CSS
> declaration, so you're left with the default white background color.
>
> If you're using Firefox, and Firebug installed, you can disable that
> CSS declaration and see the effect in real time.
>
> Regards,
> Usamah
Thank you very much. That makes sense.
At 09:55 AM 5/5/2008, Nathan wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Gary_Lynch_deletion
>
>List readers can decide for themselves whether the summary below is
>accurate. Some people aren't cut out for a collaborative editing project -
>and I'm not referring to Lar.
Indeed. "Collaborative editing," to be practical, includes the
ability of human beings to tolerate each other and work together, and
people who see something they think "really stupid" (I don't know if
that word was actually used, it expresses an emotional state on the
part of the observer who says it) will respond in various ways. It's
actually a small minority who will respond with patient and thorough
civility. Most people will simply walk away, but, of those who will
say something, most will be ... frank, in ways that could be
considered uncivil. That's why we distinguish between "a really
stupid argument" and "this administrator is really stupid!" Even
though both are really, to some degree or other, uncivil. We should,
indeed, be more careful about the "your argument is stupid" or
"steaming pile of crap" form of incivility, but to conclude, as
Nathan appears to have done, that someone isn't "cut out for a
collaborative editing project" is to go too far.
The possible incivility in the post on Lar's talk page was the lead sentence:
"I am absolutely appalled by the poor judgment and carelessness shown
in your actions with regard to this article."
I must say that, looking at the AfD and not at the article, which I
couldn't see at the time I looked because it was deleted, I'd have to
agree with the writer, that "poor judgment" was shown. As to
"carelessness," that's a tougher call. But if this close wasn't
"careless," if it was deliberate and careful, I'd *really* be worried
about the judgment of the administrator. The arguments were correct
that the closer closed as if one out of the three comments, the only
substantive one, did not exist. It's more common that "no consensus"
on an AfD, as has been noted, would result in Keep, and possible
exceptions to that would be due to other considerations (such as a
standing objection by the subject of an article), which doesn't seem
to be the case here. And AfDs aren't votes. A single cogent and
controlling argument should be enough, especially when it implies Keep.
Increasingly, I'm seeing article deletions based on defects in the
article. Used to be, if I'm correct, that someone would stub such an
article, not delete it. That is, if an AfD shows that there *is*
sufficient reliable source for an article, it is far more efficient,
if one is not inclined to fix the article, to keep it, and stub it.
That way it's all there in history, etc., and it is much less work
for everyone, and no Deletion Review and other fuss. The argument for
notability was presented, clearly and cogently and civilly, in the
AfD, by the author who later, from the above comment by Nathan, is
apparently seen as being unsuited for the project. We need more
people like this allegedly unsuited user, not fewer.
Lar commented in his closure:
>Compare with
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Ts…>Wikipedia:Articles
>for deletion/Christopher Tsai, recently deleted by me... this person
>is less notable than Mr. Tsai is. For a marginally notable BLP, with
>few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default
>outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete.
>Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly
>improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later.
>--++<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar>Lar:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar>t/<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lar>c
>20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this argument is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in
this case it's "other stuff does not exist." Secondly, how the admin
could claim that there were "few or no sources" and "no prospect of
further expansion" is, as the editor who made the Keep argument later
said, "beyond me."
Lar did state that he looked at the Google search suggested by the
objecting editor. However, the basic mistake he made here is that he
relied only on his own searching, which would probably, necessarily,
be relatively brief and unthrough. Since he had doubts about the
searches and the evidence, he apparently concluded, "no proof of
notability," and then equated this with "no prospect of further
expansion." This is one reason why AfDs default to Keep. Due to his
doubts, he should have, perhaps, relisted the article, suggesting to
the voters that they look again, and provide better sourcing, perhaps
in the article itself.
But I looked at the searches listed by the Keep voter, and got into
serious notability, with the second such search, immediately. A more
sophisticated user would have given specific sources, not merely a
Google search with lots of spurious hits. Specific:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6DF1038F930A3575AC0A960…
Now, to the other side:
Lar offered to userfy the article immediately. The objecting editor,
after he learns how to work collaboratively, would properly have said
"Thanks," done the small amount of work necessary to make the article
better sourced, showing notability, or more if he cared, and then
placed it in article space. Or asked Lar to do so, which would be
better and be less likely to become contentious. The keeper was
correct: Lar's close was improper, but the goal of administrative
process on Wikipedia is good results, not perfect process. We follow
a rough process, with just about everything reversible, so it's
enough that we get it *usually* right, for what isn't right can be
fixed. The wikidrama makes it harder and far less efficient.
Administrators get to make mistakes, and, in the long run, the only
criticism I'd level at Lar here is that he didn't more actively
intervene once he realized there was a problem with his close,
apologizing to the keeper. And if he hasn't realized that, then I'd
revise my opinion about his actions not being worthy of serious
criticism. I'd worry he'd do it again, and again.
Abd
>
You'd be surprised on just how close to an accurate prediction this
was. The article about one of the most prominent lawyers in the USA,
who led the civil prosecutions of Boesky and Milken, was deleted after
next to no discussion, over the objections of my husband (who pointed
out hundreds of news citations verifing both the notability of the
individual and the accuracy of the article (nearly ne hundred from the
New York Times alone).
The administrator who closed the discussion shortly after my husband
posted responded by not only dismissing his points (even though no one
else actually made a substantive argument), but launched into a
gratuitous personal attack on him as deceptive, and falsely
characterized the references he provided; then, after my husband gave
a restrained (if rather annoyed) response, refused to provide any
substantive response, and castigated him for incivility and personal
attacks for, among other things. "impugning" the administrator's
"reasoning." Then one of the admin's began posting rather rude
messages on his talk page.
And that about sums thing up for Wikipedian discussion these days.
It's uncivil and insulting to point out that someone has made a flawed
argument. It's uncivil and a personal attack to point out that an
administrator has made obvious factual errors.
I doubt you'll see my husband editing any more. He'd amused himself by
actually cleaning the garbage out of various biographies of living
people, bu got little out of it but harassment, three increasingly
nasty rounds of it.
But so it goes. I told him when he began devoting time to Wikipedia
that he'd soon enough have the experience made unpleasant by a
thin-skinned, poorly informed, opinionated soul who viewed expertise
and competence with hostility, and he was. So it goes.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
In a recent discussion on the Wiki someone made a proposal which began
"In the case of biographies of living people, where a number of
editors have expressed the opinion either (...)".
One of the outspoken critics of the general class of proposal began
his retort "First, what is 'a number'? As a mathematician I'll tell
you that 0 is a number."
Now, I didn't particularly support this proposal either, ... but I'm
not about to argue that zero users fits the proposed criteria. In the
same general set of proposals there were a couple of people earnestly
arguging that some change to AfD closure procedure could be expected
to result in the deletion of [[George W. Bush]] and [[Bill Clinton]].
It isn't going to be our interpretation that makes something "legal" or not,
it is the court's interpretation. There is no legality prima facie until
there is case law to set a precedent.
Without the case law, we cannot show evidence that this, or that, is or
isn't legal. The most we can say, is that it may not be legal as it may violate
the GFDL. If a case under the GFDL ever comes to court, and the court just
throws the whole GFDL concept in the trash bin, then we'll have evidence.
Until then it's a free-war zone which is why discussing it here is unlikely
to get us anywhere.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
With less than three months to go until the fourth annual Wikimania
conference, registration has finally opened and will remain so until
the 15th of June. This year Wikimania starts with the a promise to
"Change the Shape of Wisdom" as it is hosted by Bibliotheca
Alexandrina, the reincarnation of the ancient Library of Alexandria,
one of pillars of this Earth when Philosophy and Wisdom are bought
into question. In Alexandria, from the 17th to the 19th of July, ideas
will be shared and discussed between people from all over the globe,
once again igniting the golden cosmopolitan age of the city.
As always, the conference will take place over 4 different tracks,
with a variety of speakers: Keynote, invited, and other. The
conference tracks this year are:
* Wikimedia Communities - Interesting projects and particularities
within the communities; policy creation within individual projects;
conflict resolution and community dynamics; reputation and identity;
multilingualism, languages and cultures; social studies.
* Free Knowledge - Open access to information; ways to gather and
distribute free knowledge, usage of the Wikimedia projects in
education, journalism, research; ways to improve content quality and
usability; copyright laws and other legal areas that interfere with
Wikimedia projects. Free Content in Middle-East/Africa countries.
* Technical infrastructure - Issues related to MediaWiki development
and extensions; Wikimedia hardware layout; new ideas for development
(including usable case studies from other wikis or similar projects).
* Scientific track - Papers submitted to the scientific track were
peer reviewed by scientific standards and accepted or rejected based
on these reviews. The papers will be published in proceedings
afterwards. Based on the number and the quality of the submission, a
journal special issue may be pursued
This year the conference is taking an interesting direction that hopes
to enlighten third world and Middle Eastern countries about the new
digital realm that is continuously expanding and evolving; as such,
along with many well reputed figures, an emphasis has been put on
bringing in Arab speakers. Speakers include Ahmed N. Tantawy, the
Technical Director of IBM in the Middle East; Eliane Metni, the
founding director of the International Education Association; Tim
Spalding, the founder and lead developer of LibraryThing; Eric M.
Johnson, the team leader for the Knowledge Management Action Team at
the U.S. Department of State; and Usama Fayyad, Yahoo!'s executive
vice president of Research & Strategic Data Solutions.
Take part on one of the most important IT events of the year. Check
the registration prices online.
<http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration>
While these prices do not include accommodation, the local team has
taken the effort to make all sorts of housing opportunities available,
starting from dorms up to luxury hotel rooms. Check these when your
registering. You will also be pleased to know that transportation is
available to and from Cairo International Airport in the 2 days before
and after the conference.
And what is a gathering without fun? Tours and parties are being
planned out for the participants of the event. After all Alexandria is
cultural city that brims with hospitality and the main idea of the
event is to provide a gathering place.
Hope to see you there!
The Wikimania Local Team
----
Please forward this message along to whomever you think will be
interested! (Sorry if you've already this e-mail more than once!)
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
In a message dated 5/4/2008 2:19:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Section 2 requires the copyright notices to be included - that
includes the authors names.
-------------------------
That would be one interpretation. Another would say that the authors names
have nothing to do with the "copyright notification"
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
