http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/virginia_gop_reachi…
We checked in with the state GOP to ask if Allen is really an effective
front-man for the party's efforts to win over minorities, given the "macaca"
scandal.
The answer? Yes! "George Allen has an excellent record on issues of
diversity, reaching out to people," Gerry Scimeca, communications director
for the state party, told us. "His whole career, his whole life have been a
testament to a guy who's treated people equally across racial lines, across
every kind of line."
*Asked whether "macaca" might cloud the message a bit, Scimeca said the
whole thing was a smear-job by the Dems: "Anyone had to go on Wikipedia to
be offended by it. And you know how people can mess with Wikipedia."*
Scimeca argued that Allen's father was a football coach who held up his
players, many of whom were African-Americans, as role models for his
children. "This is not a racist man," Scimeca said. "He never did anything
-- this was totally out of character."
Come to think of it, maybe George Allen is the best spokesperson for the
GOP's minority outreach, after all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/18/wikipe…
My answer (currently in the mod queue):
"The trouble is Wikipedia's aim to Neutral Point of View. It achieves
this with great imperfection, but it is what we're aiming for. The
trouble is that editors quickly gain an allergic reaction to any
subjective phrasing at all.
"Particularly problematic are popular culture articles about living
people. These attract (a) fans, who make them into hagiographies (b)
obnoxious obsessives who confuse an encyclopedia with a platform for
investigative reporting. Rubbish articles ensue.
"A reasonably reliable way around this is to quote the opinions of
prominent critics (preferably noteworthy ones in themselves),
noteworthy books on art/music, etc. This is of course more work and
not easily remedied with a quick Google. Better hit that bookshelf
after all!"
- d.
By the way, the issue is not "reproduction" but rather "reproduction
substantial enough to violate copyright provisions in a non-exempt fashion."
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
G'day Will (?),
> In another thread it was commented in passing that "plot elements" are
>
> copyright. The loosely-formed statement might naturally lead to an
> idea that you
> cannot describe the plot of a work. This conclusion would be
> false.
<snip/>
> Obviously it should be clear, that for the intents of describing a
> work for
> a review, you must actually describe it, and you may, just as well
> describe
> the first fifteen minutes, as the last, or the entire work. Since
> a review, or
> article, or synopsis, is not in-fact substatially similar, *even if*
> it
> gives away the entire plotline, there is no copyright infringement.
> The only
> time this would be an infringment is when, in fact, you are copying
> substantially someone else's plot line synopsis. Or in the case
> where your synopsis
> essentially *is the primary or motive cause* for people not to
> purchase the
> product. I don't know of actually any case where this has been
> shown to have
> occurred.
There was a case about two years ago --- my, how time flies! --- where a Wikipedian had written a mutli-sub-page retelling of the story of 2001: A Space Oddysey, interspersed with analysis of the film's themes and the significance of its special effects. Not only did it go into incredible depth of analysis, it also re-told the entire story (quoting every line of dialogue, describing of every action). There was nothing (apart from the spectacle of Kubrick's direction, of course) that could be gained from watching the film that one wouldn't also get from reading the articles.
*That's* a copyright infringement.
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula
In another thread it was commented in passing that "plot elements" are
copyright. The loosely-formed statement might naturally lead to an idea that you
cannot describe the plot of a work. This conclusion would be false.
Copyright protection affords the author of a work a way to prevent others
from profiting off their work in a form substantially similar to the underlying
work. When there were only a few forms of tangible media, this wasn't an
issue.
The essential feature of copyrighting plot elements, is to prevent a person
from taking a book and turning it into a play, movie, audio recording which
necessarily is *not* substantially similar to the original work in physical
form, but yet is, in mode, tone, intent, characters and plot.
However I can take your movie, and create a spoof-book without violating
your copyright, because parody enjoys a wide-ranging latitude from the copyright
law.
Obviously it should be clear, that for the intents of describing a work for
a review, you must actually describe it, and you may, just as well describe
the first fifteen minutes, as the last, or the entire work. Since a review, or
article, or synopsis, is not in-fact substatially similar, *even if* it
gives away the entire plotline, there is no copyright infringement. The only
time this would be an infringment is when, in fact, you are copying
substantially someone else's plot line synopsis. Or in the case where your synopsis
essentially *is the primary or motive cause* for people not to purchase the
product. I don't know of actually any case where this has been shown to have
occurred.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
In a message dated 9/17/2008 3:59:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson(a)aol.com writes:
Copyright protection affords the author of a work a way to prevent others
from profiting off their work in a form substantially similar to the
underlying
work. When there were only a few forms of tangible media, this wasn't an
issue.>>
--------------------------
That paragraph was formed too quickly.
What I meant to say was that "When there were only a few forms of tangible
media, the concept of what "substantially similar" means wasn't *as much of* an
issue. A book is a book. A phamplet is a phamplet. You didn't have
people reading books on audio tapes, or making movies out of books (or vice versa).
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
Hi Martin,
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Charlotte Webb
> wrote:
> > On 9/16/08, Andrew Gray wrote:
> >> A few years ago, what would happen was they'd close it, tag the
> >> article as a speedy-deletion candidate, and mark it as "per the
> >> deletion discussion [here]", or something similar. This was sort
> of
> >> frowned on, but simply because it meant an extra step - the
> deleting
> >> admin had to check the discussion was indeed a fair close.
> >
> > Maybe in theory but in practice, half the admins watching CSD will
> > swing at anything without examination or comment.
> I have the same feeling about this, but is it in fact the case, or
> is
> it not so bad? The only reason I follow the feeling is that it is a
> common sentiment, but I have never seen anything what the sentiment
> is
> based on, apart from slapping a CSD tag on everything that moves
> from
> some editors. When I go over CSD, I decline between 30% and 50%
> (which
> is still a rough guess). Many still end up deleted at AfD though. I
> have no idea what other admins going over CAT:CSD do, or how well
> they
> look through an article (and the web) before deleting it.
Back when I did a lot of AfD/CSD/etc. (or, heck, a lot of *anything* on the project), at least half the speedy nominations were seriously dodgy on any given day[0]. Sometimes I'd see other admins deleting things that should never have been deleted as speedy (usually because they couldn't be bothered, sometimes because they got abusive notes if they didn't, occasionally because the article wasn't very good and they didn't see any reason to force it to AfD). Rarely I'd see other admins keeping things I'd have deleted. There's always difference of opinion ...
[0] If CSD was full of vandalism or clearly-dodgy images, as happened fairly often, the ratio of dodgy-to-deletable would drop accordingly.
--
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula
So being at-heart a consummate traitor, I've been toying around at Knol, and
also at Google Sites and at Pbwiki. I was just updating a page tonight on
my Knol user-page when I realized that Knol has a rather nice "table
creator/editor". I've used it a few times, but it was always sort-of "blah whatever"
until I had to tonight actually move
cell-contents-with-their-associated-LINKS around in a table.
It was... quite simple, with no hidden problems. Can we not get that in the
next MediaWiki upgrade go-round ? It would so simplify the beautification
of tabular data and ease the transition for editors who can't quite get their
minds wrapped around our current bizarre and unique table-coding. The number
of editors we have who understand how to create and maintain in-wiki tables
is quite minute, and this WYSIWIG editor just makes it all very transparent
and easy.
Will Johnson
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
http://www.thejidf.org/2008/09/wikipedia-editors-snooping-email.html
9.07.2008
Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.
We're keeping a very close eye on the discussion on the JIDF article
page. We have corresponded with some top notch Wikipedia people
"behind the scenes" who have advised us to not discuss anything via
email unless fully encrypted and secure, due to unethical and possibly
illegal activities of various Wikipedia editors. Seems like some of
them are extremely determined (through their own unreliable and
"original research") to discover everyone they think might be behind
the scenes at the JIDF and to try to "out" their identity, etc.
Many of us keep our private information private for good reasons.
There have been viable death threats from neo-nazi types as well as
Islamic jihadists. We have upset Hezbollah by taking out one of their
top recruitment and promotion areas on the web. We have upset quite a
few other people as well.
We coordinate with a legal team as well as various governmental
agencies, as needed. When there are death threats, we report them to
the proper authorities. If there is ever a breach in our computer
security, we fight back to the fullest extent of the law.
In other words, we take ALL threats seriously and we do not like the
direction in which some Wikipedia editors seem to be taking or threat
to be taking.
Which brings us to the former list of "officers" with regard to our
Facebook group. They were all honorary positions we gave to people
with whom we respect and appreciate. None of them are formerly
associated with this organization in any way, shape, or form.
For Wikipedia editors to make false assumptions with regard to who is
and who is not involved with the JIDF is wrong. We are a collective of
various people of different background, many of whom choose to remain
anonymous for the sake of the of our safety and that of our families.
The people most actively involved with the JIDF are not linked to us
in any obvious ways.
To make a long story short (if it's not too late) - many Wikipedia
editors are barking up the wrong tree. They should stick to the
reliable sources and please respect the privacy of people who might
just like what we are doing, but with whom have no formal ties with
this organization.
Wikipedia editors are not investigative journalists and they are not
going to get the "big scoop." They are supposed to be editing the
project with certain standards in mind. It's very disappointing (yet
not surprising) that some of them would stoop so low as to potentially
threat, harass, and/or possibly try to hack into our computer systems
in order to gain information about us.
Wikipedia is supposed to only rely upon cited and reliable sources. No
"original research" is acceptable. Not even in the discussion areas.
The fact that Wikipedia editors are taking it upon themselves to to go
into our Facebook group to obtain information about our friends,
families, fans, and supporters and the people with whom we also
respect and appreciate is absurd. The false assumptions, speculation
and "original research" currently being conducted by many Wikipedia
editors also seems to be outside Wikipedia's own rules.
We intend to to do everything in our power to defend and protect the
people and things which are important to us. When we are hit, we hit
back harder---with every resource at our disposal. We are fans and
supporters of disproportionate response.
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l