At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of
Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can
be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.
Some would say that we need no rule for this as we have IAR. However,
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is about ignoring rules when they prevent
you from improving the encyclopedia. The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.
It is still a draft, comments are welcome.
/Apoc2400
----
Newspapers sometimes avoid publishing information that could have
severe consequences to individuals if the public interest is small.
While Wikipedia is not a news source it is often updated with the
latest developments, leading to similar concerns.
Therefore, Wikipedia should not include information, even if it can be
reliably sourced, if:
* Spreading it is likely to have very severe direct negative
consequences for one or more individuals.
* It has not been widely published in reliable sources.
* The public interest is small.
* It is withheld only for a limited time.
Whether mainstream news sources are actively suppressing a news report
should be taken into consideration.
Administrators or other editors enforcing this may avoid directly
explaining why or referring to this rule, if doing so would negate the
purpose (see Streissand effect). In those cases it would be prudent to
explain the reasoning later.
The news suppression should be minimal. Deleting or oversighting old
article revisions or discussion about the topic is often not
necessary.
Examples
* When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in
Afghanistan in 2008, most news media did not report on it, because it
would put his life in greater risk. Only a few, rather obscure news
sources reported on the kidnapping. After nytimes contacted Jimmy
Wales, he and other Wikipedia andministrators kept any mention of the
kidnapping out of the Wikipedia article on David Rohde. They did the
right thing.
* If there is an other scandal like the [[Abu Ghraib torture and
prisoner abuse]], then it could be argued that publishing it would
lead to more resentment and terrorist attacks against Americans in
Iraq. However, such news is of public interest, the danger is not to
specific individuals and the consequences are not direct. Therefore it
should not be excluded from Wikipedia if published in reliable
sources.
Related
* Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
* Wikipedia is not censored
* Wikipedia:Office actions
* Kidnapping of David Rohde
* Media blackout
* Gag order
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wp freedom fighter <wikifreedomfighter(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Morwen <morwen(a)evilmagic.org>
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew
disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy
at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently
expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains
dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take
you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to
this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
--
This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia
to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and
you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on
privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing,
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
----- "Michael Peel" <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
> I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first
> heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life
> approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within
> Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why
> it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have
> been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved
> reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still
> played out in the same fashion.
I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing.
I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic.
As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
Andrew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwave.google.co…
(See from about 31:00 onwards for the relevant bit...)
Real-time collaborative editing. Scroll back and forth through
history, showing changes by a single user or of a single paragraph.
Embedded comments updated in real time. Edit from multiple clients.
Could we please have all of this? This is several orders of magnitude
better than MediaWiki's collaborative editing features.
Steve
I've created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Notability_and_…
regarding notability and how it applies to fiction has been created in
order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is
most appropriate.
All editors are invited to present comments as to the current treatment
of fiction on Wikipedia, especially with regards:
*Whether a true consensus exists or whether the community is split
*Whether a guideline other than the [[WP:GNG|general notability
guideline]] can be created
*Whether an essay describing the differing views is better
Editors wishing to present specific proposals for a guideline, essay or
another way forwards are free to do so. I'm sending this message in
keeping with the instructions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
'Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html
"A dozen times, user-editors posted word of the kidnapping on
Wikipedia’s page on Mr. Rohde, only to have it erased. Several times
the page was frozen, preventing further editing — a convoluted game of
cat-and-mouse that clearly angered the people who were trying to
spread the information of the kidnapping."
...
"The sanitizing was a team effort, led by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of
Wikipedia, along with Wikipedia administrators and people at The
Times. In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia’s cooperation
was not a given.
“We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
really hard time with it if it had.”"
...
"The Wikipedia page history shows that the next day, Nov. 13, someone
without a user name edited the entry on Mr. Rohde for the first time
to include the kidnapping. Mr. Moss deleted the addition, and the same
unidentified user promptly restored it, adding a note protesting the
removal. The unnamed editor cited an Afghan news agency report. In the
first few days, at least two small news agencies and a handful of
blogs reported the kidnapping. "
...
" When the news broke Saturday, the user from Florida reposted the
information, with a note to administrators that said: “Is that enough
proof for you [expletives]? I was right. You were WRONG.”"
--
gwern
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
the first place?
Will
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)