On 28 March 2011 14:40, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Geni,
> It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
>
> I quote:
>
> " It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
> Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference for all new
> Correctors. A reference can be either:
>
> 1. An existing Corrector - in which case you simply enter their name and
> secret reference code or
> 2. A lawyer or representative who can vouch for your identity"
>
You believe them?
--
geni
On 28 March 2011 12:38, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "It fails our reliable source requirement."-- geni
>
> Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong
> with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.
Since people can write anything there with zero fact checking its a
bit hard to see why you would want to use it as a source so much.
> Nevermind our many biased articles, factual errors, and stuff written from
> "reliable sources" (aka tabloid sensationalist hatchet jobs), we can dismiss
> the subject trying to set our record straight because it fails our
> Scriptural requirement. That's Wikipedia's myopic fundamentalism taken to
> its extreme.
The site is no different from someone's personal blog. I for one would
not be happy to encourage people to drop £1000 for a blog post but
perhaps you are.
> Ever considered the requirements just might occasionally be screwed?
Having dealt with some interesting BLP subjects over the years not
really. Now if someone were to start say the journal of BLP [[Citation
Needed]] with at least a nominal review process that would be a far
better approach and would have the advantage of not looking to sting
people for £1000.
--
geni
Wikipedia:Spotlight [1] is an inactive project that many of you are
probably familiar with. The concept is, real-time collaboration on
building a specific article.
When it worked well, Spotlight was a great project; it gave
participants a taste of the best of Wikipedia and the feeling of
community and common purpose. Relative newcomers could learn from old
hands, and with many people pitching in, major articles could see huge
improvements in a short time. The downside is that it was hard to
keep momentum up, and most of the time there was simply nothing
happening.
Some of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program participants are trying to
revive the best parts of Spotlight with Editing Fridays [2]. Instead
of one collaboration after another, we set a specific time to
collaborate: late Friday to early Saturday UTC. Please join us this
Friday!
-Sage
[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spotlight
[2] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Editing_Fridays
Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for
Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller
of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria
to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's
first come, first served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at
22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CREDO
Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the
400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible.
Good luck!
Sarah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
Top 50 viewed articles per hour, now aggregated and browsable:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/toptopics.php
Currently en.wp and de.wp only. Backfilled 5 days. Will be updated
every hour automatically from now on. API coming soon-ish.
Cheers,
Magnus
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Scott MacDonald
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The joke is now on me as people actually want to pull the TFA because of a
> perception that I violated the NPG's copyright. To say I'm pissed off it to
> put it mildly.
Did your username change confuse matters? From what I can see, it did.
I'm glad Woody tracked down the edit where most of the text was
written. The ironic thing is, that if subsequent edits change the
current wording of the lead, the only places the full form of the
disputed text may exist will be in the old page versions and on the
NPG website. I'm sure the following cycle has taken place many times:
1) Wikipedia editor C writes text XYZ in Wikipedia article F
2) Other website (E) copies text XYZ without attribution
3) Wikipedia editor D rewrites the Wikipedia text in the form ABC
[This can happen either due to a desire to rewrite the text in a
better form, or due to a desire to avoid what they wrongly think is a
copyvio, either way, the result can be utter confusion]
4) No-one realises that the XYZ text on Website E is now a copy of
something in the page history of article F.
What should happen here and what implications does it have for
copyright situations? Can you claim copyright on a piece of text
buried deep in page history, many months or years ago, that has since
been extensively rewritten? Does the amount of time it was visible and
published in the Wikipedia article matter (this can range from seconds
to years)? Can website E legitimately claim copyright on the text if
they are the only ones publishing it and the Wikipedia article
currently says something different?
I think I know the answers to these questions, but am not sure, so
want to see what others think.
Carcharoth
It is possible they have used that text from someone else who has
taken it from Wikipedia. I sometimes find this in the line of work I
do, where people submit information on the items they submit to us
(with no indication of where this information has come from), and I
then double-check and sometimes find they have copied direct from
Wikipedia. It is how information can spread, sometimes. In this case,
of course, you would expect the curators of the NPG to do their own
research. One thing you (Scott) would need to check is precisely where
the sentences in the lead of the article came from and when they were
written.
I've been flicking forward from the initial version of the article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Michael_Wright&oldid=1803424…
It is clear that the current lead emerges gradually over time, with
changes in wording over time. You would need to identify the point in
times at which the word structure of the current sentences emerge and
who wrote them. Given that others have contributed to this article,
you would need to be sure that they did not contribute to the wording
of the copied text. If they did contribute, you would need to work
together with them on what action (if any) to take.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Scott MacDonald
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> After the confrontation between Derrick Coetzee and the National Portrait
> Gallery, I thought people would enjoy this irony.
>
> I wandered on to this page of theirs on John Michael Wright:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?search=sa&LinkID=mp07767
> &role=art&wPage=0
>
> Hm, that description of Wright sounds familiar I though. Unsurprising
> really, since *I* wrote it.
>
> It is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Wright which is
> mainly my work.
>
> Of course, the only note on the page is C National Portrait Gallery, London
> 2011. No mention of Wikipedia on CC licence unless I've missed it.
>
> Which means, they are engaged in intellectual theft. Or have I missed
> something?
>
>
> Can I sue them? And they seem to have taken other work from Wikipedia. I
> wonder if this is quite deliberate.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Hopefully the internal dispute on-wiki is now resolved.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com
> wrote:
> I discovered the NPG's infringement after the article [[John Michael
> Wright]] was slated for TFA (due in an hour or two). As I say, I wrote 95%
> of it.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summar
> y_of_today.27s_or_tomorrow.27s_featured_article
>
> and
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Michael_Wright#CopyVio.3F
>
>
> The joke is now on me as people actually want to pull the TFA because of a
> perception that I violated the NPG's copyright. To say I'm pissed off it to
> put it mildly.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Scott MacDonald
> Sent: 20 March 2011 20:54
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPG copyright irony
>
> I guess I was mainly enjoying the irony that people so prickly about their
> own asserted copyrights can be so slapdash with material that is someone
> else's copyright. They threw bricks at Derrick, now it appears they are
> inhabiting a glass-house.
>
> I doubt I'm much motivated to do anything about it beyond chuckle with a
> little righteous indignation, but if someone else wants either to contact
> them and ask them to acknowledge Wikipedia and the correct license, or to
> use the whole thing to throw a publicity brick back at them, they are very
> welcome. I will chuckle more.
>
> Any way you look at it, they have (probably carelessly) asserted copyright
> over material that they certainly do not have copyright over, and (probably
> inadvertently) violated my rights and those of Wikipedia. Given the
> circumstances, that's somewhat funny.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On 20 March 2011 16:43, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Can I sue them?
Sure . However under UK law which means you can only sue for actual
damages. Which in this case is likely to be limited. In reality if you
made enough threats you might get a few £ of out of them at which
point any further action on your part would land you with very large
legal bills.
--
geni
Think Progress, a progressive blog run by the Center for American
Progress, today ran a story about a hired PR firm creating sock puppet
accounts to clean up Wikipedia articles for the Koch brothers.
If true, this will only get messier as the Presidential election
campaign 2012 heats up.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/