On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to
someone removeing so called POV from the original)
How so?
Well it could be a stroudwater canal bridge but I'm not the only one
who thinks it seems to resemble one end of the Sapperton Tunnel on the
Thames and Severn Canal. Of course this is original research.
How so? And please note that you're accusing an en: Arbitrator of
"original research", so you'd better be damned sure you want to make
that claim.
I don't see a reference and the image does not appear to have been
published elsewhere prior to appearing on wikipedia. In short a
collection of coloured dots has been identified as an object that it
has not previously been identified as. This is why we apply a slightly
different NOR policy to images.
You're wrong, as usual. "Primary source
image" isn't the same as
"original research". An example of something that /is/ "original
research" and was deleted as such is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Img052.jpg
Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form doesn't work for images.
So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that
Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures
and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free
license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images
generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core
reason behind the NOR policy."
The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose
unpublished ideas or arguments"
So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that
the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to
ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video
doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished
ideas or arguments.
Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it
is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop
your trolling,
I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
or, as
you call it, "rules lawyering". If you're so proud of being a rules
lawyer, you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the
wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming
sooner than you think.
Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think
--
geni