There may very well be a difference, but any way you look at it that admin did violate copyright. One thing I did notice is this happened over a year ago, as such I'm not totally convinced now that revoking the bit will do much good.
Regardless I doubt there is much more to be said here, as there is a thread on this at WP:ANI or AN. I am not taking a part in the onwiki discussion as I think most of the valid views have been covered and it is time to move on.
On 1/9/09, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
Bah forgive me, I was trying to be sarcastic. Did not work so well :S
People here can sometimes be victims of their own literalism. One thing about lynch mob members is that they believe they are ridding the world of scum. Such true believers do not understand sarcasm. ;-)
To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability being used to undelete stuff that is not helpful to this project and creates these sorts of distractions, but it is now his fight.
There's still a difference between undeleting material and taking deleted material for use on an external site. The Wall Street Journal report is certainly a distractions, but volunteers who are driven by their ideals to participate in the wikis tend to be more sensitive to these distractions than is warranted. Large organizations are frequently subject to these critical reports, and soon learn that making a fuss of them is a waste of everybody's time.
Ec
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote
Feel free to start one or someone else is likely to do it. After all lynching gets good drama ;).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l