Keith Old wrote: Wouldn't it also count as Original Research? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 4/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would say so. I've seen this a couple of times, when someone makes a claim, then provides a link that they believe justifies the claim. However the link is a primary source, and it is their interpretation which they believe makes it "proof". Whereas, a secondary source is usually much more straightforward. An example was in the Safe Speed article. There were claims along the lines of "This isn't actually true, Johnson and Thomas proved in 1984 that the speed of a vehicle blah blah...[1]". Whereas IMHO you really need to cite a direct refutation of the claim, "Smith and Jackson challenged this claim [2], citing numerous studies including Johnson and Thomas (1984)". In other words, any situation that would lead you to visit a website to verify some claim is already shakey ground. Beyond checking whether a specific sentence is readily visible on the site, I'm not sure what could be gained that wouldn't be straying into OR. Steve Steve

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yeah, the fact that you obtained the document yourself (e.g. by siccing FOIA on the FBI) does not IMHO make it original research - any more than going to the library and finding a book to read about the subject, and then citing that book as a source. Cynical Sean Barrett wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 07/04/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: The FBI puts most of its released FOIA material online; much more is held by places like the National Security Archive and, again, accessible to the public. Wouldn't this class as publication by a reputable source? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

(oops, sent to Sam not the list) On 07/04/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's a big thing now. Bear in mind that the author, the FBI or whoever, is inherently a citable source - they're the government. All you need to do is make sure that the material is available to people who aren't you; indeed, I'd argue that hosting it on your own website is fine as long as it's not in serious doubt the original publisher was the FBI. (and copyright permits) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Based on my experience in WebEx arb comm case, I think government records can be cited but must be used with great caution. Often they contain information that mainstream media outlets do not publish. Names of minors, rape victims, personal information. The typed of stuff that Smoking Gun redacts. Must have editors willing to put in a whole lot of time. Court records, FBI files, SEC ruling and such are long and boring. Filled with technical jargon that is above the reading level of the average newspaper. They can be misunderstood or misrepresented. If those issues are recognized, I think a group of editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy can use them in limited ways. Sydney Sam Korn wrote:

On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: I don't think they put "most", but "a significant amount of material with wide public and historic interest" is put online by the FBI. But the FOIA also allows one to, for instance, request their own FBI file and submit corrections. For the most part, this is private information that won't be published publicly. The FOIA requires one to specifically request the information in question. Information that is just released by the government separate from specific requests for that information falls outside FOIA. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 4/7/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: The impression I got was that the issue that required looking at the images was a description of the "quality" and nature of the material. To judge the quality of the material is OR. To describe the nature of the material is technically OR as well, but in my opinion to that that "the picture was taken against such-and-such a background" is one of those places where OR is less of a problem. Of course, if a description of the images is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article, then one would hope that someone else has described them...

The exact language in the protocol is that the following activities ought to be prohibited: (c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child pornography as defined in article 2. Article 2: (c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes. The claim that one is just researching pornography can only go so far, but viewing is not listed. I think the duty of the viewer is to recognize it "when they see it" and then refrain from doing such bad things as publishing it, disseminating it or downloading it. Fred On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Keith Old wrote:

Definitely, and if you regularly search on Google for it.... Fred On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

Keith Old wrote: This suggestion is over the top. Who makes the decision about whether some site is illegal? Who verifies that? It's frightening to think that some Big Brother is sitting in a tower somewhere making that kind of decision that would affect us all. Ec

Keith Old wrote: It's easy enough to establish at least o strong prima facie case that something is a copyvio by simply comparing the material on Wikipedia and the other site. Link spam is an annoyance that's obvious in it's own right. I can't comment on the specific site that you mention regardiong the FBI raid; I haven't seen it. A simple reference to the protocol is not enough to determine what would be illegal within its terms. What's over the top is leaving it to specific individuals to decide that something is illegal over a broad range of different laws in different places, not just kiddie-porn. What worries me is people who arrogate upon themselves ondividually the right to decide what is in the interests of Wikipedia. Ec

On 4/8/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: "Secret" does not in a legal context mean "unknown," it means "designated as information which publishing or otherwise passing to other people or countries is against the law." Hence the legal question of whether WP should publish them and a clear analog to the other questions here: if textual content illegal in the U.S. is posted on a foreign website, can we post it on Wikipedia? If it is truly known to be illegal in the U.S. (it is only in rare cases that the U.S. "confirms" that a secret has been released), then the answer is clearly no, we shouldn't. If it is illegal in other countries, it becomes a more complicated issue (esp. for WP reps in those countries, I imagine) but not necessarily as pressing of one. As for WP:V, people have discussed it well enough already here so I didn't feel the need to comment on that specific point, but just to mention what seemed to me to be the legal approach to it, which has to do with jurisdictions more than anything else. Whether it is posted elsewhere does not mean it does not have a safe legal status in the U.S. at all, as I understand it. There are some categories of information that even if derived from entirely open sources can still technically count as legally secret under U.S. laws (see our WP article on [[born secret]]), though legal enforcement has been rare and is constitutionally ambiguous, but are part of laws which are still on the books and which the government has never implied they would not try to enforce. Of course, without direct legal confrontation from a government source in question we should not be worried about this and certainly not be pre-emptively paranoid about it, but it is not a legally irrelevant issue. FF

On 4/10/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote: The question isn't whether the information would fall under the born secret clause (in fact, huge categories of information are under it automatically), but whether it would be prosecuted. And in this I agree completely that it is absurdly unlikely, and something not to worry about unless it comes up in a direct legal confrontation. FF