OK. That is it. I've definitely come across the most revolting thing on wikipedia. An anonymous user how now decided to use the name of a recent dead person, Rachel Corrie. It is stomach churning to think that anyone could be so tactless as to use a dead person's name and spread it all across the wiki doing edits, etc. We didn't say say you cannot choose a recently dead person's name because no-one could have imagined that anyone would be so sick as to do it. Obviously there are sickos out there who stoop to this repulsive level.
That's before you get into the contents, which is just YET ANOTHER rachel corrie shrine, littered with every image that can be found. Some people on wiki have been sailing very close to the POV wind in their promotion of image upon image of Rachel, a lof of them totally irrelevant. Just the same shots repeated in a different pose. Rachel looking to camera in the USA. Rachel looking to camera in Gaza. Rachel looking to camera again in the US (but this time with a frown! Obviously we NEED to show her smiling AND frowning!!! The agendasizing of the main article on her with photographs is bad enough. Creating a User:RachelCorrie is beyond disgusting. What next? Supporters of the Iraq War creating a user name under the late British soldier Ian Malone's name with pro-war images. Supporters of George Bush creating a username to promote images for the President. Supporters of Saddam creating a user name in his name to put pro-Saddam images on? This is getting ridiculous and is making an ass out of wikipedia and showing monumental disrespect to a recently deceased person. God forbid that any of Rachel's family should do a google search and find wiki has someone claiming to be their daughter or sister. What sort of sad sicko would be tactless and crude enough to do such a thing?
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Not to mention that at least one of those pictures, and probably more than one, is a copyright violation. It comes from the yahoo pictures site, is copyrighted by Reuters, and the page it comes from specifically says that it MAY NOT be reproduced. Zoe
james duffy jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
OK. That is it. I've definitely come across the most revolting thing on wikipedia. An anonymous user how now decided to use the name of a recent dead person, Rachel Corrie. It is stomach churning to think that anyone could be so tactless as to use a dead person's name and spread it all across the wiki doing edits, etc. We didn't say say you cannot choose a recently dead person's name because no-one could have imagined that anyone would be so sick as to do it. Obviously there are sickos out there who stoop to this repulsive level.
That's before you get into the contents, which is just YET ANOTHER rachel corrie shrine, littered with every image that can be found. Some people on wiki have been sailing very close to the POV wind in their promotion of image upon image of Rachel, a lof of them totally irrelevant. Just the same shots repeated in a different pose. Rachel looking to camera in the USA. Rachel looking to camera in Gaza. Rachel looking to camera again in the US (but this time with a frown! Obviously we NEED to show her smiling AND frowning!!! The agendasizing of the main article on her with photographs is bad enough. Creating a User:RachelCorrie is beyond disgusting. What next? Supporters of the Iraq War creating a user name under the late British soldier Ian Malone's name with pro-war images. Supporters of George Bush creating a username to promote images for the President. Supporters of Saddam creating a user name in his name to put pro-Saddam images on? This is getting ridiculous and is making an ass out of wikipedia and showing monumental disrespect to a recently deceased person. God forbid that any of Rachel's family should do a google search and find wiki has someone claiming to be their daughter or sister. What sort of sad sicko would be tactless and crude enough to do such a thing?
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
On 4/16/03 11:13 PM, "james duffy" jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
OK. That is it. I've definitely come across the most revolting thing on wikipedia. An anonymous user how now decided to use the name of a recent dead person, Rachel Corrie. It is stomach churning to think that anyone could be so tactless as to use a dead person's name and spread it all across the wiki doing edits, etc. We didn't say say you cannot choose a recently dead person's name because no-one could have imagined that anyone would be so sick as to do it. Obviously there are sickos out there who stoop to this repulsive level.
It's really not something to get that worked up about. Part of ahimsa is to avoid feeling offended unless absolutely necessary.
We didn't say you cannot choose a recently dead person's name because we don't care, not because no-one could have imagined that anyone would be so sick as to do it. The person chose to do it as a tribute to Corrie, not to revolt you, churn your stomach, and repulse you.
Yes, it's tactless.
But that's all.
The use of the name is tasteless, yes. Can we recommend that this person change the name? Possibly they had not thought through the tastelessness of it all.
I think that, without exception, all of the Rachel Corrie images need to go away. They have not been released under the GNU GPL, and "fair use" for a single photograph like this is stretched. We're trying to generally take a fairly strict stance on "fair use" issues.
I suggest that this is a case where we need to tread lightly. Rachel Corrie is clearly a very emotional topic for a lot of people. Wikipedia absolutely needs an _article_ about her, not a _shrine_. But emotions are running high right now.
--Jimbo
I think that, without exception, all of the Rachel Corrie images need to go away. They have not been released under the GNU GPL, and "fair use" for a single photograph like this is stretched. We're trying to generally take a fairly strict stance on "fair use" issues.
The pictures in the Rachel Corrie article tell a story. Who is Rachel Corrie? What was her motivation? What happened on the day she was killed? We should avoid redundancy, but we should not unnecessarily remove content out of copyright fear. The images that are there complement the article nicely. Fair use of photos, especially of persons in the public interest, is completely in line with our current image use policy. We should continue to take a stance to avoid the "fair use" argument when someone is likely to complain about our use of the photo. This is not the case here.
My proposal for a compromise is this: The User:RachelCorrie page and the additional photos it includes should be deleted. It serves no purpose, and the account is not used. One personal photo of Corrie can also be removed from the Corrie article itself - currently we have three (one of which shows Corrie veiled and therefore contributes to the story the photos tell, but the other two just show Corrie in the US, which makes one of them redundant). Other than that, the photos should stay as fair use until someone complains or explicitly denies permission. BTW, we do have permission to use several of the photos on the Corrie article -- click the individual images for current permission status.
Regards,
Erik
I think Wikipedia should consider the fair use doctrine null and void. Under the DMCA, pretty much any distribution of copywrighted material is illegal. (I know I shouldn't be saying this on the list, but the RIAA is suing someone for distributing software in Yale that emulates Napster and they're trying to get 97.8 trillion dollars.)
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:...We're trying to generally take a fairly strict stance on "fair use" issues... --Jimbo
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
I don't mean to sound harsh, but issues of the law and copyright are complicated and fairly important, and "fair use" in particular is a thorny issue for us. People ought not to make dramatic pronouncements without citing court cases or legislation to back up those pronouncements.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I think Wikipedia should consider the fair use doctrine null and void.
I think it would be pretty impossible for us to go that far. Whenever you quote even a sentence from a book, you're relying on "fair use" -- and as far as I know, the doctrine of fair use is not "null and void" in the law, not even close.
At the outer limits of fair use there are many unresolved questions, of course. And for our purpose (i.e. the intention that people may repurpose our content in ways that we can't anticipate) we should be cautious. But there is no serious sense in which the fair use doctrine is null and void.
Under the DMCA, pretty much any distribution of copywrighted material is illegal.
This sentence is just outrageously false. The DMCA is a mixed bag, with some good provisions and some bad provisions. But it doesn't do what you say it does.
(I know I shouldn't be saying this on the list, but the RIAA is suing someone for distributing software in Yale that emulates Napster and they're trying to get 97.8 trillion dollars.)
Whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of that case, it in no way implies that the fair use doctrine is null and void.
--Jimbo