I wish I could agree with Jimbo's summary of this unfortunate account, but he is wrong on one vital topic: It took several days for an explanation to be provided, & only after the matter was raised at WP:AN/I. According to the page history, the article was protected 18 June 17:33, then blanked sixteen minutes later. No explanation appeared until 21 June at 02:28 when a thread had been running for a few hours. Admittedly, based on the datestamp of a question left on the talk page, apparently no one noticed this action until a few hours before the WP:AN/I thread started, but I would have expected a notice on the Talk page shortly after the action had been taken.
I still don't understand the reasoning that justified blanking the page as "the best solution". Wikipedia has a number of articles on subjects with trademarked names -- I assume that names like "Ford Mustang", "Microsoft Windows", "Spam", etc. are tradmarked & the ownership rights adequately protected. If Wikipedia received a letter from a corporate lawyer at Ford Motors about the Mustang article & their trademark, would the appropriate action in that case be to blank *that* article?
And maybe it's because I happen to have a couple of lawyers in my family, I don't find them all that scary. This email (who serves legal notices by email, except shady lawyers on the payroll of criminal organizations?) should have been replied to with a request that he deliver in hard copy proof of the ownership of the trademark & proof that ownership of this trademark has been adequately protected. Only after that had been delivered would I have considered blanking the page. And maybe not even then.
The point is that this entire incident made Wikipedia look foolish. We didn't need anyone's help to do that -- be they a scurrilous website or a news organization known for its quality around the world.
Geoff
On 7/9/07, Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I wish I could agree with Jimbo's summary of this unfortunate account, but he is wrong on one vital topic: It took several days for an explanation to be provided, & only after the matter was raised at WP:AN/I. According to the page history, the article was protected 18 June 17:33, then blanked sixteen minutes later. No explanation appeared until 21 June at 02:28 when a thread had been running for a few hours. Admittedly, based on the datestamp of a question left on the talk page, apparently no one noticed this action until a few hours before the WP:AN/I thread started, but I would have expected a notice on the Talk page shortly after the action had been taken.
I still don't understand the reasoning that justified blanking the page as "the best solution". Wikipedia has a number of articles on subjects with trademarked names -- I assume that names like "Ford Mustang", "Microsoft Windows", "Spam", etc. are tradmarked & the ownership rights adequately protected. If Wikipedia received a letter from a corporate lawyer at Ford Motors about the Mustang article & their trademark, would the appropriate action in that case be to blank *that* article?
And maybe it's because I happen to have a couple of lawyers in my family, I don't find them all that scary. This email (who serves legal notices by email, except shady lawyers on the payroll of criminal organizations?) should have been replied to with a request that he deliver in hard copy proof of the ownership of the trademark & proof that ownership of this trademark has been adequately protected. Only after that had been delivered would I have considered blanking the page. And maybe not even then.
The point is that this entire incident made Wikipedia look foolish. We didn't need anyone's help to do that -- be they a scurrilous website or a news organization known for its quality around the world.
Geoff
Excellently said Geoff! I have always been amazed that OTRS volunteers believe that email is a valid way to serve legal notices.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 10/07/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Excellently said Geoff! I have always been amazed that OTRS volunteers believe that email is a valid way to serve legal notices.
To be fair, we're very good at hiding the other contact methods ;-)
The one that always amazes me is how many legal firms think it's helpful to send a raw .doc or .pdf file without even putting a sentence in the email to say what it's about... very irritating by the tenth time around.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Silas Snider wrote:
Excellently said Geoff! I have always been amazed that OTRS volunteers believe that email is a valid way to serve legal notices.
That's an extremely unfair remark which entirely misses the point.
OTRS volunteers do not believe that email is a valid way to serve legal notices.
In the Lava Lamp case, it was obvious what was going on... the complaint was posted to the talk page LONG before an OTRS volunteer took action. Anyone could see what was going on. "Bogus trademark complaint".
What should one do if one sees that an OTRS volunteer has blanked a page in such a case. Ok, here's what I would say makes sense:
1. Look at the talk page. Gee, look, there is a trademark complaint. Sounds bogus.
2. Email the OTRS volunteer to ask. Ask Jimbo.
3. Respect that the OTRS volunteer is not "capitulating" or "censoring" but rather dealing with a thorny customer service issue. Discussions are underway to get more information. Things will work out soon enough.
Are there exceptions to this? Sure, there always are.
--Jimbo
Still, two weeks of a blank page is pretty ridiculous.
On 7/11/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 9, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Silas Snider wrote:
Excellently said Geoff! I have always been amazed that OTRS volunteers believe that email is a valid way to serve legal notices.
That's an extremely unfair remark which entirely misses the point.
OTRS volunteers do not believe that email is a valid way to serve legal notices.
In the Lava Lamp case, it was obvious what was going on... the complaint was posted to the talk page LONG before an OTRS volunteer took action. Anyone could see what was going on. "Bogus trademark complaint".
What should one do if one sees that an OTRS volunteer has blanked a page in such a case. Ok, here's what I would say makes sense:
- Look at the talk page. Gee, look, there is a trademark
complaint. Sounds bogus.
Email the OTRS volunteer to ask. Ask Jimbo.
Respect that the OTRS volunteer is not "capitulating" or
"censoring" but rather dealing with a thorny customer service issue. Discussions are underway to get more information. Things will work out soon enough.
Are there exceptions to this? Sure, there always are.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:35:24 -0700, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Respect that the OTRS volunteer is not "capitulating" or "censoring" but rather dealing with a thorny customer service issue. Discussions are underway to get more information. Things will work out soon enough.
Yes, exactly that. It's a crap job, the pay is terrible, the workload is overwhelming, there are ways of fixing the inevitable human errors, but "ZOMG! YOU DELETED LAVA LAMP! THE PROJECT IS DOOMED! YOU MIGHT AS WELL DELETE ALL OF WIKIPEDIA" is not one of them.
Guy (JzG)