G'day Risker,
I am concerned about this practice of importing external rules into Wikipedia postings - if this is the correct interpretation of the reason we don't post IRC logs. The same logic could be used to consider external links to other sites, some of which even have legal restrictions on access let alone minor rules like "no posting what you read here," to be unacceptable.Anyone have any idea how many links we have to porn sites, all of which restrict access to those over 18 (or in some places even 21)?
All porn sites restrict access to those over 18? Well, you may be more experienced in that area than I am (he says, innocently), but I doubt the accuracy of that statement.
In any case, linking to a porn site that restricts access to those under 18 is not violating that porn site's policies. Republishing the site's content, on the other hand, in an article entitled "A place where underaged people can see free porn", would be a much more appropriate analogy.
(And notice the nice little tie-in with copyright problems? I thought you might.)
Thanks Mark Gallagher; that at least makes reasonable sense.
Now, let me make sure I understand the copyright issue properly. We don't quote IRC logs because, despite the fact those channels are exclusive to Wikipedians of various classes and are moderated by Wikipedians, and their primary purpose (in theory) is to discuss Wikipedia-related issues (yeah, I said in theory) - the copyright on all content generated there is in the hands of people who have no direct relation to Wikipedia? Could people even quote themselves anywhere outside of IRC?
Sorry, I just find that absolutely hilarious.
Risker
On 5/23/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Risker,
I am concerned about this practice of importing external rules into Wikipedia postings - if this is the correct interpretation of the reason we don't post IRC logs. The same logic could be used to consider external links to other sites, some of which even have legal restrictions on access let alone minor rules like "no posting what you read here," to be unacceptable.Anyone have any idea how many links we have to porn sites, all of which restrict access to those over 18 (or in some places even 21)?
All porn sites restrict access to those over 18? Well, you may be more experienced in that area than I am (he says, innocently), but I doubt the accuracy of that statement.
In any case, linking to a porn site that restricts access to those under 18 is not violating that porn site's policies. Republishing the site's content, on the other hand, in an article entitled "A place where underaged people can see free porn", would be a much more appropriate analogy.
(And notice the nice little tie-in with copyright problems? I thought you might.)
-- [[User:MarkGallagher]]
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 0, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com scribbled:
Thanks Mark Gallagher; that at least makes reasonable sense.
Now, let me make sure I understand the copyright issue properly. We don't quote IRC logs because, despite the fact those channels are exclusive to Wikipedians of various classes and are moderated by Wikipedians, and their primary purpose (in theory) is to discuss Wikipedia-related issues (yeah, I said in theory) - the copyright on all content generated there is in the hands of people who have no direct relation to Wikipedia? Could people even quote themselves anywhere outside of IRC?
Sorry, I just find that absolutely hilarious.
Risker
Copyright is a funny thing. If you can stop yourself from crying, you can't help but laugh.
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
On 23/05/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Copyright is a funny thing. If you can stop yourself from crying, you can't help but laugh.
Copyright's approximately bugger-all to do with the problem.
The original demand for public logs of IRC is that the demander felt left out by discussion occurring elsewhere.
The actual problem with the desired logging of IRC is (and all this should be reasonably obvious to anyone with an internet social clue):
* the claimed undesirable discussion will continue quite happily, just where it won't be logged. * you can't stop editors talking amongst themselves and even being friends, even by shouting quite loudly how awful that is. * IRC logs achieve new heights in unreliability of sourcing. ** Just get two logs that agree. ** They are stripped of context. ** This means they only make problems worse, and heighten drama. (I would think a former Encyclopedia Dramatica administrator would understand how to heighten drama.)
The solution to a wish to be able to know, at least in principle, all possible relevant discussion going on in all possible places ... is to regain touch with reality.
- d.