Geoff Burling wrote
Here we face another problem: why can't we trust that if someone says she/he is a celebrity, that person is telling the truth? After all, celebrities *do* participate on the Internet (Wil Wheaton is one example, but the woman who used the name Brandy Alexander in several porn movies also was a regular on alt.sex.movies for many years.) And I hope that some of these actors & actresses eventually come to Wikipedia & make useful contributions.
I'd recommend that we trust people to be whom they say they are: if someone creates the user account of Jennifer Lopez or Gus van Sant (for example), we take them at face value until it's clear that they aren't whom they say they are (e.g. "Jennifer Lopez" doesn't understand Spanish, or "Gus van Sant" clearly has never been to Portland, Oregon in his life), at which point they are told to change their user name or face being banned.
Otherwise, we trust that Equity will tell us when someone is not one of these celebrities, & require better documentation that Equity is whom they say they are (e.g., a certified letter with a lawyer's letterhead with a valid phone number will always trump email), & give the user the choice of either changing their username (unless it's clear that they have been a nuisence in more ways than this) or be banned. There's an infinite number of possible usernames out there: I see no profit to Wikipedia in condoning identify theft.
In normal circumstances I agree that we should trust someone until proven otherwise. However in Michael's case, his behaviour is such that it becomes obvious almost immediately that it is him. In the circumstances as we know Ahmed Best /isn't/ Ahmed Best but Michael, we cannot sit back and allow Michael to steal Best's name, nor anyone else's, not least because that would place /us/ in legally complicated waters, if by our inaction though we knew the facts we allowed the defamation of someone, the theft of a trademark, on wiki. And and anyone who has ever clashed with them on such issues knows, Equity and Lucasfilm do not tend to politely ask you why did you let this happen. They use the law, and they have some of the best lawyers at their disposal.
As so often unfortunately Michael is a unique case. While in the case of 99% of wiki users we can give them the benefit of the doubt, there are clearly a small but dangerous number of people (Michael & DW being two examples currently but more will no doubt arise in the future) where past history shows they will simply use our tolerance as a means to damage wiki.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, james duffy wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote
Here we face another problem: why can't we trust that if someone says she/he is a celebrity, that person is telling the truth? After all, celebrities *do* participate on the Internet (Wil Wheaton is one example, but the woman who used the name Brandy Alexander in several porn movies also was a regular on alt.sex.movies for many years.) And I hope that some of these actors & actresses eventually come to Wikipedia & make useful contributions.
I'd recommend that we trust people to be whom they say they are: if someone creates the user account of Jennifer Lopez or Gus van Sant (for example), we take them at face value until it's clear that they aren't whom they say they are (e.g. "Jennifer Lopez" doesn't understand Spanish, or "Gus van Sant" clearly has never been to Portland, Oregon in his life), at which point they are told to change their user name or face being banned.
Otherwise, we trust that Equity will tell us when someone is not one of these celebrities, & require better documentation that Equity is whom they say they are (e.g., a certified letter with a lawyer's letterhead with a valid phone number will always trump email), & give the user the choice of either changing their username (unless it's clear that they have been a nuisence in more ways than this) or be banned. There's an infinite number of possible usernames out there: I see no profit to Wikipedia in condoning identify theft.
In normal circumstances I agree that we should trust someone until proven otherwise. However in Michael's case, his behaviour is such that it becomes obvious almost immediately that it is him. In the circumstances as we know Ahmed Best /isn't/ Ahmed Best but Michael, we cannot sit back and allow Michael to steal Best's name, nor anyone else's, not least because that would place /us/ in legally complicated waters, if by our inaction though we knew the facts we allowed the defamation of someone, the theft of a trademark, on wiki. And and anyone who has ever clashed with them on such issues knows, Equity and Lucasfilm do not tend to politely ask you why did you let this happen. They use the law, and they have some of the best lawyers at their disposal.
As so often unfortunately Michael is a unique case. While in the case of 99% of wiki users we can give them the benefit of the doubt, there are clearly a small but dangerous number of people (Michael & DW being two examples currently but more will no doubt arise in the future) where past history shows they will simply use our tolerance as a means to damage wiki.
I guess I wasn't clear in my post, because I see James is responding to two seperate, although related items.
1. Trusting people to say who they actually are. IIRC, my original point was that in our zeal do deal with certain people, we should be careful about identifying a new contributor as one of these individuals & treating her/him accordingly.
2. Use of copyright material. Setting aside my own beliefs on the use & abuse of copyright, I'm in agreement with current Wikipedia policies: when in doubt, don't submit it. (One reason I haven't been submitting scans of objects from Classical Times from museum & exhibit catalogs I own is that I don't want to make Wikipedia a target for a suit from, say, the British Museum or Dumbarton Oaks. Oh well, I hope Wikipedia will be around in 2020 when I plan to upload illustrations from my collection of old _Antiquity_ magazines.)
And Lucasfilm isn't the only corporation that is stingy about use of its materials: a certain arrangement of three circles are apparently too evocative to people of a certain cartoon mouse, & may not be used without permission. Best that we forbid uploading even third-party creations of certain television & movie subjects, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, & the Warner Brothers/Walt Disney cartoons.
If I were to offer my opinion, it would be to give them what they want & just boycott all use of these corporate images! Maybe then they'll knock off this attempt at perpetual copyright. (But I said I wasn't going to offer my opinion, so forget I said anything.)
Geoff