When I saw in my watchlist yesterday that somebody had XfD'd [[WP:BJAODN]], I honestly thought it was a bad joke until just now, when I bothered to look at the actual details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Turns out that somebody just went and deleted most of it, and the XfD is just for cleaning up the last bits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#BJAODN_Deleted
Leaving the merits of this particular action aside, I saw more than one person suggest that our job was to write an encyclopedia, and that anything else was a waste of time. That troubles me.
Part of what I do for a living is to go around to companies and help them with software teams that aren't delivering. Actually, more often I help bosses see how they are getting in the team's way of delivering. But that doesn't sell as well, so let's keep that our secret.
Anyhow, one of the first things I look for is a shared team sense of humor. It's not a primary cause of good work, of course, but I think it's a great quick indicator of various sorts of cultural and process health. Moreover, time spent on joking around is great for team bonding, and provides positive and rewarding experiences that help carry people through difficulty and dark thoughts.
Sure, too much goofing off is no good, and we don't want Wikipedia to be hijacked by people whose main focus is frivolity. But I think it's a mistake for people to tell their fellow editors that they are just wasting time on X when, gosh darn it, we have an encyclopedia to write.
I just don't believe that the common reaction will be to say, "Golly, then I'll stop doing the thing I was motivated by and come work on the thing you have declared I should want to do." I expect people will only get the first half of that, not the second.
William
On 6/1/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
When I saw in my watchlist yesterday that somebody had XfD'd [[WP:BJAODN]], I honestly thought it was a bad joke until just now, when I bothered to look at the actual details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Turns out that somebody just went and deleted most of it, and the XfD is just for cleaning up the last bits:
Ugh. When did this happen? And how is it that the vast majority of votes on that fD are strong keeps, whereas all the actual material appears to have been already deleted? This doesn't seem right - perhaps someone can revert the deletion?
Random gem of a find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanger65/Upper_Peninsula_War
Steve
I kind of agree, although I see the merit in the argument that rewarding creative nonsense is perhaps encouraging people to try and get on the list.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
I kind of agree, although I see the merit in the argument that rewarding creative nonsense is perhaps encouraging people to try and get on the list.
I see the theory, but I'm not seeing it as a practical problem.
And even if it were, that'd probably be a step up on our current vandalism problem, which is that 95+% of the delete-me-now stuff is utter crap. Suppose somebody spends enough time understanding Wikipedia that they understand how to be delightfully nonsensical in our context, and then has the writing skills to build a gem worth keeping. That person could actually be very productive if they chose.
If we reward them for that by saying that we too think they are funny, then that might be what hooks them on Wikipedia. And if they learn the wrong lesson, that they should spend their time adding crap, then we have pretty effective methods for making people stop that.
William
William Pietri wrote:
When I saw in my watchlist yesterday that somebody had XfD'd [[WP:BJAODN]], I honestly thought it was a bad joke until just now, when I bothered to look at the actual details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Turns out that somebody just went and deleted most of it, and the XfD is just for cleaning up the last bits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#BJAODN_Deleted
Crap. And the worst part is that it's not even a result of conventional stick-in-the-muddiness, it's a result of _copyright paranoia_ stick-in-the-muddiness. As if the current bot-driven fair use image deletion spree wasn't annoying enough to keep on top of on its own.
Considering all the other more significant ways Wikipedia violates the letter of the GFDL with article merges and splits and even the occasional perversion of a "merge-and-delete" AfD result, does anyone honestly think we'd ever get in trouble for having hard-to-follow attribution for stuff stashed away on BJAODN?
Leaving the merits of this particular action aside, I saw more than one person suggest that our job was to write an encyclopedia, and that anything else was a waste of time. That troubles me.
Indeed. I recall once upon a time supporting the deletion of some pages where Wikipedians were playing chess with each other, and I still think that was a good example of the sort of frivolous side-activity that is not remotely encyclopedia-related. But things like BJAODN are frivolous side-activities that _are_ encyclopedia-related, and so provide a useful way to blow off steam without straying too far from Wikipedia's main mission.
I rarely ever contributed to BJAON but even so I still find myself quite disheartened by this development. It was nice just knowing it was there.
On 6/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
and even the occasional perversion of a "merge-and-delete" AfD result
Yeah those chap my ass. I don't know how many times I've tried to explain "you're not supposed to do that... and even if you could you could, why would you want to..." I mean, anything worth vicariously keeping through a merge (read, any verifiable content that isn't copyvio) is certainly worth splitting apart again later as pages grow larger.
—C.W.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Considering all the other more significant ways Wikipedia violates the letter of the GFDL with article merges and splits and even the occasional perversion of a "merge-and-delete" AfD result, does anyone honestly think we'd ever get in trouble for having hard-to-follow attribution for stuff stashed away on BJAODN?
It also just occurred to me that the same reasoning used for deleting BJAODN (that copy-and-paste moves inherently break GFDL compliance) may also apply to practically every talk page archive subpage on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page explicitly describes how to do copy-and-paste moves, and I've seen at least one bot out there that does copy-and-paste talk page archiving automatically.
Overly strict enforcement of detailed rules is a classic cause of unintended consequences.
On 6/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Considering all the other more significant ways Wikipedia violates the letter of the GFDL with article merges and splits and even the occasional perversion of a "merge-and-delete" AfD result, does anyone honestly think we'd ever get in trouble for having hard-to-follow attribution for stuff stashed away on BJAODN?
It also just occurred to me that the same reasoning used for deleting BJAODN (that copy-and-paste moves inherently break GFDL compliance) may also apply to practically every talk page archive subpage on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page explicitly describes how to do copy-and-paste moves, and I've seen at least one bot out there that does copy-and-paste talk page archiving automatically.
Overly strict enforcement of detailed rules is a classic cause of unintended consequences.
But talk page archives retain dates and signatures (and you know where it came from so you can peruse the actual page history). Some BJAODN content is posted in without any kind of attribution (or indication where it came from). I can see how someone would want to get rid of that, but it hardly justifies deleting every single entry. Some will be GFDL compliant. It appears nuance is lost... again.
Mgm
On 6/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I can see how someone would want to get rid of that, but it hardly justifies deleting every single entry. Some will be GFDL compliant. It appears nuance is lost... again.
What bugs me is that in the list of things that need doing around Wikipedia, this was not even in the top 100,000. It's being done not because it needs to be done so urgently, but because the existence of it chaps some peoples' hides, for one reason or another.
-Matt
On 6/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
What bugs me is that in the list of things that need doing around Wikipedia, this was not even in the top 100,000. It's being done not because it needs to be done so urgently, but because the existence of it chaps some peoples' hides, for one reason or another.
Any individual copyvio is not likely to be in the top 10,000 an attitude that we followed for some years. However eventually we reached the point where enough people decided it couldn't be ignored any longer and so finally started to sort it out. The deletion of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense is simply a continueing part of this process.
On 6/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Any individual copyvio is not likely to be in the top 10,000 an attitude that we followed for some years. However eventually we reached the point where enough people decided it couldn't be ignored any longer and so finally started to sort it out. The deletion of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense is simply a continueing part of this process.
These things being even a technical violation of copyright is arguable. The GFDL does not as I recall require us to keep track of who added what, just to credit contributors - and we're not even required to list all of them. All of these contributors are listed somewhere.
-Matt
On 6/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Any individual copyvio is not likely to be in the top 10,000 an attitude that we followed for some years. However eventually we reached the point where enough people decided it couldn't be ignored any longer and so finally started to sort it out. The deletion of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense is simply a continueing part of this process.
These things being even a technical violation of copyright is arguable. The GFDL does not as I recall require us to keep track of who added what, just to credit contributors - and we're not even required to list all of them. All of these contributors are listed somewhere.
-Matt
Not necessarily, many of these are from deleted page. True, they're in the deleted history, but they're not being provided with the work (the work being Wikipedia).
Rory
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
But talk page archives retain dates and signatures (and you know where it came from so you can peruse the actual page history). Some BJAODN content is posted in without any kind of attribution (or indication where it came from). I can see how someone would want to get rid of that, but it hardly justifies deleting every single entry. Some will be GFDL compliant. It appears nuance is lost... again.
Indeed. And just to be explcit, I'm not actually suggesting that talk page archives should be deleted. Just that if one wants to get absolutist about the GFDL in this way one can make pretty much the same case for them. The fact that BJAODN entries often have the source article listed does make them more similar than it seems at first glance.
On 6/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It also just occurred to me that the same reasoning used for deleting BJAODN (that copy-and-paste moves inherently break GFDL compliance) may also apply to practically every talk page archive subpage on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page explicitly describes how to do copy-and-paste moves, and I've seen at least one bot out there that does copy-and-paste talk page archiving automatically.
For talk pages, it's not quite the same. It's obvious which page history to look in and during what dates, and furthermore talk page posts should be signed.
-Matt
On 01/06/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
When I saw in my watchlist yesterday that somebody had XfD'd [[WP:BJAODN]], I honestly thought it was a bad joke until just now, when I bothered to look at the actual details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Turns out that somebody just went and deleted most of it, and the XfD is just for cleaning up the last bits:
And looking at the DRV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Othe...):
"Closing this early. First and foremost, DRV is now based on strength of arguments, rather than vote-counting. The basic strength of the argument in regards to BJAODN being a GFDL violation is a simple fact and there is no way to refute it."
In other words: "IDONTLIKEIT and I'm not going to listen to any arguments". Absolutely disgraceful.
on 6/1/07 1:07 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Part of what I do for a living is to go around to companies and help them with software teams that aren't delivering. Actually, more often I help bosses see how they are getting in the team's way of delivering. But that doesn't sell as well, so let's keep that our secret.
Anyhow, one of the first things I look for is a shared team sense of humor. It's not a primary cause of good work, of course, but I think it's a great quick indicator of various sorts of cultural and process health. Moreover, time spent on joking around is great for team bonding, and provides positive and rewarding experiences that help carry people through difficulty and dark thoughts.
Sure, too much goofing off is no good, and we don't want Wikipedia to be hijacked by people whose main focus is frivolity. But I think it's a mistake for people to tell their fellow editors that they are just wasting time on X when, gosh darn it, we have an encyclopedia to write.
I just don't believe that the common reaction will be to say, "Golly, then I'll stop doing the thing I was motivated by and come work on the thing you have declared I should want to do." I expect people will only get the first half of that, not the second.
William,
I very much agree with what you say here. We humans have both a psycho-neurological as well as psychobiological response to humor; it reduces stress and helps us not take what we see as ourselves too, too seriously ;-).
Part of what I do is to consult to companies who have discovered that some, or all, of their teams are not, shall we say, getting along too well. Introducing humor into the equation is always attempted. When I find that a team cannot even agree on what's funny, I know we're in for the long haul :-).
I also direct a crisis response team that goes to organizations such as companies and educational institutions that have experienced some form of trauma. In these cases, once the individuals are helped to confront, and accept, what has happened, the team attempts to help relieve some of the stress the trauma has induced by injecting humor into the mix. This humor is NEVER directed at what has occurred, but, rather, at those things in the world APART from the incident.
I laughed 'till I could cry.
It works!
Marc Riddell
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
When I saw in my watchlist yesterday that somebody had XfD'd [[WP:BJAODN]], I honestly thought it was a bad joke until just now, when I bothered to look at the actual details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Turns out that somebody just went and deleted most of it, and the XfD is just for cleaning up the last bits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#BJAODN_Deleted
This whole thing makes me incredibly sad. Making a unilateral decision to delete some of the oldest pages relating to Wikipedia culture, which was completely ignorable if you didn't like it, and which many people loved? That's just bad form. Bold, yes, but as someone else said, not even in the list of the top 100,000 pressing things to do. If someone is that convinced that they understand and can enforce the GFDL, and has that much energy to work on copyright problems, why not go after bad mirror sites, or fix bad merges, or checking text for copyvios, or something else more useful for fixing up the encyclopedic, public-facing side of the site.
As Herostratus said: "There's such a thing a leaving room in life for some freaken common sense. Taking away one of the little inside jokes rips at the heart of an organization, and we are not doing this for the money. Jeffery I sure wish I had your self-confidence, to be so sure I'm right as to undertake such a task without first consulting my colleagues."
-- phoebe
phoebe ayers wrote:
This whole thing makes me incredibly sad. Making a unilateral decision to delete some of the oldest pages relating to Wikipedia culture, which was completely ignorable if you didn't like it, and which many people loved?
I feel the same way.
It seems to me that a full dump, some Perl magic, and a fair bit of processing time would be enough to find a lot of the proper attributions. I may even do it myself.
If I do that (which won't be for a couple of weeks at the earliest), the main barrier seems to be that the public dumps are unlikely to include all the edits from deleted pages. As an admin, is there some dump I can get that has all those deleted edits?
I'd probably just want to send it straight to S3/EC2, so that I can parallelize the job.
Thanks,
William
--- phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
This whole thing makes me incredibly sad. Making a unilateral decision to delete some of the oldest pages relating to Wikipedia culture, which was completely ignorable if you didn't like it, and which many people loved? That's just bad form. Bold, yes, but as someone else said, not even in the list of the top 100,000 pressing things to do. If someone is that convinced that they understand and can enforce the GFDL, and has that much energy to work on copyright problems, why not go after bad mirror sites, or fix bad merges, or checking text for copyvios, or something else more useful for fixing up the encyclopedic, public-facing side of the site.
As Herostratus said: "There's such a thing a leaving room in life for some freaken common sense. Taking away one of the little inside jokes rips at the heart of an organization, and we are not doing this for the money. Jeffery I sure wish I had your self-confidence, to be so sure I'm right as to undertake such a task without first consulting my colleagues."
Yeah.
The aforementioned Jeffrey O. Gustafson, who I'm sure is an entirely admirable Wikipedian, instructs us that, "our collective creative energies really should go to writing an encyclopedia rather than preserving and expanding on this garbage [BJAODN] - want to screw around on a wiki? Go to Uncyclopedia" -- Gustafson's "clarification for the idiots out there"(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/...)
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
On 6/1/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The aforementioned Jeffrey O. Gustafson, who I'm sure is an entirely admirable Wikipedian, instructs us that, "our collective creative energies really should go to writing an encyclopedia rather than preserving and expanding on this garbage [BJAODN] - want to screw around on a wiki? Go to Uncyclopedia" -- Gustafson's "clarification for the idiots out there"( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/... )
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
Indeed. Note that ironically enough, I counted 9 !votes to "move to BJAODN" on other MfDs for completely unrelated articles... BJAODN is a stronger part of Wikipedia's culture than many people realize. In general, things that make people feel like they are part of a community are useful, including open in-jokes. If we are busted for not following the GFDL (by whom, exactly? with what interpretation?) it's not going to be for this part of the site.
I suspect that many casual contributors who have been around a long time -- long enough to care about this, and remember that BJAODN predates 90% of the content and most of the policies in today's Wikipedia -- either didn't hear about it in time or won't notice until the next time they go to put something in. The deletion was just too quick, and while many of the people who contributed to the first few versions back in 2002 and before are still around, they might not be following en:wp with the eagle eye it takes to catch this stuff nowadays.
-- phoebe
on 6/1/07 8:08 PM, Matt R at matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
You are absolutely right, Matt. You're talking about the Culture of WP; that issue that most everyone who participates in this List seems to want to avoid dealing with. Hours and hours of talk about 'spoilers', and 'badsites' and 'passwords', and 'copyrights', and (pick one); but anytime a post comes along mentioning the very culture we're trying to function in - it is met with silence. I wonder why?
Marc Riddell
On 6/1/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/1/07 8:08 PM, Matt R at matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
You are absolutely right, Matt. You're talking about the Culture of WP; that issue that most everyone who participates in this List seems to want to avoid dealing with. Hours and hours of talk about 'spoilers', and 'badsites' and 'passwords', and 'copyrights', and (pick one); but anytime a post comes along mentioning the very culture we're trying to function in - it is met with silence. I wonder why?
Marc Riddell
-- "The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."
AlbertEinstein
I wonder that, too. But it's short term amusing to watch. ~~~~
on 6/1/07 9:10 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/1/07 8:08 PM, Matt R at matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
You are absolutely right, Matt. You're talking about the Culture of WP; that issue that most everyone who participates in this List seems to want to avoid dealing with. Hours and hours of talk about 'spoilers', and 'badsites' and 'passwords', and 'copyrights', and (pick one); but anytime a post comes along mentioning the very culture we're trying to function in - it is met with silence. I wonder why?
Marc Riddell
-- "The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."
Albert Einstein
I wonder that, too. But it's short term amusing to watch. ~~~~
A leaderless society will go in the direction of its most dominant voices. And, as the society goes, so goes its culture.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/1/07 8:08 PM, Matt R at wrote:
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
You are absolutely right, Matt. You're talking about the Culture of WP; that issue that most everyone who participates in this List seems to want to avoid dealing with. Hours and hours of talk about 'spoilers', and 'badsites' and 'passwords', and 'copyrights', and (pick one); but anytime a post comes along mentioning the very culture we're trying to function in - it is met with silence. I wonder why?
I'm afraid that if it weren't for people dwelling emotionally on these picayune topics, people in your profession would be in serious competition with the legendary Maytag Repairman.
When we comment about the culture we live in we need to do so with a great deal of introspection, and introspection puts into question the assumptions upon which we build the certainty that underlays our other views. Nobody wants to confront his inner Sisyphus.
Ec
on 6/1/07 8:08 PM, Matt R at wrote:
Sure, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, and BJAODN perhaps wasn't the funniest thing in the universe ever, but I think the project is becoming increasingly humourless and bizarre these days.
Marc Riddell wrote:
You are absolutely right, Matt. You're talking about the Culture of WP; that issue that most everyone who participates in this List seems to want to avoid dealing with. Hours and hours of talk about 'spoilers', and 'badsites' and 'passwords', and 'copyrights', and (pick one); but anytime a post comes along mentioning the very culture we're trying to function in - it is met with silence. I wonder why?
on 6/2/07 3:04 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I'm afraid that if it weren't for people dwelling emotionally on these picayune topics, people in your profession would be in serious competition with the legendary Maytag Repairman.
Ray, there are days when I long for some idleness; at least for those moments I would be spared the constant noise of the spin-cycles ;-). Seriously, it is like listening to a family constantly rehashing the problems they are having, but not wanting to discuss why they are having them.
When we comment about the culture we live in we need to do so with a great deal of introspection, and introspection puts into question the assumptions upon which we build the certainty that underlays our other views. Nobody wants to confront his inner Sisyphus.
Surely you do not mean ignoring the problems altogether. That's like ignoring the formation of a tropical storm; because to anticipate a hurricane would force us to put aside those everyday, safer things we'd rather talk about, and consider why we are not already prepared. I'm not talking about group therapy here; but an honest, open discussion of the present state of the WP Culture. To date, trying to discuss this issue on this List has been like trying to discuss global warming in a culture dominated by oil companies and auto manufacturers. A leaderless society will go in the direction of its most dominant voices. And, as the society goes, so goes its culture.
I am a part of this Project. I want it to not only survive but to thrive.
I'll see your Sisyphus, and raise you one Cassandra :-).
Marc Riddell
On 6/2/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The aforementioned Jeffrey O. Gustafson, who I'm sure is an entirely admirable Wikipedian, instructs us that, "our collective creative energies really should go to writing an encyclopedia rather than preserving and expanding on this garbage [BJAODN] - want to screw around on a wiki? Go to Uncyclopedia" --
Someone should debunk this illogical argument once and for all.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/2/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The aforementioned Jeffrey O. Gustafson, who I'm sure is an entirely admirable Wikipedian, instructs us that, "our collective creative energies really should go to writing an encyclopedia rather than preserving and expanding on this garbage [BJAODN] - want to screw around on a wiki? Go to Uncyclopedia" --
Someone should debunk this illogical argument once and for all.
It's not just a question of debunking the argument; it's also about some admins having the courage to revert Gustafson's vandalism. It's these kind of plain bonehead moves that build disrespect and even more distrust for all admins, even the ones who wouldn't dream of such behaviour.
Suddenly, because one person has a strong dislike for anything that varies from his concept of seriousness, he undertakes to wipe out efforts that have been built up over more than five years. To do so more efficiently he makes up an argument about alleged copyvios, and uses that not only to delete the pages but to thwart any attempt to recreate them, or even discuss that possibility. Can he explain how this "copyvio" material has lasted for as much as five years without being noticed until he came out as a white knight to save us all from the evil infringers. After all something that has lasted that long is not going to hurt the project a lot more if it's allowed to last a week more while we discuss it. Unlike him, I would certainly welcome his comments at the discussion for each and everyone of those pages.
We really need to impress on people of this sort that sometimes civility and community is just as important as perfect articles, and paranoid impositions of idiosyncratic exegesis of copyrights and licences.
Ec