It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
Will this be available online anywhere (either as a live stream or archived)?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:40 PM, John Reaves johnjreaves@gmail.com wrote:
Will this be available online anywhere (either as a live stream or archived)? https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm
Yes.
I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week.
Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice!
2008/12/7 John Reaves johnjreaves@gmail.com:
Will this be available online anywhere (either as a live stream or archived)?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- John Reaves johnjreaves@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
Apparently the image is on the the deluxe boxed set sold everywhere, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trance-Virgin-Killer-Deluxe-Collectors/dp/B000N3AWGQ (It's on the back side, click the second image)
It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and start a campaign of other folks doing that.
One fact that some of the media is getting wrong is the claim that the cover is banned in 'some' places. I can't find any evidence of this. Record dealers often call any cover which is changed or pulled 'banned', since it makes the records sound more valuable. The cover was most certainly not banned in the US, although the label pulled it amid controversy about the image.
It could be interesting if Wikimedians around the planet uploaded pictures of themselves holding the cover. :)
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
Apparently the image is on the the deluxe boxed set sold everywhere,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trance-Virgin-Killer-Deluxe-Collectors/dp/B000N3AWGQ (It's on the back side, click the second image)
It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and start a campaign of other folks doing that.
One fact that some of the media is getting wrong is the claim that the cover is banned in 'some' places. I can't find any evidence of this. Record dealers often call any cover which is changed or pulled 'banned', since it makes the records sound more valuable. The cover was most certainly not banned in the US, although the label pulled it amid controversy about the image.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On second thought, those pics would be derivative works of the cover and hence not acceptable for Commons. It could be worthwhile, though, to have a contact point for accepting such material.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
It could be interesting if Wikimedians around the planet uploaded pictures of themselves holding the cover. :)
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
Apparently the image is on the the deluxe boxed set sold everywhere,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trance-Virgin-Killer-Deluxe-Collectors/dp/B000N3AWGQ (It's on the back side, click the second image)
It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and start a campaign of other folks doing that.
One fact that some of the media is getting wrong is the claim that the cover is banned in 'some' places. I can't find any evidence of this. Record dealers often call any cover which is changed or pulled 'banned', since it makes the records sound more valuable. The cover was most certainly not banned in the US, although the label pulled it amid controversy about the image.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/7 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
On second thought, those pics would be derivative works of the cover and hence not acceptable for Commons. It could be worthwhile, though, to have a contact point for accepting such material.
Yes, they couldn't go on commons, but they would almost certainly qualify as fair use so they could go somewhere else. It's only really useful if people have just bought the record, owning it already doesn't tell us much (levels of acceptability change), so the pictures should include the receipt as well.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/7 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
On second thought, those pics would be derivative works of the cover and hence not acceptable for Commons. It could be worthwhile, though, to have a contact point for accepting such material.
Yes, they couldn't go on commons, but they would almost certainly qualify as fair use so they could go somewhere else. It's only really useful if people have just bought the record, owning it already doesn't tell us much (levels of acceptability change), so the pictures should include the receipt as well.
Just take the picture in the record store.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and start a campaign of other folks doing that.
I'm not sure that would send the right message.
On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago.
On the wider issue: I'm sure the IWF would not mind at all if the police started raiding music stores. And there are elements of the wider community that would support them in that.
Australians are in the privileged position of having seen this all before, in the form of the Bill Henson controversy six months ago. An art gallery was raided by police and explicit photographs were seized. Journalist David Marr gave us an incisive analysis of the motivations of the prudes, both at the time, and at length in a book published in October.
Why is it that this cover image has been around for 30 years, but only now do we see moves for censorship? Marr was asked a similar question in a TV interview regarding the Bill Henson case, and he said "It's the Internet".
"The Internet has changed the way we view photography. There is a sense in which no photograph can actually be corralled anymore. Everything is potentially available to anybody anywhere in the world, once it gets on the Internet. We still have to deal with that, that apprehension of the Internet, because it's changing the way we consider art, photography, all sorts of things. Part of the purpose of my book is to look at the history of that fear of the Internet, and try to work out whether in fact we need to be so afraid. I don't think we do."
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2383376.htm
-- Tim Starling
On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago.
The idea that they've blocked Wikipedia but not Amazon because Amazon has more lawyers sounds pretty plausible to me (what else could they mean by "pragmatic"?). I thought the bit about it being an experiment sounded rather unlikely, I think it's far more likely that they just didn't think about what they were doing and have now got themselves stuck in a corner.
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public.
-Durova
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago.
The idea that they've blocked Wikipedia but not Amazon because Amazon has more lawyers sounds pretty plausible to me (what else could they mean by "pragmatic"?). I thought the bit about it being an experiment sounded rather unlikely, I think it's far more likely that they just didn't think about what they were doing and have now got themselves stuck in a corner.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public.
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants to tell us what it is.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public.
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants to tell us what it is.
How do we appeal whatever else they might be blocking? For all we know there could be dozens of other articles blocked now or in the future.
We only know that this page is being blocked because the traffic hijacking caused collateral damage and someone took a lucky guess.
2008/12/8 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public.
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants to tell us what it is.
How do we appeal whatever else they might be blocking? For all we know there could be dozens of other articles blocked now or in the future.
We only know that this page is being blocked because the traffic hijacking caused collateral damage and someone took a lucky guess.
True, right of appeal doesn't help much with the right to know what you are charged with.
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia didn't have such heavy traffic it probably would have gone unnoticed.
So what else *does* go unnoticed?
-Durova
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/8 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the
end
handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview.
Everyone's a
critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the
fact),
yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether
they're
really qualified to play nanny to the public.
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants to tell us what it is.
How do we appeal whatever else they might be blocking? For all we know there could be dozens of other articles blocked now or in the future.
We only know that this page is being blocked because the traffic hijacking caused collateral damage and someone took a lucky guess.
True, right of appeal doesn't help much with the right to know what you are charged with.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia didn't have such heavy traffic it probably would have gone unnoticed. So what else *does* go unnoticed?
Some people on the ORG list are currently discussing how to construct a distributed Censorship Watch Foundation.
- d.
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia didn't have such heavy traffic it probably would have gone unnoticed.
So what else *does* go unnoticed?
-Durova
Most likely mostly one sites that really do host problematical images. Ones we know about are rapidshare and part of 4chan.
We have no real reason to think that they frequently make significant mistakes. In terms of them being more open we would be better arguing that they should asses if the site operator can be considered responsible and if they are inform them of the issue (if there is actual child porn on wikipedia we would like to know about it). Their counter arguments to that but most can be shot apart by pointing out they are currently withholding information that responsible site operators need to keep their sites child porn free.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:53 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We have no real reason to think that they frequently make significant mistakes.
AFAIK, the entire world currently knows of only one blocked image. Many people consider it a clear mistake. A bit undersampled, but it's all we have and it does not look too good, especially since the are quite clear to state that they block potentially illegal images: You could declare just about anything to be potentially illegal.
In terms of them being more open we would be better arguing that they should asses if the site operator can be considered responsible and if they are inform them of the issue (if there is actual child porn on wikipedia we would like to know about it). Their counter arguments to that but most can be shot apart by pointing out they are currently withholding information that responsible site operators need to keep their sites child porn free.
Thats quite true. It's not like they are hiding from site operators traffic is being intercepted. The interception itself is coarse and quite obvious. It's just that we can't tell what is actually being done to the traffic, which things are being changed, etc.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/8 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public.
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants to tell us what it is.
How do we appeal whatever else they might be blocking? For all we know there could be dozens of other articles blocked now or in the future.
We only know that this page is being blocked because the traffic hijacking caused collateral damage and someone took a lucky guess.
True, right of appeal doesn't help much with the right to know what you are charged with.
In that case you would be appealing against arbitrary action. Not knowing what you are charged with is a common characteristic of arbitrary action.
Ec
Oh, I loved the "Amazon has money and will sue, and (WP) is an educational charity.." - so pleased you were able to wedge that in, David!
2008/12/8 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
Oh, I loved the "Amazon has money and will sue, and (WP) is an educational charity.." - so pleased you were able to wedge that in, David!
Yes. It stops them from pointing out they're a charity too (which they are, legally).
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/8 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
Oh, I loved the "Amazon has money and will sue, and (WP) is an educational charity.." - so pleased you were able to wedge that in, David!
Yes. It stops them from pointing out they're a charity too (which they are, legally).
- d.
That may well be a charity, but they're not educational, they're repressive, which gives us very much the moral high ground here. Nicely done, for both (and probably sundry other) reasons. Not the least of which is that people occasionally give $$$$ when they hear the words "educational charity".
Yes, very good. :)
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/8 KillerChihuahua puppy@killerchihuahua.com:
Oh, I loved the "Amazon has money and will sue, and (WP) is an educational charity.." - so pleased you were able to wedge that in,
David!
Yes. It stops them from pointing out they're a charity too (which they are, legally).
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Apparently there is a way to appeal, but from I can tell nobody wants to tell us what it is.
"Going on the Today program" is traditionally a pretty effective way to challenge any decision by a public body :-)
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago.
The idea that they've blocked Wikipedia but not Amazon because Amazon has more lawyers sounds pretty plausible to me (what else could they mean by "pragmatic"?).
[...]
In the interview, Sarah Robertson said "as I understand it, the only report we received of this content as of Friday was the content on Wikipedia."
I'll assume stupidity rather than malice. "Pragmatic" could mean anything.
If they wanted this to be a test case, why would they have handled it so ineptly?
-- Tim Starling
2008/12/8 Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago.
The idea that they've blocked Wikipedia but not Amazon because Amazon has more lawyers sounds pretty plausible to me (what else could they mean by "pragmatic"?).
[...]
In the interview, Sarah Robertson said "as I understand it, the only report we received of this content as of Friday was the content on Wikipedia."
I'll assume stupidity rather than malice. "Pragmatic" could mean anything.
Yeah, but if I were blocking a webpage I would read the webpage first. The article gives all the information someone would need to find out that the image is available elsewhere.
If they wanted this to be a test case, why would they have handled it so ineptly?
Because they're inept?
Lemme know when its on youtube so I can give it a listen.
:-D
David Gerard wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/virgin-killer-chart.png
[[Streisand effect]] ?
English Wikipedia strictures on nonfree image use would reduce the number of acceptable images to a minimum. Unless this is a fair application of IAR, it would be more effective for David Gerard to have a *large* number of photos of volunteer editors from around the globe, proudly demonstrating that the site's article is no worse than an ordinary music store.
Personally I think the album cover is tasteless. But in the eternal struggle between bad taste and hypocisy, I usually find bad taste less offensive.
Best wishes, Durova
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/virgin-killer-chart.pnghttp://toolserver.org/%7Estr4nd/virgin-killer-chart.png
[[Streisand effect]] ?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
English Wikipedia strictures on nonfree image use would reduce the number of acceptable images to a minimum. Unless this is a fair application of IAR, it would be more effective for David Gerard to have a *large* number of photos of volunteer editors from around the globe, proudly demonstrating that the site's article is no worse than an ordinary music store.
Personally I think the album cover is tasteless. But in the eternal struggle between bad taste and hypocisy, I usually find bad taste less offensive.
I think most people here agrees with you on that. The cover is tasteless (and repulsive, even), but that doesn't mean it should be censored. A big chunk of the world thought the Muhammad cartoons were tasteless, but we have those up.
It's like that Voltaire-quote. You know which one I'm talking about (I'm not gonna actually say it, because only douchebags actually say it).
--Oskar
2008/12/7 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
English Wikipedia strictures on nonfree image use would reduce the number of acceptable images to a minimum. Unless this is a fair application of IAR, it would be more effective for David Gerard to have a *large* number of photos of volunteer editors from around the globe, proudly demonstrating that the site's article is no worse than an ordinary music store.
Personally I think the album cover is tasteless. But in the eternal struggle between bad taste and hypocisy, I usually find bad taste less offensive.
I think most people here agrees with you on that. The cover is tasteless (and repulsive, even), but that doesn't mean it should be censored. A big chunk of the world thought the Muhammad cartoons were tasteless, but we have those up.
Indeed, I think everyone I have seen express an opinion on the picture has said they dislike it (I certainly do - pictures like that belong in medical textbooks, not album covers), but the fact remains that it is a) legal and b) significantly adds to the article discussing it (and is notable enough to be discussed in that article), thus it should be included.
Don't know if this is any use but a press search dug up an entry in The Sun's WWW column from 18 January this year.
zonicweb.net/badalbmcvrs/index.htm
WHAT IS IT? The Museum Of Bad Album Covers - an online collection of the worst sleeve art ever committed to cardboard.
WHAT'S ON OFFER? Ever received one of those Christmas gift books about great album artwork?
Here is the perfect antidote (or something to make you fully appreciate the covers in your book).
This is a truly appalling selection of album art - tasteless (Boxer's Below The Belt), bizarre (Phil Barry's Songs For Gay Dogs) and every one will leave you pondering: "Whatever were they thinking?"
Of Course, Kevin Rowland's My Beauty - with the Dexy's frontman pictured in drag and flashing his knickers, earns a place - but more obscure acts like The Frivolous Five and Mike Terry are well worth a giggle. Visitors to the site have also voted for a top ten of the most dreadful offerings, but be warned, the album at No1 - Scorpions' Virgin Killer - is highly offensive.
You can enjoy a soundtrack while trawling this site by clicking on Bad Music Radio to hear streams of "the worst music ever".
Hear monstrosities like William Shatner's Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and Mr T rapping.
WORTH A CLICK?: Cover your eyes.
Covered in the Guardian's Technology blog in a very sympathetic way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet
"The Scorpions album was released in 1976, so it's amazing to think that civilisation has managed to survive for more than 40 years, in spite of this evil in our midst."
Further comments about how the IWF just ensured that millions go to see the cover in order to work out what all the fuss is about. "Millions of people" may just be an exaggeration.
2008/12/8 Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com:
Covered in the Guardian's Technology blog in a very sympathetic way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet
"The Scorpions album was released in 1976, so it's amazing to think that civilisation has managed to survive for more than 40 years, in spite of this evil in our midst."
Ah, good old Grauniad typos. :)
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Covered in the Guardian's Technology blog in a very sympathetic way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet
"The Scorpions album was released in 1976, so it's amazing to think that civilisation has managed to survive for more than 40 years, in spite of this evil in our midst."
Further comments about how the IWF just ensured that millions go to see the cover in order to work out what all the fuss is about. "Millions of people" may just be an exaggeration.
-- Sam Blacketer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good article, other than the poor math (unless 2016 has passed when I wasn't looking...)
On 08/12/2008, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Further comments about how the IWF just ensured that millions go to see the cover in order to work out what all the fuss is about. "Millions of people" may just be an exaggeration.
Yeah, looks like only ~500K hits on the article so far:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin%20Killer
Which is still quite a lot though.
-- Sam Blacketer
On 12/7/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
It's like that Voltaire-quote. You know which one I'm talking about (I'm not gonna actually say it, because only douchebags actually say it).
My self-educated guess is that you mean the one properly credited to [[Evelyn Beatrice Hall]].
I did find one actually which might be equally applicable and actually from Voltaire.
"Un peuple qui trafique de ses enfants est encore plus condamnable que l'acheteur"
As far as I'm concerned if somebody thinks they have a problem they'd better speak to the record company first...
—C.W.
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: <snip>
It's like that Voltaire-quote. You know which one I'm talking about (I'm not gonna actually say it, because only douchebags actually say it).
--Oskar
</snip> Does that mean I have to defend to the death your right /not/ to say it, so as to assist you in your quest for non-douchebagness?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/virgin-killer-chart.png
[[Streisand effect]] ?
Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but me, I prefer a [[Herostratus]] reference over a Streisand one.
--Oskar
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/virgin-killer-chart.png
[[Streisand effect]] ?
Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but me, I prefer a [[Herostratus]] reference over a Streisand one.
Thank you. I really don't like the Streisand reference but I hadn't thought of the more classic reference.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I think the album cover is tasteless. But in the eternal struggle between bad taste and hypocisy, I usually find bad taste less offensive.
Full agreement. A tasteless attempt by the record company to sell more records. But thats why it's all the more informative and interesting as part of the article: I especially thought the quotes showing how the bands opinion of the image evolved over time.
But child porn? please. Whomever that image /arouses/ belongs on a sex offender registry. It's a picture of a naked kid, whoptie do. … But thats an opinion I couldn't have formed without actually seeing it. I'm grateful that Wikipedia saved me the trip to the record store to find out what this UK organization found so objectionable.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
Very nice! I liked the "The FBI told them to go away"-line :) I might be biased, but I certainly came away with the impression that the IWF had screwed up.
--Oskar
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
Also, check out this Boing Boing post about how now everyone in the UK visiting Wikipedia is now potentially tracked by a third-party server:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html
--Oskar
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Also, check out this Boing Boing post about how now everyone in the UK visiting Wikipedia is now potentially tracked by a third-party server:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html
--Oskar
I'm pretty sure they're tracking and recording everyone's internet surfing here in the UK anyway, even without redirecting it through a third-party server. By EU directive, even, if memory serves me correctly. (They're also planning to add better facilities that'll hand all the information over to government agencies as it's collected.) This is nothing new.
On 12/8/08, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
I just get silence on that link - anyone else having problems, or know of a link that works?
(Missed it live - gah!)
Cormac
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
I just get silence on that link - anyone else having problems, or know of a link that works?
(Missed it live - gah!)
Cormac
The link works for me, but it is rather low quality. You can also hear it here (at the bottom of the page):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm
--Oskar
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/08, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
I just get silence on that link - anyone else having problems, or know of a link that works?
(Missed it live - gah!)
Cormac _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Use "Save as" to save the mp3, I've got it playing fine that way.
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
Yeah, they pushed it to last in the programme. I didn't manage to work in the words "smells of hammers" or even "hamfisted and incompetent", unfortunately. But I think the point got across.
I did a prerecord for BBC World Service World Update straight after where I got stuck into them a lot more, though I expect that to be edited to a soundbite or two :-)
- d.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:56 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
If it has been posted to the discussion already i'm sorry, heres a link to the discussion http://www.bathrobecabal.org/bbcinterview.mp3
Yeah, they pushed it to last in the programme. I didn't manage to work in the words "smells of hammers" or even "hamfisted and incompetent", unfortunately. But I think the point got across.
I did a prerecord for BBC World Service World Update straight after where I got stuck into them a lot more, though I expect that to be edited to a soundbite or two :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Great job anyway though. :) I especially liked the bit about the FBI telling them to go away. And it'll be very interesting to see what they do about Amazon, and how quick they get the legal papers if they try to pull anything there. You had her quite on the defensive, and had the whole thing looking quite foolish (which, of course, it is).
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Great job anyway though. :) I especially liked the bit about the FBI telling them to go away. And it'll be very interesting to see what they do about Amazon, and how quick they get the legal papers if they try to pull anything there. You had her quite on the defensive, and had the whole thing looking quite foolish (which, of course, it is).
Hear hear. In fact it's not just available on Amazon; a google images search discovers hundreds of versions of this image, including on some very respectable sites. Have we thought of presenting the IWF with a list of 100s of URLs where this album cover is displayed and challenging them to block them all?
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
How appropriately Orwellian in the circumstances.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Hear hear. In fact it's not just available on Amazon; a google images search discovers hundreds of versions of this image, including on some very respectable sites. Have we thought of presenting the IWF with a list of 100s of URLs where this album cover is displayed and challenging them to block them all?
I submitted every instance I could find on Saturday. I'm aware of other people making similar efforts.