I don't recall any official stance. It was the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to cover likely damages, I'll back down.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 07:29 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?
I noticed today that the Internets civil war or whatever that is underway for this has spread to Wikipedia, to the point it's now on DRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_2#09_9_1...
Zscout says here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zscout370#HD_DVD_Key
"Regardless if it is popular or not, we cannot host the key on here and the Foundation has asked us to remove it on sight. User:Zscout370http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zscout370 *(Return Fire)* 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
Did the WMF take that official stance? Where, if I missed it? The specific number/value I don't believe can be even copyrighted in the United States.
Keep in mind that the hex/number itself is now notable.
-- Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ 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, 2 May 2007, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't recall any official stance. It was the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to cover likely damages, I'll back down.
This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted. People, we *have* a process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called [[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
On 02/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't recall any official stance. It was the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to cover likely damages, I'll back down.
This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted. People, we *have* a process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called [[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
I believe (a) that's process over product (b) your views are completely at odds with the way things actually work, and you should consider that maybe that's not horrifying.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I believe (a) that's process over product (b) your views are completely at odds with the way things actually work, and you should consider that maybe that's not horrifying.
a) I'd reverse that. b) On the contrary, his views are exactly how things are at least allegedly supposed to work.
-Jeff
On 02/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I believe (a) that's process over product (b) your views are completely at odds with the way things actually work, and you should consider that maybe that's not horrifying.
a) I'd reverse that. b) On the contrary, his views are exactly how things are at least allegedly supposed to work.
a) Hmm, possibly. b) Alleged where by whom? The arbitration committee has repeatedly ruled that admins should know better than doing something stupid by the rules, and that ignoring the rules for obvious good reason is fine.
- d.
On Wed, 2 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
People, we *have* a process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called [[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
I believe (a) that's process over product (b) your views are completely at odds with the way things actually work, and you should consider that maybe that's not horrifying.
It's not at odds with how things work in cases like this, because there aren't a lot of cases like this. Following process is more important when there is controversy.
And following process is important, not as "process over product", but because it means some accountability, even if only that whoever follows the process risks losing credibility if he/they publically stand behind a bad decision. *Not* following process in controversial cases like this is a way to avoid blame for mistakes.
Following process is also less subject to a slippery slope; one big out of process deletion may lead to others in the future, each one just a bit harder to justify, until the whole thing collapses.
On 02/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Following process is also less subject to a slippery slope; one big out of process deletion may lead to others in the future, each one just a bit harder to justify, until the whole thing collapses.
I think that collapsing AFD would be a damn useful outcome myself. I doubt anyone is going to delete the wiki.
- d.
On 5/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Following process is more important when there is controversy.
Not really. Process is a tool. We use it in repetitive situations when it would be tedious to have to sort out a method for every instance individually.
The less typical the circumstances, the less the typical methods are appropriate.
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
People, we *have* a process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called [[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
I believe (a) that's process over product (b) your views are completely at odds with the way things actually work, and you should consider that maybe that's not horrifying.
It's not at odds with how things work in cases like this, because there aren't a lot of cases like this. Following process is more important when there is controversy.
And following process is important, not as "process over product", but because it means some accountability, even if only that whoever follows the process risks losing credibility if he/they publically stand behind a bad decision. *Not* following process in controversial cases like this is a way to avoid blame for mistakes.
Following process is also less subject to a slippery slope; one big out of process deletion may lead to others in the future, each one just a bit harder to justify, until the whole thing collapses.
If deleting something illegal is "out of process", process is broken and should be ignored. (And possibly changed. Either way, the result should be the same.)
I see posts further in the thread going on about how admins can't be trusted to determine what's illegal. This is no argument, however, for not requiring that what actually is illegal shouldn't be deleted. If someone makes a mistake in judging that, correct it. The world doesn't end if something is down for a few hours or a few days that in the long run shouldn't be.
Look, I'm no fan of the DMCA anti-circumvention rules; neither, I suspect, are most of us. But Wikipedia is not a venue for unrestricted free speech or for copyfight activism through civil disobedience; that's just not what we do. We're a venue to create an encyclopedia under a free content license, as an alternative to the content only available within the current heavy-handed and wasteful system of copyright, and we're actively trying to encourage more content be created with the same freedoms -- which people on all sides of these disputes should be able to support.
Hosting illegal content doesn't help us do that. Doing so would only give fodder to the people who want to accuse us of being bad citizens or socially irresponsible, and we depend on the perception that we're trying to act responsibly within the current system to have some of the leverage that we have in encouraging the creation of free content. The community deletes things it believes to be illegal and always has, though it strikes more of a nerve in some cases than others.
To the extent that Wikipedia is fighting the current system of copyright, we do it through making alternatives viable -- accepting only free content that can't legally be locked up with DRM, using only formats that don't require proprietary software or patent licenses. That method is weakened if people try to take on the current system head-on through the site, also.
-Kat "To enjoy freedom, [...] we have of course to control ourselves." -- Virginia Woolf
Kat Walsh wrote:
If deleting something illegal is "out of process", process is broken and should be ignored. (And possibly changed. Either way, the result should be the same.)
You misunderstand, then. Illegal things *should* be deleted - they should *not* be ruled illegal by one - or many - administrators with no legal background, little legal background, or a legal background not verified by the Foundation.
No one's realistically going to bitch and moan long term about Office actions designed to protect itself from legal ramifications in this case. But if you think people are going to go along with User: Joe Admin's case for why it's illegal, forget it - oust them from their position of power immediately for acting out of line.
Look, I'm no fan of the DMCA anti-circumvention rules; neither, I suspect, are most of us. But Wikipedia is not a venue for unrestricted free speech or for copyfight activism through civil disobedience; that's just not what we do. We're a venue to create an encyclopedia under a free content license, as an alternative to the content only available within the current heavy-handed and wasteful system of copyright, and we're actively trying to encourage more content be created with the same freedoms -- which people on all sides of these disputes should be able to support.
And, once again, we cut off our nose to spite our face in the name of "free content," a noble goal that we'll never completely achieve based on realistic limitations. Yeah, we're already being assholes and going after "List of" articles with important identifying images. Let's see that "heavy handed and wasteful system" hurt us when we start quoting people using the same fair use parameters.
Hosting illegal content doesn't help us do that.
I call bullshit on this one. There is plenty of legitimate argument for the hosting of "illegal content" in the name of information and education. We don't host illegal content because it's illegal, not because it serves no encyclopedic purpose.
Doing so would only give fodder to the people who want to accuse us of being bad citizens or socially irresponsible
I thought we were here to "create an encyclopedia under a free content license," not worry about our social responsibility or perception.
The community deletes things it believes to be illegal and always has, though it strikes more of a nerve in some cases than others.
And never consistently, and never with much logic as much as feeling and the oomph of the same people who don't get it.
-Jeff
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't recall any official stance. It was the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to cover likely damages, I'll back down.
This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted. People, we *have* a process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called [[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
The lack of staff legal counsel or any lawyers on the WMF advisory board makes this hard.
The en: admins came up with an adhoc policy, stuck with it, kept communications open, and performed well. Cooperation and reason won out. In this particular case, a sign of a functional community.
Compare that with Digg, which is *not* a deliberatiive community. You saw what happened there.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 5/3/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Compare that with Digg, which is *not* a deliberatiive community. You saw what happened there.
For those that didn't:
1) Diggers added lots of stories about the key. 2) Digg started removing them. 3) Diggers added them more frantically. 4) Digg reacted harder, deleting faster, blocking accounts and eventually blocking all new submissions. 5) Other sites like reddit got spammed by comments about the digg controversy 6) Digg management caved in/did a backflip and decided to allow all stories about it, and to hell with the consequences.
Steve
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted.
Well, yeah, they could. And unless there was a good reason to believe that the legal reasons weren't valid, they'd probably get away with it.
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Anthony
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted.
Well, yeah, they could. And unless there was a good reason to believe that the legal reasons weren't valid, they'd probably get away with it.
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Yes, that's what was most frustrating in debating this on DRV. People were going by the letter of the CSD law and not using the gray matter.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Andrew Lih wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Yes, that's what was most frustrating in debating this on DRV. People were going by the letter of the CSD law and not using the gray matter.
"Blatantly illegal material" is not left out of CSD because it's so obvious that it goes without saying; it's left out because it's so non-obvious that you could never get consensus to put it in. You're welcome to try adding it. If it gets accepted (or rejected for being too obvious to include), I'd be surprised.
(I'd try adding it myself, right now, but since I don't think it's a good idea, I'd be violating [[WP:POINT]].)
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Fine, add one. We can change policies.
Of course, if you tried to add one, it won't work, because you won't gain consensus for it, and for very good reasons.
On 02/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Fine, add one. We can change policies. Of course, if you tried to add one, it won't work, because you won't gain consensus for it, and for very good reasons.
Usually it comes via oversight.
- d.
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Fine, add one. We can change policies.
Of course, if you tried to add one, it won't work, because you won't gain consensus for it, and for very good reasons.
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
Anthony
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Fine, add one. We can change policies. Of course, if you tried to add one, it won't work, because you won't gain consensus for it, and for very good reasons.
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
People who didn't trust admins' US legal acumen?
- d.
On 5/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Fine, add one. We can change policies. Of course, if you tried to add one, it won't work, because you won't gain consensus for it, and for very good reasons.
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
People who didn't trust admins' US legal acumen?
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Yes, it's so easy to get abusive admins removed, after all.
Oh, wait...
-Jeff
On 02/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Yes, it's so easy to get abusive admins removed, after all. Oh, wait...
I think you should check the stewards' logs from this weekend.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Yes, it's so easy to get abusive admins removed, after all. Oh, wait...
I think you should check the stewards' logs from this weekend.
Not seeing anything that makes me rethink this...
-Jeff
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Yes, it's so easy to get abusive admins removed, after all. Oh, wait...
I think you should check the stewards' logs from this weekend.
Not seeing anything that makes me rethink this...
Your point is still tangential. Just because the rules aren't properly enforced doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make them correct.
On 5/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Fine, add one. We can change policies. Of course, if you tried to add one, it won't work, because you won't gain consensus for it, and for very good reasons.
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
People who didn't trust admins' US legal acumen?
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Yes, and during this entire crisis there were over a dozen active admins in the IRC channel double checking, sharing info, asking for advice, reacting to the onslaught and watching each others' backs.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Andrew Lih wrote:
Yes, and during this entire crisis there were over a dozen active admins in the IRC channel double checking, sharing info, asking for advice, reacting to the onslaught and watching each others' backs.
Yes, wonderful, a whole bunch of people in an IRC channel (probably the private one) with no real accountability or oversight other than to eachother making decisions based on law.
Great idea, folks.
-Jeff
On 02/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Yes, and during this entire crisis there were over a dozen active admins in the IRC channel double checking, sharing info, asking for advice, reacting to the onslaught and watching each others' backs.
Yes, wonderful, a whole bunch of people in an IRC channel (probably the private one) with no real accountability or oversight other than to eachother making decisions based on law. Great idea, folks.
I urge you to read and respond to my post earlier today about this precise problem:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-May/070335.html
The Tyranny Of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman - http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html - is one of my favourite essays on emergent hierarchies: if you pretend there's no hierarchy, one will emerge out of your sight and bite you in the backside. (I'm unconvinced its solutions, particularly electing everyone, are directly applicable here - just about every process on English Wikipedia even resembling a vote rapidly turns into an insular committee or a lynch mob.)
There are those who consider cabalism as a bad thing on English Wikipedia and the source of all problems. Unfortunately, with 4330 frequent editors and 43,000 occasional editors a month, no-one is going to know everyone. So people will cluster with those they do know just to get anything done. Pretending this can be suppressed, and particularly pretending this can be suppressed by suppressing talking about it, is denial and avoidance.
- d.
On Wed, 2 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
I urge you to read and respond to my post earlier today about this precise problem:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-May/070335.html
The Tyranny Of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman -
The solution is obviously to use a structure. Or in other words, delete it through process.
On May 2, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Considering that this whole thing is basically a test case in whether this is illegal or not, "blatantly illegal" seems like just about the least useful description that could be managed here.
-Phil
On 5/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Considering that this whole thing is basically a test case in whether this is illegal or not, "blatantly illegal" seems like just about the least useful description that could be managed here.
For reference:
From U.S. Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On May 2, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
For reference:
From U.S. Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
Yes. There is a good argument for it. There's also the very good argument against it being illegal, which is that it's not a program or a piece of technology - it's a number, and a number that can be found unencrypted without any effort to hack, crack, or otherwise break into anything (The number was discovered just by watching what went through the DVD player's memory.)
-Phil
On 5/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
For reference:
From U.S. Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
Yes. There is a good argument for it. There's also the very good argument against it being illegal, which is that it's not a program or a piece of technology - it's a number, and a number that can be found unencrypted without any effort to hack, crack, or otherwise break into anything (The number was discovered just by watching what went through the DVD player's memory.)
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
-Phil
On 5/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
Yes, which is why there is a massive purge going on right now of fair use images. Whoops, maybe not everyone knew that. :)
It's pretty clear the legal risks are pretty significant: Wikipedia a top 10 web site and a history of the AACS licensor actions to much lesser known sites (http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218).
Just because we don't like the law, does not mean we should be intentionally dense about the implications of it.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 5/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
What is the editorial issue which suggests that we should include pseudocode for the MD5 algorithm, but can't include a key used in the HD DVD algorithm? Or would you suggest barring any mention of 0xEFCDAB89 or d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e as well?
Anthony
Incidentally, since WP:OFFICE has been mentioned in this thread, it might be worth noting that a user tagged [[WP:OFFICE]] as a rejected policy page earlier today. That tag has been reverted, and there is a short thread on WP:AN.
Newyorkbrad
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What is the editorial issue which suggests that we should include pseudocode for the MD5 algorithm, but can't include a key used in the HD DVD algorithm? Or would you suggest barring any mention of 0xEFCDAB89 or d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e as well?
With your knowledge of the law (and that email address), you know better than that:
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php
- d.
On 5/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What is the editorial issue which suggests that we should include pseudocode for the MD5 algorithm, but can't include a key used in the HD DVD algorithm? Or would you suggest barring any mention of 0xEFCDAB89 or d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e as well?
With your knowledge of the law (and that email address), you know better than that:
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php
Huh? I'm talking about the *editorial* issue, specifically leaving the legal issues aside. Phil Sandifer said that "The issues here are editorial, not legal." I'm asking what the *editorial* issues are.
As for my email address, I've been meaning to change that for a long time now. It's such a pain in the ass to do so though, due to the list moderation policies.
Anthony
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
The problem with an expression like "blatant illegality" is that it is on the same POV footing as the word "obvious". It as though arguing from one's conviction about the truth of the issue will somehow convince others of its truth. But one's own convictions are anything but neutral. It is easy to agree that clearly illegal material should be removed. What is not easy is establishing that the material is in fact illegal. It doesn't take a lot of research to come to the conclusion that the legalities of reproducing encryption keys are far from settled. There is nothing blatant about either extreme position.
Ec
On 5/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
The problem with an expression like "blatant illegality" is that it is on the same POV footing as the word "obvious". It as though arguing from one's conviction about the truth of the issue will somehow convince others of its truth. But one's own convictions are anything but neutral. It is easy to agree that clearly illegal material should be removed. What is not easy is establishing that the material is in fact illegal. It doesn't take a lot of research to come to the conclusion that the legalities of reproducing encryption keys are far from settled. There is nothing blatant about either extreme position.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nobody told you that "truth by repetition" is not considered a fallacy around here, but rather the house debate style? (Yes, yes, I know, I'm probably guilty myself sometimes.)
On 5/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
An admin who incorrectly considers something "blatantly illegal" when it actually is not can always be deadminned later.
Considering that this whole thing is basically a test case in whether this is illegal or not, "blatantly illegal" seems like just about the least useful description that could be managed here.
I can agree with that. Of course [[09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0]] seems like a speedy-deletable title anyway.
Can an employee of the foundation please speak up and clarify whether or not we are allowed to publish this key?
Anthony
On May 2, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Anthony wrote:
Can an employee of the foundation please speak up and clarify whether or not we are allowed to publish this key?
Please don't do this, employee of the Foundation.
David is pretty much right here - the issue right now isn't legality, it's notability. We're not a newspaper. Wait a month, see how this plays out, and then we can write the right article. Any article written right now isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a piece of Internet activism about the right to publish the string "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0." Which, as that last sentence demonstrates, I'm all for.
But Wikipedia isn't the place to do that now.
If the Foundation steps in, the message becomes "the issue here is a legal one," and an important editorial judgment is erased.
-Phil
On 5/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Anthony wrote:
Can an employee of the foundation please speak up and clarify whether or not we are allowed to publish this key?
Please don't do this, employee of the Foundation.
David is pretty much right here - the issue right now isn't legality, it's notability. We're not a newspaper. Wait a month, see how this plays out, and then we can write the right article. Any article written right now isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a piece of Internet activism about the right to publish the string "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0." Which, as that last sentence demonstrates, I'm all for.
But Wikipedia isn't the place to do that now.
If the Foundation steps in, the message becomes "the issue here is a legal one," and an important editorial judgment is erased.
I completely disagree with your suggestion that this key is not notable. It's not worthy of its own article, true, but if it is legal to publish then it should be published in an article on dvd encryption.
Anthony
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Anthony wrote:
Can an employee of the foundation please speak up and clarify whether or not we are allowed to publish this key?
Please don't do this, employee of the Foundation.
David is pretty much right here - the issue right now isn't legality, it's notability. We're not a newspaper. Wait a month, see how this plays out, and then we can write the right article. Any article written right now isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a piece of Internet activism about the right to publish the string "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0." Which, as that last sentence demonstrates, I'm all for.
But Wikipedia isn't the place to do that now.
If the Foundation steps in, the message becomes "the issue here is a legal one," and an important editorial judgment is erased.
-Phil
Agreed :-)
ant
On 02/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I can agree with that. Of course [[09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0]] seems like a speedy-deletable title anyway.
When things are calmer, it'll be a good redirect to an article about about the controversy.
- d.
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
Considering that this whole thing is basically a test case in whether this is illegal or not, "blatantly illegal" seems like just about the least useful description that could be managed here.
I can agree with that. Of course [[09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0]] seems like a speedy-deletable title anyway.
I don't see it as one. Anyone who wants to find information about the number (or rather, about the controversy involving the number) may very well type that number into our search box. Of course, they wouldn't manually type it from memory, they'd cut and paste, but that doesn't mean they're unlikely to do it.
Anthony wrote:
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
I would, without question. I don't trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal."
-Jeff
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
I would, without question. I don't trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal."
You wouldn't have to trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal".
Anthony wrote:
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
I would, without question. I don't trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal."
You wouldn't have to trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal".
Sure I would. I significant chunk of them can't read basic non-legalese CSD policy as is, and we expect them to be able to make legal distinctions?
-Jeff
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Who in the world would oppose letting admins delete illegal stuff?
I would, without question. I don't trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal."
You wouldn't have to trust the vast majority of admins to actively recognize "illegal".
Sure I would. I significant chunk of them can't read basic non-legalese CSD policy as is, and we expect them to be able to make legal distinctions?
No, I don't. I'm advocating allowing any admin who recognizes blatantly illegal stuff to "delete" it (i.e. temporarily remove it from the view of non-admins pending a further discussion). I'm not advocating forcing all admins to do so.
Anthony