I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants,
in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since
2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant
number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias
for a local chapter[3].
follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people
that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate.
That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians.
The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone
(exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local
chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never
participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of
several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of
this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be
composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support
organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's
name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue
that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain
activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those
investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other
countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in
exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the
Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and
see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not
participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia
Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of
institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted
for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I
invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then
to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning
here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
[3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&actio…
[4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&act…
[5] -
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
[6] - http://wikibr.org/
[7] -
http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
----
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo
discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo
ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar
reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de
habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é
algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários,
mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos
experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar
esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o
exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal
página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em
algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram
inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos
wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas
sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em
todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que
jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a
frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser
aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou
com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha
pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir,
quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais
participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o
futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual,
ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas
uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do
nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de
mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro
para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da
forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros
[7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro
do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas
não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter
brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver
ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da
Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja
legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas
sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por
mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de
discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta
discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a
existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
[3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&actio…
[4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&act…
[5] -
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
[6] - http://wikibr.org/
[7] -
http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
Here are foundation-l list statistics for the end of November. (Sorry for
HTML email, it was the only way known to me to format stats well for all.)
Statistics are at the bottom.
== Good news ==
* If we get one more new participant at foundation-l, we will at the highest
level of new participants per month since April this year.
* This is the biggest (relative) raise between October and November at all.
This is, also, one of the biggest relative raises in communication between
two months at all.
* This is the second best November by number of active participants.
* At last, we are communicating and the most of discussions are
constructive. Lower amount of emails for 10-20% is reasonable if quality of
discussion is higher.
== Bad news ==
* This is the second worst November by amount of emails. However, it should
be noted that it is much better than the worst one (2004) and that the
number of emails will be much closer to the number of better Novembers.
* This is the second worst November by amount of new participants.
* This may be just a seasonal raise in conjunction with one important (and
extraordinary) event (GFDL 1.3).
== Conclusions ==
* Raise of communication encourages. If the trend of raising continues to
December (all Decembers show raise toward Novembers except one, 2005), it
would be possible to say that at least communication on this list came back
to the normal trends. Communication behavior for the winter months is also
important because it is usually higher than during summer months (except for
2006; possibly related to Wikimania in Boston, but I didn't check it).
* Events, bad or good are raising communication level. But, of course, it is
better to have good events than to have bad events (which took in my mind
the famous quote of Grunf, one of the characters from Alan Ford comics [1]:
"If you want to win you must not lose").
== Statistics up to 2008-11-27, ~16:00 UTC ==
;Email count:
<pre>
year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
2004 xxx xxx xxx 64 532 506 474 242 462 650
276 282
2005 630 760 642 574 690 438 396 684 488 758
1074 672
2006 514 506 860 588 910 1666 1262 1670 2180
1206 1116 2530
2007 1138 624 665 1042 798 407 1163 471 791
1072 1030 1260
2008 1497 688 1679 1675 1131 942 609 501 699 559
761 xxx
</pre>
;New participants:
<pre>
year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
2004 xxx xxx xxx 13 31 25 14 6 22 9
8 9
2005 17 21 10 8 9 9 8 18 15 10
15 16
2006 21 12 18 16 18 20 15 28 25 17
20 28
2007 19 26 13 21 22 18 18 19 14 15
21 19
2008 23 11 24 15 12 11 7 8 12 4
12 xxx
</pre>
;Active participants:
<pre>
year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
2004 xxx xxx xxx 13 39 48 40 29 48 45
40 40
2005 58 61 56 56 57 57 52 73 67 67
74 73
2006 71 69 75 78 85 100 73 114 117 100
108 131
2007 120 112 103 132 126 110 142 105 121 135
131 156
2008 158 115 164 130 132 124 125 112 123 91
111 xxx
</pre>
;Emails size:
<pre>
year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 xxx xxx xxx 121475 1104754 1053462
967130 485494 719985 1097434 564584 539745
2005 1249081 1380845 1074325 953014 1347131 860264
857746 1296746 969160 1525844 2426353 1369238
2006 1042910 985712 1903912 1655576 1928528 3816811
2879586 3570674 4147155 2128520 2385879 5398523
2007 2563519 1333895 1462309 2244803 1745971 955367
2470301 968443 1741702 2224105 2129518 2422959
2008 3618057 1514498 4042573 4485905 2360334 2033119
1152809 1078196 1390021 1363943 1917469 xxx
</pre>
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ford_(comics)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I think the overall project ( Wikimedia Foundation) may have substantial
responsibility and negative exposure in this matter whether the En.WP
"community" or even Mr. Wales has a problem with it or not. Exposure
in the areas of privacy expectations and rules as well as misrepresentation (the
conflict between the stated checkuser protocol and the actual more secretive
protocol). Therefore, you have a responsibility for Wikimedia which requires
your involvement in addressing this protocol on EnWP which, according to the
En.WP "community" itself, -see below-, is casual,arbitrary and
publicly misleading.
So I think the very least the Foundation should do is have your
(Wikimedia's) legal department look at the
situation.
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com
> Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 12:54 PM
> This is more of an en.WP issue not a foundation one. En.WP
> can change local policy to require that checkuser requests
> are logged on-wiki if that is what the community wants.
> Various wikis have different policies regarding these
> issues. I don't see why we should debate en.WP's
> particular version of policy here.
>
> Brigitte SB
>
> --- On Sun, 11/23/08, Foundation-l list admin
> <foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > From:
Foundation-l list admin
> <foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this
> yet? If so,how?
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:06 AM
> > (2nd try, hope it isn't a duplicate)
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: dee dee <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
> > Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM
> > Subject: Have you dealt with this yet? If so,how?
> > To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >
> > Four brief points:
> > 1: I think the primary issue here is the appearance
> that
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
> >
> > gives to the community and the public of a
completely
> > transparent and
> > open Checkuser request process when the discussions
> have
> > shown that,as
> > Thatcher131said,
> >
> > "The vast majority of checks are run following
> talk
> > page, email or IRC
> > requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a
> backup;.."
> >
> > or as JzG|Guy said at
> >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%…
> >
> > "The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and
> > always have been,
> > performed quietly and without a request at RFCU."
> >
> > At the very,very least there should be an
> acknowledgement
> > at
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
> >
> > that there is also a
parallel "back
> > channel"(Guy's phraseology) method
> > of requesting and processing CHECKUSER activity which
> is
> > not
> > transparent to the general Wikipedia community nor the
> > public.
> >
> > 2: In addition, this section of
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
> >
> > "Privacy violation?
> >
> > * If you feel that a checkuser has led to a
> violation of
> > the
> > Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding
> yourself,
> > please refer
> > the case to the Ombudsman commission."
> >
> > is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How can
> someone
> > report a
> > privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser
> has
> > been used on
> > them?
> >
> > 3: A third
aspect is that it seems these
> > "private" Checkuser checks
> > are being used frivolously on brand new Users to
> effect 1
> > second
> > blocks for "scrutiny" reasons and the
> Checkuser
> > usage is being so
> > poorly documented that sometimes no one even knows who
> used
> > the tool
> > as shown here:
> >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv…
> >
> > Therefore, there should also be full disclosure to all
> new
> > Users that
> > Checkuser could be used without their knowledge on the
> > basis of
> > suspicion at any time after they open a Wikipedia
> account.
> >
> > 4: I also think User Risker's comments about the
> > privacy aspect have merit:
> >
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%…
> >
> > --- On Tue, 12/11/07, dee dee
> > <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: dee dee
> <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Jimbo's response re:Rampant
> Checkuser
> > Privacy Abuse
> > > To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 9:06 PM
> > > Four brief points:
> > > 1: I think the primary issue here is the
> appearance
> > that
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
> > >
> > > gives to the community and the public of a
> completely
> > > transparent and open Checkuser request process
> when
> >
the
> > > discussions have shown that,as Thatcher131said,
> > >
> > > "The vast majority of checks are run
> following
> > talk
> > > page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers.
> WP:RFCU
> > is a
> > > backup;.."
> > >
> > > or as JzG|Guy said at
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%…
> > >
> > > "The vast majority of checkuser requests
> are, and
> > > always have been, performed quietly and without a
> > request at
> > > RFCU."
> > >
> > > At the very,very least there should be an
> > acknowledgement
> > > at
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
>
> >
> > > that there is also a parallel "back
> > > channel"(Guy's phraseology) method of
> > requesting
> > > and processing CHECKUSER activity which is not
> > transparent
> > > to the general Wikipedia community nor the
> public.
> > >
> > > 2: In addition, this section of
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
> > >
> > > "Privacy violation?
> > >
> > > * If you feel that a checkuser has led to a
> > violation
> > > of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy
> regarding
> > > yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman
> > > commission."
> > >
> > > is something I find to be quite Orwellian. How
> can
> > someone
> > > report a privacy violation if they
do not know
> that
> > > checkuser has been used on them?
> > >
> > > 3: A third aspect is that it seems these
> > > "private" Checkuser checks are being
> used
> > > frivolously on brand new Users to effect 1 second
> > blocks for
> > > "scrutiny" reasons and the Checkuser
> usage
> > is
> > > being so poorly documented that sometimes no one
> even
> > knows
> > > who used the tool as shown here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv…
> > >
> > > Therefore, there should also be full disclosure
> to all
> > new
> > > Users that Checkuser could be used without their
> > knowledge
> > > on the basis of suspicion at any time after
they
> open
> > a
> > > Wikipedia account.
> > >
> > > 4: I also think User Risker's comments about
> the
> > > privacy aspect have merit:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%…
> > >
> > > dee dee
> > >
> > >
> > > Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: In
> English
> > > Wikipedida, ArbCom is a good place to go for
> this
> > sort of
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > However, having reviewed checkuser policy, I see
> > absolutely
> > > nothing even
> > > close to a policy violation here.
> > >
> > > "Notification to the account that is checked
> is
> >
> permitted but is not
> > > mandatory. Similarly, notification of the check
> to the
> > > community is not
> > > mandatory, but may be done subject to the
> provisions
> > of the
> > > privacy policy."
> > >
> > > I strongly support this element of the policy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cary Bass wrote:
> > > > dee dee wrote:
> > > >> Hi, I think the Stewards have authority
> in
> > this
> > > matter. The Ombudsman
> > > >> Commission seems to accept these
> clandestine
> > > Checkuser requests but I
> > > >> doubt the Stewards will. I hope you will
> > forward
> > > my message to them so
> > > >> they can decide for themselves.
> > > >>
>
> > > Hi again, dee dee.
> > > >
> > > > Being a steward myself, I responded to you
> in
> > that
> > > capacity. I'm sorry
> > > > my signature didn't indicate such, but
> > I'll
> > > mention it again.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be mistaken about the function
> of
> > > stewards. Why don't you
> > > > read the relevant page on meta, here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The stewards have no authority over the
> > checkusers or
> > > checkuser policy.
> > > > There is no steward committee, only a
> mailing
> > list
> > > where the stewards
> > > > can share their thoughts, actions, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Where there is a local policy in place,
the
> > stewards
> > > have no authority
> > > > over local policy.
> > > >
> > > > Where there is a function policy in place
> (like
> > > checkuser), the stewards
> > > > have no authority over that function policy.
> > > >
> > > > Short of suggestion you address it to the
> local
> > Arbcom
> > > or the Checkuser
> > > > Ombudsman Commission, there is nothing any
> > steward on
> > > this list can do
> > > > for you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Due
> to a
> > > large amount of spam, emails from non-members of
> this
> > list
> > > are now automatically rejected. If you have a
> valuable
> > > contribution
to
> > > the list but would rather not subscribe to it,
> please
> > sent
> > > an email to
> > > foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org and we
> will
> > forward
> > > your post
> > > to the list. Please be aware that all messages to
> this
> > list
> > > are
> > > archived and viewable for the public. If you have
> a
> > > confidential
> > > communication to make, please rather email
> > > info(a)wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
> > > From: dee dee
> <strategicdesign2001(a)yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Rampant Checkuser Privacy Abuse
> > > To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > In regards to:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER
> > >
> > > ''''Privacy violation?
> > > If you feel that a checkuser has led to a
> violation of
> > the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding
> > yourself,
> > > please refer the case to the Ombudsman
> > > commission.''''
> > >
> > > Please note that so-called "private"
> uses of
> > > checkuser are occurring and tolerated as seen
> here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#False_…
> > >
> > >
> > > How can someone report a privacy violation if
> they do
> > not
> > > know that checkuser has been used?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
>
> > with
> > > Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Bimmler
> > mbimmler(a)gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com
Anthony writes:
> The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> property right.
This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that
trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law
as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.
--Mike
Dear friends,
We are conducting a study on the motivation of the knowledge sharing on
Wikipedia. Your experience of the read from and write to Wikipedia is very
important to the design and management of this knowledge platform. The
survey will take about two minutes. We deeply appreciate your help on
answering the following questions.
After the survey is done, we will randomly select twenty persons and
present them with USB 2GB Flash Drives. Besides, with each valid
questionnaire, we will donate US $1 dollar to the Wikimedia Foundation. The
result of this survey is analyzed in an anonymous way and is only regarded
as the academic use. Please feel free to fill out the questionnaire. Thanks
again for your time and valuable input.
May happiness and health be with you everyday!
★ On-line Questionnaire: http://140.119.19.152:8080/wiki/
Shari S. C. Shang
Eldon Y. Li
Professor,
Department of Management Information Systems,
National Chengchi University
Tel.: +886-2-82374038； Fax: +886-2-29393754 ； E-mail: s1213527(a)yahoo.com.
tw
I don't know whether this is a reasonable place to put this problem,
but the articles on Ireland on en.wikipedia.org need a serious look by
people with a neutral view. Right now we've got a clique of about 10
editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming
conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles
themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding
arbitration.
A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move
[[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to
[[Ireland]], and [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]].
That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move [[Ireland]]
to [[Ireland (island)]], keep [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] where it
is, and move [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland]]. If any of you
would like to take a look, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to…
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28islan…
.
At least I'd like advice as to how we can get out of this mess.
Michael Everson
Anthony writes:
> Then you haven't answered how the requirements of trademark
> maintenance and
> the interests of freedom of speech are in conflict.
I have certainly tried to explain it. Do you need me to try to
explain it again and again until you understand what I'm saying?
>> Are you just making this up off the top of your head?
>
> Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good
> faith"
> memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as
asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?).
But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in
conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize.
>> That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
>> quite proud of it.
> Again a very educated and informative response.
I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good
faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even
degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free
to disagree.
> I see you've incorporated
> the "ad hominem" meme quite well.
I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here.
>> Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as
>> "little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems
>> to
>> me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me.
>
>
> You mischaracterize what I think.
I am happy to learn that, despite what you have posted in public, you
don't really suppose I think of you as "little people" and expect that
my views will be "accepted without question." On the other hand, this
raises the question of why you attributed such views to me in the
first place, but you need not answer here if it would make you
uncomfortable to source your assertions.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> Instead of attacking my idea, you attacked me.
I'm sorry you interpreted me as attacking you, which must seem
incredibly unfair since you're scrupulous about refraining from
getting personal. Did you figure I was attacking you because I
learned in law school to attack you, or because I learned from
experience to attack you? Or was it because you believe that I regard
you as "little people" and that I expected my message to be "just
accepted without question"?
Remember, the more we discuss the way you draw these conclusions, the
easier it is to avoid having you misunderstand me in the future.
Thanks in advance for all your help in this matter.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term
> "freedom
> of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.
This is not what I was using the term to mean.
> Would you say there is clearly a tension between fraud law (or
> perjury law)
> and freedom of speech?
There is certainly some tension there, as is well-documented in the
scholarly treatments of the subject.
> The way I understand it, rights cannot be in
> conflict (or tension), and any seeming conflicts (or tensions)
> between your
> rights and the rights of another are simply a misunderstanding of
> one or the
> other right.
Are you just making this up off the top of your head? Of course
rights can be in tension, and they often are.
> I won't speak for Thomas, but I've noticed this independently of
> anyone
> having told me about it.
False memes can also arise from spontaneous generation and mutation.
(Blame cosmic rays, if you want.) Whether you want to focus on your
original perception of what you project upon me or else upon the
significance of how many people share your view, the fact remains --
if you believe what you are predisposed to believe, nothing I can say
will affect your belief. Explaining where your predisposition came
from is up to you -- it's not something I can know about.
> Wow, I'd say the exact opposite is true. I'd say the meme of
> assuming good
> faith, especially as it has mutated to be used quite commonly by
> Wikipedians
> (to discourage criticism), is a meme which promotes other memetic
> viruses,
> not one which inoculates against them.
That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
quite proud of it.
> Well, like I said, not something I'm interested in arguing with you
> about.
> It's not my problem, it's your problem.
Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as
"little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems to
me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me. I mean, I'm
personally untroubled by your treasuring of a pet idea, even if it's a
pet idea about how little I supposedly think you are.
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> Please note that I wasn't talking here about "trademark law", I was
> talking
> specifically about "trademark dilution law". These types of laws
> both share
> the term "trademark", but they are actually not all that similar
> otherwise.
I don't know what you mean by "similar," but both the creation of
trademarks and the creation of a remedy for trademark dilution are
both part of the Trademark Act of 1946 (aka Title 15, Chapter 22, of
the United States Code). Registration of trademarks is Sec. 1051, and
the prohibition of dilution is in Sec. 1125. Your statement here is
at best incoherent, and at worst simply incorrect. See generally http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/trademrk.htm
.
As for correcting the entry on trademark dilution, I hope it is clear
why I forbear from editing articles on Wikipedia these days --
especially articles relating to legal issues, where somebody might
glibly presume I expect my edits to be "accepted without question."
--Mike