http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.
~Nathan
On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.
At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram".
- d.
On 3 August 2010 14:33, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.
At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram".
He comes close, though. Do be sure to read the letter:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pd...
- d.
On 3 August 2010 13:54, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2010 14:33, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.
At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram".
He comes close, though. Do be sure to read the letter:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pd...
- d.
I can second that - that letter (in the above PDF link) is amusing as it is
well argued - A must read. Bravo Mike :-)
The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discovered this story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning Herald today which calls it a "politely feisty response".
-Liam Peace, Love and Metadata wittylama.com/blog
The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discovered this story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning Herald today which calls it a "politely feisty response".
-Liam
Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone got it from someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a 3rd in the mix).
Nathan
It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail:
http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf
A.
--- On Tue, 3/8/10, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 3 August, 2010, 23:45
The story has now been picked up by other news
agencies from the geeky
to the
mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of
which
pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for
one discovered this
story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning
Herald today which calls
it a "politely feisty response".
-Liam
Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone got it from someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a 3rd in the mix).
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To be fair, the DNI is a relative a friend of mine and I am pretty sure he does not personally publish much of anything on the website. But the point is probably well taken.
-Dan
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail:
http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf
A.
--- On Tue, 3/8/10, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, 3 August, 2010, 23:45
The story has now been picked up by other news
agencies from the geeky
to the
mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of
which
pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for
one discovered this
story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning
Herald today which calls
it a "politely feisty response".
-Liam
Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone got it from someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a 3rd in the mix).
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Indeed. I should have written "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence", because that's who www.dni.gov belongs to, according to its banner.
A.
--- On Wed, 4/8/10, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
To be fair, the DNI is a relative a friend of mine and I am pretty sure he does not personally publish much of anything on the website. But the point is probably well taken.
Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the FBI.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investiga...
You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article (in the panel on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a "Save to My Workspace" option.
A.
Another cease-and-desist, perchance? Hopefully the Streisand Effect will take hold and every news organisation reporting this will reproduce the seal in loving, high-definition detail.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the FBI.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investiga...
You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article (in the panel on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a "Save to My Workspace" option.
A.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the FBI.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investiga...
You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article (in the panel on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a "Save to My Workspace" option.
Could this action by EB be an example of collateral paranoia?
Ray
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org