is on the AACS crack article on es:wp, and they say they're not going to remove it because en:wp doesn't have it - not unless and until the Foundation declares it must go.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
is on the AACS crack article on es:wp, and they say they're not going to remove it because en:wp doesn't have it - not unless and until the Foundation declares it must go.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Note that the discussion is going on here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9#Un_acto_de_est.C3.BApida_censura. An editor (the title "Un acto de estúpida censura" translates to "An act of stupid censorship") makes a post criticizing that the key was put in the filter, and telling how it can be bypassed (as he does, writing the whole key) by using the markup " " or colons instead of blank spaces. Other editors (everyone there, I see) disagree with him, and one points him to the essay [[w:en:Wikipedia:Keyspam]], and others offer useful suggestions, including that the full key itself is not needed to write an article about the controversy.
I imagine your interpretation that "they" say they won't remove it until the Foundation tells them to comes from this post on the article's (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversia_por_la_clave_cifrado_AACS) talk page, by the same editor as above, and the same one adding the key to the article (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversia_por_la_clave_cifrado_AACS&diff=8575366&oldid=8575072):
- "A mi juicio, es información pertinente, de público conocimiento a estas alturas, y publicada también por varios medios de prensa (algunos de ellos referidos en el artículo). Si en el futuro la Fundación Wikimedia recibe una notificación de "cease and desist", veremos. Cinabrium http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Cinabrium"
Translation: - "In my opinion, the information is relevant, public knowledge by now, and also published by various other press sources (some of them referenced in the article). If in the future the Wikimedia Foundation receives a "cease and desist" order, we'll see." http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Controversia_por_la_clave_cifrado_AACS
It appears to me that 1) if we're serious about the filter, this is a rather trivial workaround that can be fixed, and 2) with one editor arguing for the key, and a two day old article, there's no need for panic: it appears to be a simple content dispute that community will work it out just fine. In fact, I rather liked reading that Café discussion. Of course, anyone here who is able can go add your voice to the chorus, if you prefer...
Dominic
On 08/05/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
It appears to me that 1) if we're serious about the filter, this is a rather trivial workaround that can be fixed, and
The filter is because of spam. The colon version isn't being spammed.
- with one editor
arguing for the key, and a two day old article, there's no need for panic: it appears to be a simple content dispute that community will work it out just fine. In fact, I rather liked reading that Café discussion. Of course, anyone here who is able can go add your voice to the chorus, if you prefer...
Indeed.
The panic over the number is completely stupid.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org