tc wrote:
For a very long time I've advocated making it explicit that the only authorship credit we should require downstream is "Wikipedia contributors" to avoid any bothersome bullying or complaints such as what Maverick is engaging in right now.
What? I just mentioned as a small part of my argument that deleting an article and then posting /exactly/ the same text under a different user name and /not/ stating who wrote that text is a violation of the author requirement of the GNU FDL and thus opens us to potential litigation from the person who is not being credited. This person has already stated that he hates "Jimbo and his friends" and has called for "Wikipeida regime change in 2004." So how am I being a bully by pointing out something that could be used by such a person as a basis to harm Wikipedia?
But I'll try to believe that his actions are merited by his good-intentioned but unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of censoring anything written by 142.
It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has already been hard banned so everything he writes is in violation of that ban and should be removed from the top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that the activity that the user was banned for is at worst OK and at best not something we try to stop.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Daniel Mayer wrote:
tc wrote:
But I'll try to believe that his actions are merited by his good-intentioned but unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of censoring anything written by 142.
It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has already been hard banned so everything he writes is in violation of that ban and should be removed from the top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that the activity that the user was banned for is at worst OK and at best not something we try to stop.
The issue of whether 142 should be banned is not being questioned. The debate is about three articles on Meta that Anthère considers worth keeping and improving based on their contents. Mav has said himself that 142 has made more contributions to Meta than anyone else, so we're talking about only 3 articles out of a large number. Let's not take this will to purge the project of anything related to 142 to the point of being monomaniacal. I'm confident that if given enough time Anthère will be able to edit the article so that it no longer resembles what 142 wrote. Give her a little room to work.
The argument of protecting 142's copyrights is laughable. He is after all still an anonymous user. Anonymity does not override a person's copyrights, but it makes proving them that much more difficult. Can he, as whatever legal person claims those copyrights, prove that he is the same person that we know under a numercial synonym. Furthermore, if and when he gets to the point of issuing a take-down order (with which we would be most willing to comply) the article(s) in question may no longer resemble what he put there in the first place.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org