[Foundation-l] 09-f9-...

Wed May 9 10:53:58 UTC 2007

On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heuu I don't think speed of light has the same interest as a key ;)
>
> Ok let's make it easy, what brings this number to the article?
>
> On 09/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be
> > > on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
> > >
> > > Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license
> > > such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software
> > > Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you
> > > want".
> > >
> > > This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not
> > > to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this
> > > line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the
> > > project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
> > >
> > > I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions,
> > > this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should
> > > either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
> > >
> > > About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news
> > > about this without giving the number.
> > >
> > > So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an
> > > article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What
> > > informations does this number brings to the article? None.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/05/07, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding
> > > > it to non related articles is not appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some
> > > > talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime
> > > > has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We
> > > > don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child
> > > > pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury
> > > > done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more
> > > > injury to our freedom that anything else.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony a écrit :
> > > > > But that raises a question.  Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add
> > > > > the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the
> > > > > number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another
> > > > > dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up
> > > > > the spam blacklist?
> > > > >
> > > > > How about the block log?  There are users blocked that have the number
> > > > > in their username.  Is the block log now illegal?
> > > >
> > > > These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban
> > > > on this number.
> > > >
> > > > > But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the
> > > > > information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be
> > > > copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you
> > > > need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it
> > > > seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a
> > > > pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out
> > > > of it. So where is the limit?
> > > >
> > > > Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can
> > > > always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a
> > > > formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
> > > >
> > > > Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal?
> > > > Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
> > > >
> > > > I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
> > > >
> > > > I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic
> > > > principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free
> > > > encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and
> > > > obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic
> > > > principles when we will face bigger challenges.
> > > >
> > > > So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about
> > > > this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to
> > > > do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But
> > > > where is the limit?
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we
> > > > have and we give to our freedom.
> > > >
> > > > Todd Allen a écrit :
> > > > > What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to
> > > > > do with it?
> > > >
> > > > Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question
> > > > of this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for my broken English.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Yann
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> > > > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> > > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> > > > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> > > > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > schiste
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > I must disagree. The number itself brings -specificity-. We don't say
> > the speed of light is "really really fast", we provide a numerical
> > value. We don't say the sun is "very far away from the Earth", we
> > provide a numerical value. We don't say a mole is "a whole lot of
> > particles", we say what Avogadro's number actually is. In keeping with
> > that, we don't say that the HD-DVD flap was over "a hexadecimal
> > number", -we specify what that number is-.
> >
> > --
> > Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> schiste
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The fact that the number itself is a big part of the issue here (as
evidenced by this conversation, after all?) So, why should we -not-
print it? It's evident AACS doesn't intend to cause legal trouble,
they'd make themselves a laughingstock. It's certainly not in
evidence, given that, that a simple numerical value even -would- be
enough to trigger the DMCA. So what do you mean, "what brings it to
the article"? It's the centerpiece of the article! We don't write a
bio about a person without saying -who they are-, and instead dancing
around it and describing "Well, there was this one human, male, 6'2",
usually wore glasses...". We name names. And in this case, the "star
of the show", so to speak, has a name, and it begins with 09 F9.

-- 
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.