[WikiEN-l] Sourcing "popular culture" items

[Jimmy Wales]

Unfortunately I am not online at the moment so I can't look at the 
history.  But I wanted to comment quickly now in case I forget later.

The version that was live on the site when I wrote my original post was 
an apparent copyvio, and it was later confirmed to be a copyvio. 
Anthony wants to pretend that I was talking about some other version, 
but that's Anthony for you.

The image was a blatant copyvio.

--Jimbo

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it? 
>>>    
>>>
>> I did not say that.  The point is, it is NOT verifiable.  It is likely a 
>> copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from 
>> reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
>>
>> It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with 
>> respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them.  I see no 
>> reason to trust anything about the article at all.
>>
>> In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and 
>> in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources.  And any 
>> movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the 
>> view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
>>
> This is an overreaction.  While there may be some basis for suspecting 
> that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the 
> article is a bit of a stretch.  There is not much information in the 
> article to start with.  It is a stub, but that is more an argument for 
> the proposed merge than outright deletion.  How can you say that 
> something is "likely a copyvio"?  Either it's prima facie a copyvio or 
> it's not.  Either you have compared it with some original text, or you 
> haven't.  Wouldn't it be better to verify a claim that someone is acting 
> illegally before making it.  If we are going to criticize such 
> unsubstantiated claims when they are made about the subject of an 
> article, shouldn't the same standard apply to claims about our fellow 
> contributors.
> 
> I would not presume to say whether the information is verifiable or 
> not.  I do not understand Tagalog, and I do not regularly keep tabs on 
> what is being said in Philippine publications..  Do you?
> 
> And what really is the standard for pop culture notability?  There is 
> an  extensive article for the 9th place finisher from the most recent 
> ''American Idol''.  This was the first season of ''Philippine Idol''.  
> Why wouldn't it's 9th place finisher merit the same treatment, including 
> the way that publicity shots are accepted?  This project isn't just 
> about what goes on in those countries that have a high proportion of 
> Wikipedians.  It isn't just about the sophisticated standards that have 
> developed over a long period of time in our key countries.  It's also 
> about educating editors in other countries, and you don't accomplish 
> that with automated messages about the evils of copyvios.  These 
> techniques that one would associate with Gringo imperialism do nothing 
> to draw newbies into our fraternity.
> 
> I don't see User:The Green Archer as having with a serious problem.  In 
> the spirit of "Don't bite the newbies" someone writing him a personal 
> message or taking this "lad" under wing would have accomplished more in 
> educating a new editor.  Simply welcoming with an automated message that 
> shows newcomers the way to "Help" and "FAQ" pages is our equivalent to 
> an automated telephone message telling us to "Press 1 if ..., Press 2 if 
> ..., Press 3 if... , ..."
> 
> Ec
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>