geni wrote:
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form doesn't work for images.
Oh good, I'm glad we can agree on /something/.
So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."
The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments"
Right.
So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished ideas or arguments.
Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
The point was really verifiability.
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling,
I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
Granted, but it's a fine line to walk between the two.
<snip>
you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming sooner than you think.
Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think
Ah, but his revolution was on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Ours shall be a revolution of free culture, and stuff.