[WikiEN-l] IRC logging, disclosure

[Gallagher Mark George]

G'day Risker,

> Thanks Mark Gallagher; that at least makes reasonable sense.
> 
> Now, let me make sure I understand the copyright issue properly.  
> We don't
> quote IRC logs because, despite the fact those channels are 
> exclusive to
> Wikipedians of various classes and are moderated by Wikipedians, 
> and their
> primary purpose (in theory) is to discuss Wikipedia-related issues 
> (yeah, I
> said in theory) - the copyright on all content generated there is 
> in the
> hands of people who have no direct relation to Wikipedia? Could 
> people even
> quote themselves anywhere outside of IRC?

Copyright is not the only or even primary reason.  It's just something to be aware of.  On Wikipedia and off, participants hold the copyright on their own words.  I have copyright on this email, for example.  I would take a dim view of my words on IRC or on this list being stolen by others, as would you, I imagine.

If I say something on Wikipedia, I hold the copyright but implicitly release it under the GFDL.  Anyone (other than me) wishing to republish what I contribute, whether it's to an article or a talkpage, must comply with the GFDL.  On IRC and the mailing list, I have done no such thing.

But this pales in comparison to questions of privacy (IRCers trust that their privacy will be respected) and Freenode policy (Freenode forbid public logging; if we are to continue using their free service, we should respect their rules).

I believe that the Zsinj log should be released, or at least the parts of that log relevant to his misbehaviour.  However, it must be done with the consent of those who will appear in that log (I'd be interested to know who the people are who would not consent).  Even without the log, Zsinj should explain himself on-wiki --- and I mean more than he has already.  I mean the who, what, when, how, and why of the advice he received (if any), in detail.  This should be the minimum we expect if he is to keep his admin bit[0].  This would apply if he was discussing it on IRC or on the list or IRL.  His explanation was insufficient.  His initial excuse --- that he was acting on the advice of others --- was cowardly.  This is not a reason to say that IRC is the problem.  This is a reason to say that he should stop being so cowardly and come up with a better explanation.

There's at least one other admin in Canberra.  She actually lives quite nearby to me.  If we happen to discuss Wikipedia in a pub one day, does this mean that you and those who agree with you have recourse to control our relationship?  Why/why not?

> Sorry, I just find that absolutely hilarious.

I find a lot of serious statements hilarious.  Sometimes it means that the speaker said something incredibly silly.  More often it means I wilfully misunderstood the intent of the statement for the sake of a joke.


[0] I wonder how KP feels about the lack of trigger-happy admins now ...

-- 
[[User:MarkGallagher]]