[WikiEN-l] FBI vs. Wikipedia

[Fred Bauder]

Well,

All of us who are or have been arbitrators are pretty much in the
anti-cynicism business. Nothing the Commons administrators do would
surprise me, but it's time we grappled with them. I'm not an active
uploader of images but I do edit there.

Fred

> Not to be too cynical, but I hope that doesn't get speedy kept as
> well. I *had* mentioned that image of the badge earlier, at the
> Commons Village Pump, but no-one seemed to be that bothered. I also
> suggested adding the restrictions note that Fred also added to the
> image, but again, the response I got was: "We may choose to add a
> warning to the file description page, as we do for several other
> types, but I don't personally think it'd be very useful in this
> case.".
>
> This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets
> involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and
> this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community
> sometimes looks like a deer caught in the headlights, unsure whether
> they should debate the issue, or apply what counsel has said, or ask
> counsel for further advice.
>
> The problem with the first two approaches is that the debate might end
> up with the wrong result, and if people say "but we followed the WMF
> legal counsel's advice" (even if they misinterpreted what he said),
> that might be bad for several reasons. The problem with the third
> approach is that the WMF legal counsel doesn't scale, and you can't
> ask him everything about every image (though if someone thinks it
> worth contacting him, they should always do so). The best of several
> poor options seems to be for the community to judge as best they can,
> contact the WMF legal counsel in rare cases only, and take note if an
> external request leads to the WMF legal counsel over-riding a
> community debate and learn the lessons from that.
>
> On a completely different note (though I see Fred raised it as well),
> is that badge really genuine? The source isn't that reliable, and it
> would be nice to have a date, as I'm positive the design of such
> badges has changed over the years. For all images, you really do want
> to try and find the most reliable source possible, not some random
> website.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>> Well, I tried that and quickly found
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg
>>
>> That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike
>> and
>> the FBI are discussing.
>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-.html
>>
>> I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a
>> object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a
>> statue.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>> I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument
>>> is
>>> spurious.
>>>
>>> Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't
>>> know
>>> what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc)
>>> would
>>> fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically
>>> accurate
>>> or
>>> not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with
>>> someone
>>> who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something
>>> anyone
>>> can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to
>>> look
>>> "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most
>>> impersonators
>>> only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough.
>>>
>>> In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a
>>> good
>>> quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able
>>> to
>>> do
>>> the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator
>>> will
>>> not be affected by Wikimedia's decision.
>>>
>>> FT2
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews
>>>> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that
>>>> Gerard
>>>> is
>>>> > more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume
>>>> some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>