from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
I know of the cases you mean, I nominated various ones.

On 5/19/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> G'day Fastfission,
>
> >>From my reading of [[WP:USER]], it seems to me that a subpage in the
> > user namespace which expresses opinions about Wikipedia or admin
> > behavior, or one which is the beginning of an attempt to organize
> > users towards one goal or another (a pre-born Wikiproject), should be
> > totally legal, irregardless of whether other users think the idea is a
> > good one or whether or not it "takes up resources".
> >
> > And yet, at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]], there have been a
> > number of cases lately where things are nominated for just this
> > reason. People seem to vote without any consideration other than
> > whether they think the subpage is "a good idea" or a "waste of
> > resources" (of course, the MFD votes often taken up almost exactly the
> > same amount of database space as the pages in question, but let's not
> > let logic get involved here).
>
> It sounds like our descriptive policy is lagging behind actual practice.
>   I guess it needs updating.
>
> (And xfD is not a vote.  If the reasoning behind a "vote" is lacking, it
> can and should be ignored.  This applies even in the case of (imagine
> we're on AfD now) 20 "NN D"s and 1 "Keep, he was the World Champion in
> nude pipe-smoking three years running, represented Canadia in the World
> Nude Pipe-Smoking Championships, and was Leader of the Conservative
> Party in the UK for a period in the 90s".)
>
> > There are two things I think we should do here. One is to try and
> > hammer out if all user subpages must be "useful to the encyclopedia"
> > (as many claim they must, when they are on the chopping block), and,
> > if so, ADD THAT to the user page guidelines. If we DO want to go down
> > that path, we should come up with some clear cut guidelines for what
> > counts as "useful". Must it be useful for writing articles? For
> > organizing research? For telling others about yourself? Does something
> > which facilitates the community count as "useful", even if it does not
> > directly apply to article writing?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:We_need_a_policy_to_deal_with_policy
>
> Define, and define, and define.  Broad definitions are tyrrany.  We
> can't let random people decide what "useful" means!
>
> > For example, I have a page on my subpages which is a list of all free
> > images I have drawn for Wikipedia. It serves no direct purpose except
> > maybe for me to feel good about my accomplishments, and to encourage
> > others to feel good about them too. Does that make it "useful"? Maybe.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Since I'm not getting paid monetarily for my contributions (which take
> > hours to create, mind you), a little ego stroking is a good way to
> > make sure that I (and others) keep working at it. So in that sense,
> > the page is very "useful": it guarantees that I will keep coming back
> > and spending my valuable time on this project. (I of course do not
> > mean this to refer only or even directly to "me", but mean it as "the
> > hypothetical editor".)
> >
> > But where do we draw the line? Is a page which criticizes the
> > implementation of Wikipedia policy "useful"? Is a page which
> > criticizes the policy outright "useful"? What if it makes blanket
> > statements about the actions of "admins"? Does that go too far? Where
> > does "useful criticism and disagreement" end and "personal attacks"
> > begin?
>
> If you're talking about one subpage I've seen, it ended when the user
> said "X, Y and Z admins are ignorant morons who don't know copyright
> law.  I say we fight back and pepper our userspace with purdy pictures
> we have no right to use!" (in a somewhat less inflammatory fashion,
> admittedly).  Core principles are not negotiable, and attempts to
> organise the community in revolt against being an encyclopaedia, being
> NPOV, respecting copyrights, etc., should not be tolerated.
>
> <snip/>
>
> --
> Mark Gallagher
> "What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
> - Danger Mouse
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>> I'm the lawyer for the Foundation.  I represent Wikimedia Foundation,
>> Inc.  I answer to the Board.
>>
>> You are *not* authorized to speak for the Foundation.
>
> Lawyer or ex-lawyer? I heard a rumour that your term had ended.

Brad is still part of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. However, he
has obligations to paying clients and cannot afford to devote all of his
time to pro bono work for Wikimedia. That seems to have been garbled
into the notion that he's gone altogether, which is not the case.

In this situation, he was simply reiterating a position on behalf of his
client, one that had already been communicated privately to Waerth. I
trust he will graciously receive Waerth's apology and we need not air
this matter further. If the prospects for collaboration with this
organization in Thailand seem promising, hopefully Waerth can get them
in touch with the Special Projects committee to work out the details.

--Michael Snow


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


list: wikien-l

from_name: jkelly at fas.harvard.edu

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unfree content is our mission? (was:Getting rid of bad
	fair use)

body:
  Maru,

  So de: is off-mission?  Someone should probably let the foundation know that
de: is doing such a poor job.

                              Jkelly

Quoting maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com>:

> fair use is
> inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles
> where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely
> not release the images under a decent license,


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>It's funny just how true the witticism "Stealing from one is plagiarism,
>from many is research" is. :)
>
>Would we have any guidelines about how "sympathetic" to be to the subject?
>Is it ok to leave pimples out? What expression should they have? What if
>there are two choices of image for the lead?
>
The drawing should reflect a Neutral Point of View just as much as the
text about the person.  Pimples that are only a temporary feature should
probably be left out, but a hairy nose wart that's likely to be a way of
identifying the person should be left in.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Claudi Meneghin

subject: [Wikitech-l] hide/show button at Lombard wikipedia

body:
Hello,
  I would like to add a hide/show button to this template at Lombard Wikipedia:
  http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Directori_comprimit2

  It has been copied and pasted from

  http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Directori_comprimit2.
  Here 'mostra'='show' and 'amaga'='hide'.
  I have tried by copying 'monobook.js' from ca.wikipedia.org and even from en.wikipedia.org, but seemingly it doesn't work. Do you have any suggestion please?
  Many thanks.
  Sincerely yours,

  Claudi

---------------------------------
 Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour retrouver directement vos services pr?f?r?s : v?rifiez vos nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches et suivez l'actualit? en temps r?el. Cliquez ici.


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
hi ryan, why am i being blocked for a week?
on what grounds? there has to be grounds. Otherwise it is entirely unfair.
and why do i have to have the threat of the community banning me permanently
over my head. Again there has to be grounds for this. I can't see any.

I have only been a wikipedia member for 3 days, and  i have been banned
permanently, recommended to be banned for a week pending community
judgement, and yet there is no evidence that i violated any rules to call
for such justification.
There has to be fairness in wikipedia, otherwise it doesn't work

>From: "Ryan Delaney" <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:30:59 -0400
>
>On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> > > I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed
>saladin
> > > made.
> > >
> > > Mgm
> >
> >
> >  Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't
> > simple vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community
> > banned.
> >
>
>Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week.  He can get community
>approval for a ban in that time.
>
>Ryan
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
I'm speaking here as someone who works on OTRS, so has to looks at cases
like this all the time (I'm not claiming extra authority from that, just
extra insight).

What it comes down to is that fair use is not a right, it is a defense.
  The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under
"fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your
defense.

In this particular incident, a person with an apparently legitimate
claim to the image asked us to remove the image, with the understanding
that he was willing to defend his rights and test our defense in court.

Now you may believe, and you may be right, that we would win that
case... but it would be at a significant financial cost (and possibly
significant other costs, but lets stick with the financial for now).

The advice the OTRS team were given was to remove the image.  Quite
sensibly, the foundation doesn't want to pay that cost out of our
donations, for the sake of an image that can be linked to without /any/
risks of costs and no significant loss of content.

However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending
the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be
some if this image is used - then I say go ahead!  I'm sure Danny can
arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed.  I'm not sure of
costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for
initial legal advice would be sensible too.

--sannse

geni wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
>
> Umm how?
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>As for WP:NOR, you could make the argument about any original creation
>by Wikipedians. We do not. What matters more, especially in the case
>of living people, is that the original creations are generally
>considered to be good, encyclopedic and useful.
>
We do not condone verbatim copying of of someone else's writings if that
would be a copyright violation; instead we want people to put the
information in their own words.

Why should the situation be any different for images.  Only the medium
is changed.  The distinction is between original research and original
expression.

Ec


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of
> an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl
> photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect
> to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
>

Sure we are not useing it for critical comment of the original image
but there are other posible fair use rationals around for example:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=O%20RLY&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Is generaly considered to be fair use.
--
geni


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> I won't argue particular points of law, because I am not a lawyer or an
> expert in law.  Perhaps a position you should consider taking yourself.
>    I simply repeat what I've been told, and I chose carefully who I
> decide to take clarification from
>

Sorry, I'd rather understand what it is I'm saying than just repeat
whatever it is I'm told.  Whoever is informing you is incorrect.

Anthony


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>> Interesting.  I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated
>>> over and over it shouldn't be hard to find.  The first Google hit I
>>> found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your
>>> Rights:  The Public's Right of Fair Use.  But I guess the EFF has no
>>> clue what they're talking about.
>>
>> Clearly, the EFF is an impartial source.
>>
> So the EFF is wrong?  Or whether or not fair use is a right is an
> opinion?

It is an opinion, or at least, it is something that is under dispute.
Citing the EFF in a dispute about fair use is like citing the NRA in
a dispute about the Second Amendment--it won't convince the other
side so why bother?

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Interesting.  I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated
> over and over it shouldn't be hard to find.  The first Google hit I
> found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your
> Rights:  The Public's Right of Fair Use.  But I guess the EFF has no
> clue what they're talking about.

If you want to play "find the source", we can do that, but I don't see
the value in it.

"Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim"
http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html
"Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against
infringement." http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html

Anyway, I was just trying to explain the origin of the terminology and
what was meant by it. Yes, some groups consider it a "right", but
since you cannot sue somebody for infringing upon your "fair use
rights", it is a pretty empty designation, IMO.

> Anyway, actual written publications are a better search.  But
> books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted
> material..."  "Under the right of fair use..."  "But the precious fair
> use right is under attack today..."

Yes, and a search for "fair use is a defense" will come up with a
number of law textbooks too, i.e.:

"It's important to understand that fair use is a defense rather than
an affirmative
right."
"...fair use is a defense against charges of infringement, not an
affirmative right possessed by members of the public."

> You have the right to bear arms.  Who can you sue for violation that
> right?  Perhaps we're talking about different definitions of the word
> "right".  I tried looking for a legal dictionary with your definition
> in it though, and I couldn't find it.

Apparently you can sue, depending on the legal framework which you
think is violating the second amendment. There are a few cases
mentioned in our article on a second amendment rights group, [[Second
Amendment Foundation]].

Anyway -- it's not "my" definition. Legal scholars apparently hash
over whether or not fair use should be an affirmative right, but to my
knowledge nobody argues that it IS an affirmative right under current
copyright law.

> What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights?
>  Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in
> the first place?

Among the lawyers and law students I chatted with about the idea, the
basic idea was that if any big company threatened to sue you for what
was obviously fair use, you could sue them instead. I don't know how
the details would work -- I'm not a lawyer or a law student -- but the
goal was to prevent the threat of lawsuit itself to prevent fair use
from functioning effectively. As it is, it is easy for a company with
a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of
endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of
instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.

FF


from_name: arnomane at gmx.de

subject: [Foundation-l] Design for wikipedia's front page (and corporate)

body:
Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:
> If you're a good designer, creating a
> good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
> later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some people
consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of the
given Monobook design.

There are even some hacks that do alter on purpose polished layout in order to
improve usability (for example a checker background for images in Wikimedia
Commons in order to see transparency directly, see for example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png).

Destruction is what a broad majority considers destruction and this can differ
from community to community (For example I really dislike most of the
namespace colors used in various Wikipedias but that's probably my personal
taste only...).

But as you have pointed it out usability is important and so I think we can
find a good commons sense for some kind of "corporate design" with only minor
local tweaks if we favour usability over fancy design.

> If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
> need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
> though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
> they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

Well there is the requirement that you have to credit the author(s). In case
someone else did modify a design you can force people by license (let us say
GFDL) to say that this is a modified design so that the original author does
not get blamed because some local ignorant admin did enforce his personal
taste (although my own experience says that only in small communities you can
act as dictator, in larger communities you need very good points so that
other admins don't revert you).

So if a majority of a community is dumb and likes a stupid change, well I'd
say they don't deserve anything better... And even in that case the original
author has nothing to do with it.

So I am sure there will be projects that will destroy any given design that
makes sense but these projects have to live with the problem that they are
very probably not professional and thus probably not relevant. And a project
that is irrelevant won't be noticed or just ignored over time (and if people
from that project notice this loose of interest they will hopefully consider
it and change their current style)...

Greetings, Arnomane


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones
> which have articles. Although we should make more effort to license
> them.

Orly.jpg has an article about it. Might take a few more years for it to
reach "historic" status, though. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original*
> high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a
> clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair
> use" claim was in error.

Everything claimed under fair use is a copyvio.

In any case we have located the original high res version:

http://animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/ViewImg.cgi?img=a7/Snowy_Owl_Nyctea_scandiaca_005-by_John_White.jpg

We link to it in the article.

--
geni


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Post. It's time for the admins to explain

body:
Maggie, if you, for the time being atleast, stopped accusing
Administrators of treating you unfairly and focussed more on trying to
prove to them why you deserve to be  unblocked, you stand a better
chance of being allowed to return to editing . Constant complaining
can be considered "trollling" and you run the risk of being moderated
on the mailing-list too-after that you will really have nowhere else
to express your grievances. As an editor who has had run-ins with
Administrators before, I can assure you that they are always
fair-though it may not appear so to the blocked user. I suggest you
contact an Administrator in private and discuss the issue in a calm
manner as this would be much more likely to yield you positive results
than whining on the Mailing List.

   Regards,

       Prasad.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
	admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan) REVISED VERSION
	made a slight error

body: Can someone please have this user moderated from the Mailing List?


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
>
> On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> > Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a
> > casual
> > reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
>
> That's just our development pattern. In the end we will have stable
> versions that are verified accurate.

And therefore obsolete. Law, both legislation and common law, changes
rapidly nowadays.

You could have an encyclopaedia of legal basics, but having an uptodate
comprehensive legal reference using volunteer labour is probably a very big
ask.

Pete, awed by the vision


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now
> the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or
> not it's worth the financial cost to fight.

We can't always contact the uploader.

--
geni


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
	admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan)

body: I agree with Rob and Keith, please have this guy moderated.


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was using a touch of irony to point out that divisive and
> > inflammatory are not clear to all people. I agree that applying a
> > category about your personal abilities is not divisive when someone
> > labels themself with it. However I still can't see how labelling
> > oneself as a member of an organisation is necessarily divisive and
> > inflammatory, as opposed to stating an undefined level of interest in
> > said organisation.
>
>
> Member of Hamas? Hmm...
>
> Seriously though, to me stating any kind of political affiliation or
> ideology has a touch of "up yours" to it. This may have to do with the
> people I have actually met who would do such a thing. But I have trouble
> explaining why. For a start, I would not find a great big "This user is a
> republican!" or "This user supports the Front National!" userbox a great
> invitation to start a conversation with that user. It's like saying "Here
> are my political leanings, and you're going to hear all about them".
>
> Steve

I am one of the more liberal australians around, and as such I take a
nonchalant view on most political issues... (liberal has a bit of a
different meaning down under). But I do understand what you mean about
the statement of views being a reflection of ones personality. I got
in a discussion today because I was wondering why some editors were
being quick about taking out "trolling" comments. I came to the
conclusion that I am very naive about the issue of editor
personalities and their worth to wikipedia. I haven't changed, I just
dont know how much I am going to comment on it for a while.

Peter


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
 admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan)

body:
Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> [[WP:NPA]], that's heading for a month now.  It's great being a rouge
>> admin :-D
>>
>> Guy (JzG)
>
> At risk of involving myself in this matter, I have to ask what the
> difference between rouge and rogue is. Is this simply the difference
> between an Australian and another spelling. Because I think its
> perfectly sensible to have a sentence that says "its great being a
> rogue admin", but I dont see how rouge, which is in my view a colour
> of makeup, relates to this sentence.
>

[[WP:ROUGE]].

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060519/af02800c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original*
> high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a
> clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair
> use" claim was in error.

This argument came up in the image talk page and I don't see how it
works. My understanding of copyright law on this matter:

The photographer created the photo and held copyright to it, and then
someone else came along and created a derivative work out of it. As a
derivative work, the copyright is jointly owned - both the photographer
and the ORLY-writer hold copyright over the resulting image and so the
permission of both is needed for it to be copied (unless such an
addition is too trivial to warrant a copyright in the first place, in
which case the photographer's the sole copyright holder to Orly.jpg. I
don't think this changes anything as far we're concerned, though).

The photographer didn't grant permission for this derivative work to be
published anywhere, so people who print posters or whatever of O RLY are
violating his copyright on it. But there's no indelible taint of
illegality on the image itself; it's only the act of copying it without
permission of both copyright holders that's illegal. It would be
perfectly legal for me to create my own personal O RLY owl for my own
personal use by downloading the original from an authorized distributor
and stamping the words on it myself, I just can't send copies of the
result to anyone else.

Fair use grants exemptions whereby a copyrighted work can be distributed
_without_ permission under certain circumstances, though. And it looks
to me like this Wikipedia article fits those circumstances. The fact
that the image also is being distributed illegally on web fora unrelated
to Wikipedia doesn't seem relevant.

As I've said before I'm not too interested one way or the other in this
specific image or article, but I am interested in making sure that
Wikipedia's fair use policy is clear and accurate. If the Wikimedia
Foundation lawyer has specific reasoning for why this image isn't really
fair use after all I want to hear it so I can correct my own
misunderstanding and hopefully clarify the policy page so others won't
fall for it either. Alternately, if it _is_ valid fair use and the
lawyer's response was simply "we're in the right but it'll cost more
than it's worth to defend ourselves" then I'm still fine with removing
the image - I just want to know what the actual reason is. I don't think
it's a good idea for Wikipedia to become a game of [[Mao (game)|Mao]]
where the only way to figure out what the rules are is to keep track of
what actions result in getting penalty cards.

Might it perhaps be possible to create a public archive somewhere of
statements from the Foundation about what's allowed and what isn't, and
why? I can't imagine there'd be many situations where secrecy is
necessary, at least not in the long term.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
>
> Umm how?

I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of
an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl
photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect
to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.

Which seems logical - otherwise there would be a massive loophole. We could
write O RLY on a non-free map of France, and use it in the France article to
discuss O RLY or whatever...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Eric McDonald wrote:
<snip>
> I FREELY admit that all of my edits are on templates for deletion. I
> said as much in my User talk page. I registered SPECIFICALLY because
> I don't like your crusade. That certainly does NOT mean that I am a
> sock puppet. It means I was motivated enough by what you are doing to
> register tonight.
>

You have registered for the purpose of making your opinion about the
deletion of some templates heard. Do you intend to actually contribute
to Wikipedia, or just use it as a webhost? Please keep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT in mind.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060519/d17ddabd/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Steve Summit wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>> ...I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went
>> into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely
>> unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer
>> doesn't like it" assertions.
>
> This might be a decent illustration of the unfortunate general
> principle that "hard work" on something does not necessarily
> mean that the something was the right thing to do.

It's not that it was "hard", just that it was very convincing - I still
don't see what was wrong with it. So I'd like to find out where it was
in error, assuming it actually was.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am one of the more liberal australians around, and as such I take a
> > nonchalant view on most political issues... (liberal has a bit of a
> > different meaning down under). But I do understand what you mean about
>
>
> Well, I'm from Melbourne, and I think you must be using a third meaning of
> liberal! Apparently it's not Liberal as in Johnny, not liberal as in US
> "left-wing"...maybe "liberal" as in "liberally butter the cake tin"? :)
>
> Steve

Something like that... I assumed you would put liberal together with
radical, but obviously thats not something you would do. Maybe its a
Brisbane thing :) Maybe I should have said mid-right, if you get what
I mean. I dont mind the "Liberal" party, but im more liberal than they
are conservative. Ughh.. Its so hard to describe things that are named
against their definition. Maybe I was wrong to class myself as liberal
at all. And really I am just someone who tries to accept the best in
everything without getting carried away about convictions on too many
things. I hope someone understands that, because I don't exactly
understand it fully myself.

Peter


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

body:
I agree with Fred's cautious approach.  Our written policy puts it
nicely, I think: you shouldn't use blocking *to gain an advantage in a
content dispute*.  But if for instance someone is doing something
disruptive and disputes your warning that it's disruptive, while this
might be a good case for a second opinion it doesn't mean that you
shouldn't go and carry out your warning.  We certainly don't want to
move to a blanket ban on blocking in cases of dispute, and we don't
want to give the miscreant a tool to whack the administrator over the
head (as had unfortunately occurred in a recent case involving someone
blocked for multiple personal attacks).


body:
On 5/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> [[WP:NPA]], that's heading for a month now.  It's great being a rouge
> admin :-D
>
> Guy (JzG)

At risk of involving myself in this matter, I have to ask what the
difference between rouge and rogue is. Is this simply the difference
between an Australian and another spelling. Because I think its
perfectly sensible to have a sentence that says "its great being a
rogue admin", but I dont see how rouge, which is in my view a colour
of makeup, relates to this sentence.

Peter


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign
> such a contract.  Have Danny send me the details.

The down payment would be needed for the costs in making sure the
contract is done right it would be a right mess if you backed out at the
last minute.  I can't really believe in your offer if you aren't
prepared to send a few thousand for the initial costs, not considering
how much this /could/ cost.

But anyway, that's between you and the foundation.  I suggest you write
to them and see if they have enough faith in your offer to take you up
on it.

-- sannse


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?
>
>
> No, I'm not prepared to mentor everyone I unblock.
>
Then kindly stay out of it. Cleaning up after this very poor editor is
going to involve a lot of work, and if you're not prepared to do that
work yourself, don't expect anyone else to.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy

body:
Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases.  I think that
it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.

1.  It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the
time.  I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants
to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me
that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.

If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary
and distracting to readers.  I propose that we eliminate the requirement
that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the
general public.  They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so
that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not
excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little
benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.

2.  A great many minor bios of slightly well known but controversial
individuals are subject to POV pushing trolling, including vandalism,
and it seems likely that in such cases, not enough people have these on
their personal watchlists to police them as well as we would like.
Semi-protection would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we
see so often.

------------

The basic concept here is that semi-protection has proven to be a
valuable tool, with very broad community support, which gives good
editors more time to deal with serious issues because there is less
random vandalism.  Because the threshold to editing is still quite low
for anyone who seriously wants to join the dialogue in an adult, NPOV,
responsible manner, I do not find any reason to hold back on some
extended use of it.

Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we
automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I agree, although I ask if there is actually a major argument for *deleting*
> a "fair use" image used incorrectly, as opposed to simply removing it from
> the webpage. I don't know what the legal status of hoarding "potential fair
> use" images is, of course.

The legal status is that it is completely unjustified.  Fair use is
inextricably tied up with *use* and simply having an image on the
website, not used in an article, does not in any way justify fair use
claims.

> Not that with the numbers of copyvios we have the luxury of really agonising
> over each deletion...

I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios.  We are
supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances
and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
 information

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
>
> This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an
> eternal law. Early in Wikipedia's development, we took what we could
> get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.

Absolutely.

We have how many new articles a day?  If people had the good sense to
nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense
we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which
would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.

We are a massively powerful text generation engine.  People have to drop
the idea that every little tidbit is precious.  Crap is crap.  Yank it.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> An example of a fair use photo which I consider worth defending in
> court is the one at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi

Yes, absolutely right.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
geni wrote:
> All fair use images are copyvios.

Geni, I have to ask you to please stop opining on matters outside your
professional expertise.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> It's your idea, why don't you set it up?

No.  The ball is firmly in your court.  Put up or shut up.

--sannse


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>> As it is, it is easy for a company with
>> a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of
>> endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of
>> instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
>
> Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.

Since you seem completely unaware of the occasions where the Wikimedia
Foundation has received complaints from copyright owners and told them,
"Fair use, so buzz off" (couched in more polite terms, of course),
perhaps you're not in a position to make informed comments on what
Wikimedia is doing.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Ben Yates

body:
> If you're a good designer, creating a
> good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant
> admin
> later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

A check against this would be to encourage individuals to customize
their own views -- make the links to monobook.css (or whatever the new
name is) more prominant, etc.  If the new layout was on by default for
un-logged-in users but logged-in users retained their current defaults
(monobook, usually -- but with a notice for about a week that there
was a new design available), I think it could work out well.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett

> It's an interesting question raised here - we refuse to
> accept votes from anonymous people, so it shouldn't be
> surprising that people register specifically to vote.
> However, sock puppets obviously have the same behaviour.
>
> Perhaps the right approach in a suspected sock puppet case is
> to temporarily disregard their vote, and leave a message like
> "You're acting like a sock puppet. Can you demonstrate
> otherwise?" on their talk page.

A genuine newbie would respond, "WTF?"

Pete, wondering if there is a jargon dictionary somewhere


subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
>
> On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
> >>
> >> On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a
> >>> casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
> >>
> >> That's just our development pattern. In the end we will
> have stable
> >> versions that are verified accurate.
> >
> > And therefore obsolete. Law, both legislation and common
> law, changes
> > rapidly nowadays.
>
> There's no reason stable versions couldn't be vetted weekly or
> biweekly. Law still does not change as quickly as technology.
>
> > You could have an encyclopaedia of legal basics, but having an
> > uptodate
> > comprehensive legal reference using volunteer labour is probably a
> > very big ask.
>
> Having an up-to-date comprehensive encyclopedia using
> volunteer labor is a very big task :)

No argument there, and Wikipedia is a stunning achievement by anybody's
standards. However I was thinking that the sort of people who are capable of
ensuring that legal articles are accurate, uptodate and dependent are
usually busy and highly paid. Asking senior lawyers to work on a legalopedia
in their time off is a step up from asking Star Trek fans to compile lists
of trivia.

Compiling useful legal articles and then keeping them up to date isn't
something your average editor can do. How do we check credentials, for
example?

Pete, barrister-at-home


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week.  He can get community
> > > approval for a ban in that time.
>
> Ryan, please don't undo other admins' blocks.

You know if we had had this attitude about a year back I would
probably have had the you have new messages thing perminatly stuck at
the top of my screen.

--
geni


body:
On May 19, 2006, at 8:13 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:

> I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the
> Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries
> to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how
> everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord
> knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second
> level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for
> temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more
> permanent ones?

I, among others, have tried that on [[George W. Bush]], but it wasn't
successful then. Things can change, however.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 182

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Molu

>     On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:59:11 +0100 Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> >What's the reliable source for any particular detail from any
> >particular article being considered by reputable authorities as
> >constituting a spoiler?
>
> See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's
> experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the
> consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing
> when done with malicious intent is called vandalism.

Consensus can be an ass. If the section is headed "Plot summary", then if it
*didn't* contain details about the plot, it should be called something else.
Why do we need a spoiler warning in such a case? It's like picking up a
packet of peanuts and seeing a warning notice: "Caution, may contain nuts."

I'm not against spoiler notices where appropriate, but surely common sense
should come into where they are needed and where they are not!

Pete, wondering if King Kong gets the girl


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios.  We are
> supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited
> circumstances
> and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.

This seems overly aggressive to me. It's better to re-educate than to
ban whenever possible.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>>> The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so
>>> the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it
>>> there
>>> unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.
>>
>> Well, of course an artist's rendition should resemble what Han Solo
>> actually looks like in the movies instead of stupid shit like that.
>> But there's  no reason to stick with screen captures of the films
>> themselves.
>
> How about a Free photo of Harrison Ford and some image manipulation?

If we can find a free photo of a young Harrison Ford, sure.If you can
find a free photo of an old Harrison Ford, and photoshop it until he
looks young, and then photoshop it until he's in costume, sure.

But artist's renditions would be easier :)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 19, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >>> Why do people keep saying this?  Fair use is a defense.  It's
> >>> also a right.
> >>
> >> They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use
> >> (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is
> >> repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on
> >> television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I
> >> took.
> >> It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a
> >> mile!)
> >>
> > Interesting.  I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated
> > over and over it shouldn't be hard to find.  The first Google hit I
> > found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your
> > Rights:  The Public's Right of Fair Use.  But I guess the EFF has no
> > clue what they're talking about.
>
> Clearly, the EFF is an impartial source.
>
So the EFF is wrong?  Or whether or not fair use is a right is an opinion?

> >> As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right
> >> is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can
> >> only be used if you yourself are sued.
> >
> > You have the right to bear arms.  Who can you sue for violation that
> > right?
>
> If some police department confiscated all your firearms, and you
> weren't insane or a convicted felon, you could most likely sue that
> police department for violating your right to keep and bear arms (as
> well as violating your property rights).
>
I've never heard of someone suing f(and winning) or violating your
right to keep and bear arms.  That'd be like me suing for my right to
fair use when the police confiscate my computers.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but Google feels safe in this because there is a specific case
> which says that tiny tiny thumbnails for the purposes of search
> engines is definitely fair use. (Kelly v. Arriba Soft) Which can give
> some guideline about other potential fair use claims, but it not
> necessarily analogous to our usage of it (it is just as easy to find
> claims to difference in this case as it is to claims of similarity).

I know our use isn't equiverlent. I was just pointing out critical
comentry is not the only posible way to make a fair use claim.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Listen, we don't have to bite each other's heads off over this. I shortened
> his block to 1 week so that people could talk about this and figure out
> whether there is actually consensus for a community ban.
>
Ryan, we could have talked about it just the same without you undoing
Jay's block.

I did seriously mean it about the mentoring thing. If you think this
editor should be allowed to edit, with all the trouble that will
entail, you should be willing to volunteer to monitor his edits and
help to correct them.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Interesting.  I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated
> > over and over it shouldn't be hard to find.  The first Google hit I
> > found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your
> > Rights:  The Public's Right of Fair Use.  But I guess the EFF has no
> > clue what they're talking about.
>
> If you want to play "find the source", we can do that, but I don't see
> the value in it.
>
Nor do I.  You find a source, I'll find two.  We could keep it up for
a long time, but suffice it to say it seems like there's not a
consensus, among lawyers or among the general public, on whether or
not fair use is a right.

> "Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim"
> http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html

Searching google for "fair use is a right" I get 200 hits.  Searching
for "fair use is not a right" I get 99.  Do we need to start going
through and evaluating the credibility of the sources?  Maybe see
which ones are more impartial?

> "Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against
> infringement." http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html
>
I totally agree that fair use is a defense against infringement.

> Anyway, I was just trying to explain the origin of the terminology and
> what was meant by it. Yes, some groups consider it a "right", but
> since you cannot sue somebody for infringing upon your "fair use
> rights", it is a pretty empty designation, IMO.
>
Again, I don't understand what it would even mean to sue somebody for
infringing upon your "fair use rights".  It doesn't make any sense to
me any more than suing for infringing upon your "right to bear arms"
or your "right to free speech" or your "right to remain silent".
Looking at [[fundamental right]] I'd add "right to marry", "right to
procreate", "right to freedom of thought", "right to religious
belief", "right to vote", etc.

> > Anyway, actual written publications are a better search.  But
> > books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted
> > material..."  "Under the right of fair use..."  "But the precious fair
> > use right is under attack today..."
>
> Yes, and a search for "fair use is a defense" will come up with a
> number of law textbooks too, i.e.:
>
Again, I don't disagree that fair use is a defense.  I'm just saying
it's also a right.

> "It's important to understand that fair use is a defense rather than
> an affirmative
> right."
> "...fair use is a defense against charges of infringement, not an
> affirmative right possessed by members of the public."
>
Chalk it up to terminology then.  These sentences both use the term
"affirmative right".  Going back to "right to vote", and looking at
the [[Voting Rights Act]] article, I see "U.S. citizens commonly hear
of a "right to vote," yet there is no such federal right. However, the
Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent
discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United
States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right"
in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted
privilege."  So clearly something can be a "fundamental right" but not
be an "affirmative right".

> > You have the right to bear arms.  Who can you sue for violation that
> > right?  Perhaps we're talking about different definitions of the word
> > "right".  I tried looking for a legal dictionary with your definition
> > in it though, and I couldn't find it.
>
> Apparently you can sue, depending on the legal framework which you
> think is violating the second amendment. There are a few cases
> mentioned in our article on a second amendment rights group, [[Second
> Amendment Foundation]].
>
I'm sure if the mayor of New Orleans came and confiscated copies of
Wikipedia you could sue for that too.  I'm not sure either of those
qualify, though.

> Anyway -- it's not "my" definition.

By "your definition" I simply meant the definition you were using at the time.

> Legal scholars apparently hash
> over whether or not fair use should be an affirmative right, but to my
> knowledge nobody argues that it IS an affirmative right under current
> copyright law.
>
You've once against added the term "affirmative".  I agree that fair
use is not currently recognized under US statutory law as an
*affirmative right*.  Although even that isn't the same as saying it
*isn't* an "affirmative right".  The latter is really a philosophical
question.

> > What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights?
> >  Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in
> > the first place?
>
> Among the lawyers and law students I chatted with about the idea, the
> basic idea was that if any big company threatened to sue you for what
> was obviously fair use, you could sue them instead. I don't know how
> the details would work -- I'm not a lawyer or a law student -- but the
> goal was to prevent the threat of lawsuit itself to prevent fair use
> from functioning effectively.

You mean like Online Policy Group successfully did in Online Policy
Group v. Diebold, Inc?

There are also cases, like JibJab vs. Ludlow, which were settled out
of court (in favor of the fair user) before a court ever ruled.

Or cases like Felten v. RIAA, where the case was mooted when the
copyright holder backed down and agreed not to sue.

> As it is, it is easy for a company with
> a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of
> endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of
> instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
>
Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.

Anthony


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 5/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sharing is good. Making the logos proprietary is one way of ensuring a
> consistent identity. And you know what's one of the best arguments
> against it? That people will start arguing that now that you've made
> one part of your site proprietary, you should do the same for others.
> That slope is very slippery.

I think this is a bit far fetched. But hey, Verschw?rungstheorie ;-)

> I would strongly argue that any redesign that does not affect the
> logos should be done under free content conditions.

Actually, although I did make the suggestion earlier (that Lukasz
reported) that the design should be "non free", I have changed my mind
(sorry Lukasz ;-) )

The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every
single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble
knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange
fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

So, the design of a specific wikipedia skin sounds like a good idea.
It can be free and available, but it should not be proposed within the
mediawiki package. Or at least definitely not as default.

This said, reading again the link Elian gave, I believe that before we
go looking for a new skin, a corporate design, a pro's design or an
admin's design (you name it) there are probably many many things to be
done on the usability side. And as I understand it, a new css , as
fantastically beautiful as it may be, does *not* solve all of those
problems. At all. It helps, but it only hides the real issues, which
are probably more technical than visual.

Cheers,

Delphine

--
~notafish


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

body:
Delphine M?nard napisa?(a):
> Actually, although I did make the suggestion earlier (that Lukasz
> reported) that the design should be "non free", I have changed my mind
> (sorry Lukasz ;-) )
>
Et tu Brute... Er... Or something along those lines. This will
definately cost you a lot of gummy bears... ;)
> So, the design of a specific wikipedia skin sounds like a good idea.
> It can be free and available, but it should not be proposed within the
> mediawiki package. Or at least definitely not as default.
>
Seems like a reasonable compromise.

Cheers,
?ukasz "TOR" Garczewski


body:
On 5/19/06, ?ukasz Garczewski <tor at oak.pl> wrote:

> Et tu Brute... Er... Or something along those lines. This will
> definately cost you a lot of gummy bears... ;)
> > So, the design of a specific wikipedia skin sounds like a good idea.
> > It can be free and available, but it should not be proposed within the
> > mediawiki package. Or at least definitely not as default.
> >
> Seems like a reasonable compromise.

Let's be fair, and since we're talking about Caesar, let's give back
to Caesar what pertains to Caesar (well, poor translation of a French
saying). The compromise was elaborated by Sophie, a French web
designer who pointed out to me the problem of having the Wikipedia
skin as default for Mediawiki (or the other way around actually), and
actually made crystal clear to me by Austin while we were talking
about this thread.

;-)

Delphine

--
~notafish


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then kindly stay out of it. Cleaning up after this very poor editor is
> going to involve a lot of work, and if you're not prepared to do that
> work yourself, don't expect anyone else to.

Listen, we don't have to bite each other's heads off over this. I shortened
his block to 1 week so that people could talk about this and figure out
whether there is actually consensus for a community ban. If an indefinite
block is uncontroversial with most admins who are not me (disappointing as
that may be), I'll re-apply it myself. So let's talk about it, not get
territorial about our fiefdoms.

Ryan


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win
>or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We
>are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend
>our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.
>
Anybody might sue anybody else about anything; paranoia thrives by
ignoring remote possibilities.  Before there is a legal suit there would
be a DMCA takedown order.  There are technical requirements about what
such an order MUST contain.  As long as Wikimedia is only an ISP it must
take down the specified material, AND notify the person who uploaded
it.  Until that point there are no legal expenses.  That's what a safe
harbour is all about.  If the uploader objects he then has an
opportunity to object to the takedown, and go to court at his own
expense if he so desires.  The Foundation is not liable as long as it
acts within the safe harbour.

There _may_ be other ways in which an offended party could begin a
lawsuit, but none of them are realistic.  Maybe you should make an
effort to understand what you are talking about before dreaming up any
more uninformed nightmare scenarios.

>Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all
>be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
>
The wonderful thing about the mailing list is that such wild
pronouncements are not subject to our Verifiability rules.

Ec


body:
On 5/19/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> Sometimes "blocking in a dispute" occurs when there's no dispute in
> progress.  Suppose that User A repeatedly inserts a copyvio image into
> an article.  Admin B, after giving appropriate warnings, deletes the
> image and blocks the user.  User A then says "but Admin B was edit
> warring over the inclusion of the copyvio image!  It's a dispute!  He's
> not allowed to block!"

Exactly right. I recently noticed that WP:SOCK was being rewritten by
accounts I didn't recognize, and some of the edits changed the policy
in subtle but important ways. I made a few tweaks to undo some of the
editing, then got suspicious that two of the accounts were banned user
Zephram Stark, so I requested a user check, and when it confirmed that
it was Zephram, I reverted the rewrite, protected the page, and
reported the situation on AN/I. But the protection was undone by an
admin who should remain nameless, on the grounds that my few edits to
the page had made me "involved" in the dispute.

Sarah


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>> On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
>> No.  The ball is firmly in your court.  Put up or shut up.
>>
>> --sannse
>
> LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the
> Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to
> find out that your offer was complete nonsense.

Why on earth do you think I made a offer on behalf of the Foundation? I
don't have the authority to do that.  I said that /I/ felt it was a good
idea, and that I'm sure Danny would be able to arrange anything
necessary... obviously that would be /if/ the Board agreed.  I don't see
any reason why they wouldn't - you'll have to ask and find out.

> I notice you haven't addressed the part of my post where I said that
> fair use *is* a right.  Probably because you now realize that there
> have been Supreme Court cases which have explicitly stated that it is.

I won't argue particular points of law, because I am not a lawyer or an
expert in law.  Perhaps a position you should consider taking yourself.
   I simply repeat what I've been told, and I chose carefully who I
decide to take clarification from

--sannse


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on
>>>whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense
>>>presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
>>>
>>>I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
>>>
>>>
>>I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak)
>>looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my
>>logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review
>>entry
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg>
>>that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and
>>said it should be deleted.
>>
>>
>Please note that I never said it shouldn't be deleted, merely that
>fair use applies regardless of whether or not the copyright holder
>objects.
>
Absolutely.  Sometimes the rights holder's grant may be poorly worded,
or even ambiguous.  At that point a fair use claim is often still
available as a fallback position.  One hurdle that we have created for
ourselves is that the material must be usable by a downstream user.  If
the rights owner has given us the right to use the material, he is often
silent about how far he extends that licence.

>Also note that lawyers tend to take the safe route on these types of
>things - especially when the benefit of taking chances with the law is
>negligible.
>
Alas yes.  Often to the point of preventing even cost free strategies.

Ec


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject:
[WikiEN-l] 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to misleading
 or false

body:
G'day Margie,

> Mark Gallagher Re: your long uninformed rant.
>
> All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but what
> the group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I
> don't have to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen
> to mine. The difference between you and me is that I would never
> advocate punitive actions to soothe my wounded feelings. You would
> and do. Also editors are

Your contributions don't lie.  I posted diffs in the message to which
you're replying; the diffs show what *you* did, what *you* said.  They
aren't a case of Swatjester's word against yours; they're a case of an
accurate computer record that proves that the accusations against you
are true.

> terrified to speak their mind, the ones that would defend me for fear
> of the axe coming down on them next. Corbin Simpson did speak up for
> me. He was lucky they didn't block him.  Please see the rfa oppose
> section on

Nonsense.  Nobody is blocked for holding opinions; it is only when those
opinions lead to inappropriate behaviour that they become a problem.
You weren't blocked for your political views; you were blocked for
deliberately editing in an inappropriate manner to push those views.
Likewise, Corbin would not be blocked merely for saying "I support
Margie", but if he were to behave as you did (an unlikely prospect) he
would most assuredly be blocked, and quickly.

<snip/>

> Bishonen told me my remarks to an editor John Kinney were obscene,
> the (beginning or our personal and mutual dislike.) Here is Geogre
> calling children turds (to Bishonen)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Archive_14#Haymarket.2C_etc.
>
> +:Oh, and for comparison, see the history tab on Attalus I. It has
> been vandalized even more than yours was. I think, when it's an
> interesting story, the turds vandalize it less. The 11 year olds
> ''clearly'' don't like Attalus I. ("You must be this tall to ride the
> Wikipedia.") [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it *is* appropriate to refer to children (even vandals) as
"turds".  Next time I see Geogre I shall bring the subject up with him.
  I don't think it excuses your behaviour, either, so don't try to
change the subject.

> I could go on and on here , but rather than waste my time.. How about
> this atfq if you would just answer the fucking question(s).

Language, m'dear, language.

>> Erik Moeller said: RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all
>> work.
>
> I'm stillt wondering. I am an editor, who has been blocked
> indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom,
> mediation, or any dispute resolution at all. Never. Just wondering
> why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was removed.
> Will you please just answer these  questions. Your answer to unblock
> request move and the entire process didn't cut it I'm afraid. Policy
> is being broken. I Never had Any Mediation or Any dispute Resolution.
> Every single thing the admins did was done in direct violation of
> Wikipedia Policy

The community is empowered to block people who have behaved so badly
that it is not considered worth our while to attempt mediation, RfCs,
ArbCom, etc.  This is not a "direct violation of Wikipedia Policy"
(please don't try to teach others to suck eggs), but is in fact entirely
in line with our blocking policy.  I'll even quote it for you, because I
want you to understand this point so thoroughly that you don't persist
in asking such a silly question:

   There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's
   patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked.
   Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is
   community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI
   as part of the review process. With such support, the user is
   considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned
   users (under "Community").

Your block was entirely appropriate, and well within the realms of
policy, community support, and common sense.  If you ever want to be
allowed to contribute once more to Wikipedia, you will have to provide
evidence that you are willing to actually *contribute*, and that your
presence will be a net benefit.  This is not going to happen if you
continue to insist your banning was incorrect.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ryan, we could have talked about it just the same without you undoing
> Jay's block.

Well, if you don't want to talk about it, then I guess we won't, and he gets
unblocked.

As it happens, I'm in email correspondence with him now following the
message I left him on his talk page.

Ryan


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Patrick, Brad wrote:
> I'm the lawyer for the Foundation.  I represent Wikimedia Foundation,
> Inc.  I answer to the Board.
>
> You are *not* authorized to speak for the Foundation.
>

Lawyer or ex-lawyer? I heard a rumour that your term had ended.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios.  We are
> supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances
> and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.

Can we also disable image uploading for new users?  Please?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unfree content is our mission? (was:Getting rid of
	bad fair use)

body:
On 5/19/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>  Maru,
>
>  So de: is off-mission? Someone should probably let the foundation know that
> de: is doing such a poor job.
>
>  Jkelly

I don't know enough about de to answer that. What I have heard is that
they restrict the scope of possible articles beyond what I consider
appropriate, and thus by my standards inevitably limit themselves from
containing useful articles. This is, of course, pure hearsay as I
cannot read German, and so have never visited.

~maru


from_name: G L

body:
2006/5/19, arnomane at gmx.de <arnomane at gmx.de>:
>
> Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:
> > If you're a good designer, creating a
> > good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
> > later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?
>
> Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some
> people
> consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of
> the
> given Monobook design.
>

This does not sound really relevant to me. Ability for users to customize
the design can be included into the brief. What is at stake is wether the
default layout could be reused and altered, especially on other sites.

GL


body:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases. I think that
> it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
>
> 1. It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
> Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the
> time. I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants
> to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me
> that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.
>
> If that is true, then the template at the time is misleading and scary
> and distracting to readers. I propose that we eliminate the requirement
> that semi-protected articles have to announce themselves as such to the
> general public. They can be categorized as necessary, of course, so
> that editors who take an interest in making sure things are not
> excessively semi-protected can do so, but there seems to me to be little
> benefit in announcing it to the entire world in such a confusing fashion.
........

I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the
Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries
to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how
everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord
knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second
level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for
temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more
permanent ones?

~maru


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go,
> since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less
> important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be
> appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we
> only have fair use images to use.

WP:NOR supports the "only accept canon depictions".

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a Free photo of Harrison Ford and some image manipulation?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax

Heh. I'd like to see the caption for that: "This is an image of an
20-years older Harrison Ford digitally manipulated to resemble the
image of the digitally manipulated Harrison Ford as the interstellar
soundrel Han Solo from the original film print of ''A New Hope''."

~maru


from_name: Johan Bos

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
No local press contact ever speaks on behalf of the Foundation. I think it
should be OK if Walter talks with that Thai organisation.

Johan Bos (Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick, Brad" <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

> You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
> should be clear.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
> Kalken
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>
> This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
> doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them
> tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
> Foundation.
>
> As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
> "responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
> to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
> Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the
> foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would
> be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>
> I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
> critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
> trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can
> take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and then
> never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I do not
> understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I have
> always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good job
> with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up late
> for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how you are
> treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>
> Waerth/Walter
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
> this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or
> written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer
> for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
> under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any
> person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any
> Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose
> of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the
> additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is
> possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as
> the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
> private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A.,
> and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely
> for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
> immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any
> attachments from your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


from_name: Platonides

body:
"Claudi Meneghin" <clamengh at yahoo.fr> escribi? en el
mensaje news:20060519154657.23832.qmail at web26602.mail.ukl.yahoo.com...
Hello,
  I would like to add a hide/show button to this template at Lombard
Wikipedia:
  http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Directori_comprimit2

  It has been copied and pasted from

  http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Directori_comprimit2.
  Here 'mostra'='show' and 'amaga'='hide'.
  I have tried by copying 'monobook.js' from ca.wikipedia.org and even from
en.wikipedia.org, but seemingly it doesn't work. Do you have any suggestion
please?
  Many thanks.
  Sincerely yours,

  Claudi

You can see the code on
http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&gen=js
The code you want is: // adds show/hide-button to navigation bars
 function createNavigationBarToggleButton()
 {
    var indexNavigationBar = 0;
    // iterate over all <div>-elements
    for(
            var i=0;
            NavFrame = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[i];
            i++
        ) {
        // if found a navigation bar
        if (NavFrame.className == "NavFrame") {

            indexNavigationBar++;
            var NavToggle = document.createElement("a");
            NavToggle.className = 'NavToggle';
            NavToggle.setAttribute('id', 'NavToggle' + indexNavigationBar);
            NavToggle.setAttribute('href', 'javascript:toggleNavigationBar('
+ indexNavigationBar + ');');

            var NavToggleText = document.createTextNode(NavigationBarHide);
            NavToggle.appendChild(NavToggleText);

            // add NavToggle-Button as first div-element
            // in <div class="NavFrame">
            NavFrame.insertBefore(
                NavToggle,
                NavFrame.firstChild
            );
            NavFrame.setAttribute('id', 'NavFrame' + indexNavigationBar);
        }
    }
    // if more Navigation Bars found than Default: hide all
    if (NavigationBarShowDefault < indexNavigationBar) {
        for(
                var i=1;
                i<=indexNavigationBar;
                i++
        ) {
            toggleNavigationBar(i);
        }
    }

 }

 if (window.addEventListener)
window.addEventListener("load",createNavigationBarToggleButton,false);
 else if (window.attachEvent)
window.attachEvent("onload",createNavigationBarToggleButton);

var NavigationBarHide = 'Amaga';
var NavigationBarShow = 'Mostra';

var NavigationBarShowDefault = 1;

function toggleNavigationBar(indexNavigationBar)
{
    var NavToggle = document.getElementById("NavToggle" +
indexNavigationBar);
    var NavFrame = document.getElementById("NavFrame" + indexNavigationBar);

    if (!NavFrame || !NavToggle) {
        return false;
    }

    // if shown now
    if (NavToggle.firstChild.data == NavigationBarHide) {
        for (
                var NavChild = NavFrame.firstChild;
                NavChild != null;
                NavChild = NavChild.nextSibling
            ) {
            if (NavChild.className == 'NavPic') {
                NavChild.style.display = 'none';
            }
            if (NavChild.className == 'NavContent') {
                NavChild.style.display = 'none';
            }
            if (NavChild.className == 'NavToggle') {
                NavChild.firstChild.data = NavigationBarShow;
            }
        }

    // if hidden now
    } else if (NavToggle.firstChild.data == NavigationBarShow) {
        for (
                var NavChild = NavFrame.firstChild;
                NavChild != null;
                NavChild = NavChild.nextSibling
            ) {
            if (NavChild.className == 'NavPic') {
                NavChild.style.display = 'block';
            }
            if (NavChild.className == 'NavContent') {
                NavChild.style.display = 'block';
            }
            if (NavChild.className == 'NavToggle') {
                NavChild.firstChild.data = NavigationBarHide;
            }
        }
    }
}


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> We've had this discussion in the artistic depiction thread. Making an
> artistic depiction based on multiple images or real life is no
> different from writing a text description based on multiple sources.
> By your rationale, all Wikipedia could do would be to stitch together
> quotes from outside sources and claim fair use.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so
the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it there
unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.

--
geni


from_name: Austin Hair

body:
On 5/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> To get an idea of what is possible -- Novell makes extensive use of
> MediaWiki, and has made the heaviest customizations I've seen so far
> in the wild:

The most extensive modification I've seen (or noticed) is Scifipedia
<http://scifipedia.scifi.com/>.  It's possible to do a lot more, of
course.

Austin


body:
G'day Peter,

> On 5/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>[[WP:NPA]], that's heading for a month now.  It's great being a rouge
>>admin :-D
>
> At risk of involving myself in this matter, I have to ask what the
> difference between rouge and rogue is. Is this simply the difference
> between an Australian and another spelling. Because I think its
> perfectly sensible to have a sentence that says "its great being a
> rogue admin", but I dont see how rouge, which is in my view a colour
> of makeup, relates to this sentence.

Heh!  It's a long-standing Wikipedia in-joke.

Basically:
* A rouge admin is a good admin who is hated by trolls and
   ne'er-do-wells.  Being "rouge" is a Good Thing, although there are
   policy wonks who tell us it's better to treat trolls and
   ne'er-do-wells according to process, no matter what, and that
   rougeness is therefore not to be encouraged.

* A rogue admin is a bad admin who uses their admin powers to
   deliberately harm the project.

We have few rogues, fortunately, (only one that I know of in our entire
history, although there may be a second we haven't identified) but very
many rouges.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006


from_name: wikien-l at wikipedia.org

body:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:

>I wonder why the policy says, that blocks to gain an advantage in a
>content dispute is strictly prohibited, when administrators are
>accepted to decide that a position, they disagree with, is questionable.
>
>
>

How about this then:  I don't believe we've ever edited the same article
and I agreed with the block.

There.  Uninvolved admin.  Move on, nothing to see here.

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-20

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 305 of 314 tests (97.13%) FAILED!


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Nor do I.  You find a source, I'll find two.  We could keep it up for
> a long time, but suffice it to say it seems like there's not a
> consensus, among lawyers or among the general public, on whether or
> not fair use is a right.

Regardless, the meaning of the statement, whether or not you agree
with the diction, still stands.

> Searching google for "fair use is a right" I get 200 hits.  Searching
> for "fair use is not a right" I get 99.  Do we need to start going
> through and evaluating the credibility of the sources?  Maybe see
> which ones are more impartial?

Hey, you're the one who cited the EFF. And yeah, if you search for
something which is not in "the mantra", you won't find much of it.
"Fair use is a banana" gets 0 hits, though "fair use is a mess" gets
at least one.

Here's one from a publisher who wrote a popular book on copyright law
as it applies to publishing: "Remember that fair use is a "defense" to
copyright infringement, not a right."
(http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html)

> > Apparently you can sue, depending on the legal framework which you
> > think is violating the second amendment. There are a few cases
> > mentioned in our article on a second amendment rights group, [[Second
> > Amendment Foundation]].
> >
> I'm sure if the mayor of New Orleans came and confiscated copies of
> Wikipedia you could sue for that too.  I'm not sure either of those
> qualify, though.

Riiight... do you have a point in this argument anymore, or are you
just doing it for sport?

Listen, I think it's a great idea to claim that we should all stand up
and assert our fair use. Sounds great. But I'm not sure that's what
WMF should do with its donations, and I'm not sure the O RLY? owl is
the place to shed legal blood. There are copyright watchdogs out
there, let them do that sort of work. We're trying to build a free
encyclopedia here, last I checked, not serve as an anti-copyright
activist network.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>
>>While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful
>>that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not
>>become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where,
>>and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or
>>DRV are good places to start in most cases.
>>
>>
>This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really
>care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into
>this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much
>careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be
>trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and
>"the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to
>know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?
>
I have nothing vested in that image either; I've never even seen it.  I
very much agree with your analysis.  While we obviously should not be
allowing every claim of fair use just because the uploader finds it
convenient.  When an uploader goes to the extent of making a fair use
analysis, and shows some willingness to accept the consequences of his
actions that should be worth something.  At least he should have a
chance to receive a formal takedown order.  There are very very few
circumstances where these extreme unilateral actions are justifiable.
Letting them continue without accountability only builds mistrust.

Ec


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Hi, this is just a quick response to slimvirgins post regarding saladin.

Just a note It was slim virgin who repeatedly reverted my posts in the
zionist page, and so his views are clearly subjective.

storng POV - I think everyone on the zionist thread has a strong POV,
without exception.

poor research and writing skills - quoting the talmud on the three oaths,
and citing the most acedemic and researched account of the history of zionsm
by the itv middle east journalist Alan Hart. Is not evidence of poor
research. Clearly this is an extremely subjective point of view

original research - this is a false accusation. There was NO original
research, everything was references and cited. If I am wrong you need to
give the evidence

Dodgy websites - according to whom

Use of anon IP to violate 3RR - same ipp address and browser does not
necessarily mean it is the same user. Computers are shared and , one does
not turn turn the internet of before someone else uses it.

copyright violations - again this is a false charge. I have asked jaygy to
produce evidence of this copy right violations , which he should have to
hand as this was one of the reasons for banning. So far none have been
forthcoming

no useful edits - this is higly subjective

so as a summary there is a long list of unsubstantiated claims, most of
which are highly subjective.
Could the reason for a request of a permanent ban be that slimvirgin is
opposed to the factual evidence i provided on the zionist page, the same
factual evidene that was repeatedly removed.

Wikipedia should be an online encyclopedia that provides a broad range of
factual information on subjects, not a conformance to a certain groups POV.

>From: slimvirgin at gmail.com
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:04:07 -0500
>
>On 5/19/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> > > > I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed
>saladin
> > > > made.
> > >
> > >  Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't
>simple
> > > vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community
>banned.
> >
> > Repeated, persistent copyright violations *is* grounds for an indefinite
>block.
> >
>This is a single-issue editor who has arrived with a very strong POV
>and is determined to push it, has very poor research and writing
>skills, deletes legitimate material, inserts original research,
>misuses primary sources, uses dodgy websites as secondary sources,
>uses an anon IP to violate 3RR, violates copyright, and makes (so far
>as I can tell) no useful edits. So why is his indefinite block being
>reversed. Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?
>
>Sarah
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>Yes, but fair use is a defense, not a right.
>
It is both a defence and a right.  How are they mutually exclusive.

>And our policy can only
>hope to make sure we would have a good defense. But in reality, we
>don't really want to fight at all -- we've got better things to spend
>our donations on, and the lack of one image will not sink an
>encyclopedia (whereas a lawsuit could).
>
>So yes -- you are right on the law, assuming of course that we ended
>up in court AND won AND the judge agreed with our fair use assertions.
>But our fair use policy is really trying to be a few rungs above that
>on the causality chain.
>
Maybe some individuals don't mind getting into the fight on their own,
or they are far from believing that there ever will be such a fight.
It's hard to believe that any judge will ever have the opportunity to
decide on cases that are based solely on imagination.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.

That's illogical.  When something is determined to be fair use it is by
definition no longer a copyright violation.  Read the law.

Ec


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Patrick, Brad wrote:
> Don't assume anything.  If you are speaking as a person interested in
> Wikipedia, great.  I'm sure you have good things to say about Wikipedia
> in Thailand.  Good for you.  All I am saying is that you do *not* have
> the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>

I'm not sure if you're new here or what, but this isn't how we do things
at the Wikimedia Foundation.  We discuss politely, if sometimes
heatedly, on the mailing list, not brusquely and dictatorially.

Waerth asked if the Foundation had confidence in him to discuss with
this organization; not if he legally has the authority to enter into
commitments on behalf of the foundation, which is quite a different
matter.  In short, his question did not call for a legal opinion, and
offering one unsolicited was unhelpful, misrepresenting the matter, and
impolite.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand