from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Gerard stated for the record:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
>>ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
>>and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
>>instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
>>subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
>>effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
>
> Jumping into VFD discussions with a reference to this email? Though
> let's see how many times the obnoxious have to be hit over the head
> with this before someone decides it's "spamming" and blocks them!
>
> You see what I mean when I say that AFD/DRV consider themselves worlds
> unto themselves, and bitterly resist anything perceived as outside
> interference, i.e. the rest of the Wikipedia infrastructure.

Many of us have been saying for a long time that the *fD gangs are doing
active and hard-to-repair damage to the reputation of this encyclopedia.
 Of course, every time we do, the reply is an accusation that we are
mindless inclusionist, and no serious discussion can be held.

Well, here's a serious proposal to encourage discussion:

I propose <sigh> yet another level of bureaucracy -- a Deletion Review
Board (which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the useless
WP:VfU).  The Review Board would be empowered to penalize those who
nominate and those who vote support such egregiously careless and
/damaging/ deletions.  Deletions of unpublished garage bands can
continue just as they do today.

The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.

I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
or take it to a Meta page?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | The last thing I want to do is hurt
 sean at epoptic.org | you. But it's still on the list.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0Rj1MAt1wyd9d+URAraZAJ9Gw4gFI3T6XXu3t7G1AjuPtC3BKgCePy/w
y8W431jTSrZBH5UUr6ETo+A=
=yxLa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
On 1/20/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> Matt R wrote:
> > But user space isn't the encyclopedia. What's the problem with using
> such an
> > image in user space, if we have a decent fair use case for it (parody
> and
> > satire)?
>
> Because it's a waste of server space if we're not using it in the
> encyclopaedia.
>
> Chris

Well, the argument constantly made on AfD discussions is that server space
is never an issue.  By the way, nothing that happens in user space is "in
the encyclopedia", including userboxes - is that all a "waste of server
space" too?.

Jay.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fair use images on user pages and enforcement

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>We are already not allowed to have photos of the Louvre and other
>buildings in France. This is the price we pay for Free content; if you
>want to excercise Free Speech, use Tor or Freenet...
>
This seems like an extreme point of view.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
>>>really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
>>>place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
>>
>>
>>This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
>>beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
>>
>>Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!
>>
>>
>>- d.
>
>
>
> When someone is trying to inforce a bad idea on you it is general
> human respond in kind. Comunication lines do need to be improved.
> --
> geni

Yes, that makes sense when the idea is bad, but what about in this case?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0S0JMAt1wyd9d+URAlt7AJ99/ef+GRyZtvlKP6BhEWM42if1TwCdHRe9
pbtBRDtWGvUyvZoWcIaZZQk=
=ltTr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>>Well, here's a serious proposal to encourage discussion:
>>
>>I propose <sigh> yet another level of bureaucracy -- a Deletion Review
>>Board (which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the useless
>>WP:VfU).  The Review Board would be empowered to penalize those who
>>nominate and those who vote support such egregiously careless and
>>/damaging/ deletions.  Deletions of unpublished garage bands can
>>continue just as they do today.
>>
>>The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
>>various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
>>and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
>>offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
>>thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
>>too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
>>
>>I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
>>and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
>>or take it to a Meta page?
>>
>
> So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
> deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.
>
> --
> geni

No, no action.  An erroneous "keep" is harms no one, since copyvios,
attacks and libel, and similar damaging material are not subject to
Votes for Deletion.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0S3bMAt1wyd9d+URAubKAJ0Xc+MB4RFHWLHd2ufO1BeV7aqM0gCaAt/8
3soYr46wGYsUjxhBXvoQevk=
=a4MZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Lanphier

subject: [Wikitech-l] Installation specific tags in <head>?

body:
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 08:51 +0000, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:31:54PM +0000, Tomer Chachamu wrote:
> > It works for pages on the same subdomain (en.wikipedia.org) and maybe
> > also the same domain.
> ...
> > It's difficult to integrate sites from different domains, and perhaps
> > for good reason.
>
> This is why I'm looking for a solution that doesn't involve even trying
> to do this, but just allows me to change the <head> generated in
> mediawiki, without having to edit source (and remember to resync at each
> upgrade)

Here's the cleanest way I can think of:

1.  Apply this patch (which should eventually find its way into MW):
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3603

2.  Write a very small extension which calls $wgOut->addScript('<script
src="myveryownjsfile.js"></script>');  I can't think of which hook to
use off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's one that's appropriate.

You will still have to remember to resync until the patch finds its way
into a release you are using, but it's the most likely way I can think
of to solve your problem.

Rob


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
jayjg wrote:

>On 1/20/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
>
>>jayjg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, the argument constantly made on AfD discussions is that server
>>>
>>>
>>space
>>
>>
>>>is never an issue.  By the way, nothing that happens in user space is
>>>
>>>
>>"in
>>
>>
>>>the encyclopedia", including userboxes - is that all a "waste of server
>>>space" too?.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't think everything on user pages (or in fact, pages which aren't
>>in article-space) is a waste of server space. Talk pages are obviously
>>highly useful, as are user pages which give information about interests
>>and qualifications. For example, on my page I list subjects I am
>>interested in and some pages I have contributed to. I think that's
>>useful. I also have some probably "not useful" stuff, like the haiku.
>>But I very much doubt either of those aspects are fair use.
>>
>>Fair use images are inherently in conflict with what we are trying to do
>>- build a free content encyclopaedia.
>>
>>
>User pages are not part of the "free content encyclopedia".
>
>By the way, I'm not arguing for the use of "fair use" images on User pages.
>However, I *am* arguing against the use of bad arguments to remove them
>(and, in general, against the use of bad arguments to defend *any* action).
>"Server space" simply won't fly, as it appears to be an almost limitless
>resource in other contexts, and "it hinders distribution of a free
>encyclopedia" won't fly, as User pages are not part of the encyclopedia
>content we are trying to distribute.  The more relevant arguments seem to
>center on legal liability issues, though in reality the potential for any
>real litigation based on their use appears to be nil, if for no other reason
>than if someone actually did threaten to sue Wikipedia based on a fair use
>image maintained on a user page (which is extemely unlikely), it would
>promptly be deleted, ending any action.
>
That's fine.  The rationale needs to be established on a case by case
basis.  Even when it can be argued that the use of an image on a user
page is not strictly educational research, scholarship and criticism are
still available.  I suspect that fair use images on user pages would be
much less likely to result in legal action than ones in the article
namespace.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
On 1/20/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> jayjg wrote:
> > Well, the argument constantly made on AfD discussions is that server
> space
> > is never an issue.  By the way, nothing that happens in user space is
> "in
> > the encyclopedia", including userboxes - is that all a "waste of server
> > space" too?.
>
> I don't think everything on user pages (or in fact, pages which aren't
> in article-space) is a waste of server space. Talk pages are obviously
> highly useful, as are user pages which give information about interests
> and qualifications. For example, on my page I list subjects I am
> interested in and some pages I have contributed to. I think that's
> useful. I also have some probably "not useful" stuff, like the haiku.
> But I very much doubt either of those aspects are fair use.
>
> Fair use images are inherently in conflict with what we are trying to do
> - build a free content encyclopaedia.

User pages are not part of the "free content encyclopedia".

By the way, I'm not arguing for the use of "fair use" images on User pages.
However, I *am* arguing against the use of bad arguments to remove them
(and, in general, against the use of bad arguments to defend *any* action).
"Server space" simply won't fly, as it appears to be an almost limitless
resource in other contexts, and "it hinders distribution of a free
encyclopedia" won't fly, as User pages are not part of the encyclopedia
content we are trying to distribute.  The more relevant arguments seem to
center on legal liability issues, though in reality the potential for any
real litigation based on their use appears to be nil, if for no other reason
than if someone actually did threaten to sue Wikipedia based on a fair use
image maintained on a user page (which is extemely unlikely), it would
promptly be deleted, ending any action.

Jay.


from_name: Fastfission

subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use images (was
	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
Amen. This is the goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy -- proper fair
use when necessary, well thought out, with the issues at stake well
understood.

A number of people have occasionally taken calls for a restricted fair
use policy to imply copyright paranoia or some sort of feebleness in
standing up for fair use rights. This is of course not anyone's goal.
In my mind, the more careful, deliberate, and (hopefully) informed we
are in the implementation of fair use policies, the more confidence we
can have in our use of fair use images, and the more empowered we
actually are in the end. Poor or pointless invocations of fair use
strengthen nothing but the arguments and hysterical claims of those
many parties out there whose goals are to make copyright law as
binding and restrictive as possible.

FF

On 1/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Jenkinson wrote:
>
> >Wikipedia should rely upon the contributions of its editors, not on
> >material others have created, if possible. Of course it's impossible to
> >get a new photo of a historical event, taken by a Wikipedian, but we
> >should make sure that all fair use images which aren't of past events
> >should be replaced with new images which Wikipedians have contributed.
> >That's what Wikipedia is about to me.
>
>
> I concur.
>
> I definitely don't want fair use images to go from en: completely. My
> favourite article with heavy use of fair use images is [[Xenu]]. One
> is the cover of "Dianetics", illustrating a point in the article about
> Scientology book covers after the Xenu story was put into Scientology;
> one is the [[Sea Org]] logo, which also comes from the Xenu story; and
> one is a sample of L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting, showing the only
> known example of the word "Xenu" in his own handwriting. None of those
> three are particularly replaceable. But their use in that article is
> pretty clearly academic fair use, and I did run them past Jimbo before
> it was made a front page feature, given Scientology's famously strong
> legal defence of anything it sees as a copyright or trademark
> violation. So far we haven't heard a peep out of Scientology on the
> matter, and they're well aware of the article (and at least one staff
> member has edited it), so I would presume they accept legal action on
> the matter would be a losing proposition (though I believe they have a
> few years before we can be sure laches has kicked in).
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: a new category for the living

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>This new category would be used mainly, I suspect, as some sort of RC Filter
>so that changes to those biographies can be spotted instantly.
>Obviously, it would be handy if it were possible to display an article's
>**removal** from a given category as well as other changes :-)

Gmaxwell and I were chatting on IRC about this last night, and as part
of his dev work he's apparently got something that will indicate just
that if needed. If it's not too kludgey, it would be a damn fine thing
to have for categories in general.

Although, a de: style template box for articles about people worked
*very* well for them (particularly in the leadup to the DVD), so would
be another useful approach here and not require dev work on the
category system.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] interwikilinks - WP forgot the World WP came from

body:
Nathan Reed wrote:

>There's a list at:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
>I'm not sure if it's complete.

>From that page: "A script copies the list below into the database
fairly regularly." So that is in fact the actual list that's used.

They don't get used a lot in articles - even interwiki links in
article text should be proper external links, for ease of mirroring.
But for project and user space, they are just the thing to use.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

body:
I hadn't really thought about until you brought it up, but are there
really any grounds to says that aerial photographs can generate
copyrights at all? There is no creativity involved, especially when
surveying the entire planet. They are about as close as one can get to
a 2-D photograph -- they have no creative input at all, simply labor
and technology (which as we know in the U.S. has not been interpretted
as establishing creativity in and of itself).

The only "transformation" that I know of taking place in these images
is the removal of clouds, but this is simply a manipulation of which
photos are used in any one rendering, and is itself so mechanical and
obvious an idea and implementation that it would seem difficult to
claim it as an expression of artistic creativity.

Of course without a case showing this to be a definitive
interpretation one would not want to base anything like Wikipedia
policy around such a notion (at least, I wouldn't), but it is an
interesting question.

FF

On 1/20/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > > On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in
> > >>itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been
> > >>up there for months.  In fact, the image itself didn't even include a
> > >>claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first
> > >>editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to
> > >>make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
> > >>
> > >>Anthony
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > (*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at
> > > http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg).  The
> > > compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the
> > > copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but
> > > because Google had not yet added them).  Like the image I presented
> > > there were no 3-D elements.  I think it's clear to anyone with any
> > > knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest
> > > in such an image.  You don't get copyright on something simply because
> > > it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of
> > > the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the
> > > case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
> > >
> >
> > I know in France the architect has copyright photos of their buildings,
> > but the State of New Jersey has copyright over your photo of...?
> >
>
> It's not my photo I was talking about, but the aerial photos used in
> Google Earth, which, in this particular case, were made as a work for
> hire of the State of New Jersey.  Google obtained these aerial photos
> and then manipulated them *per my instructions* and sent them to me.
> As I'm the one who chose all the creative elements (the location, the
> angle, the zoom level), I'm the one who owns the copyright on the
> derivative work, not Google.  All they did was provide me with the
> tools to create the image.  They own the copyright no more than
> FUJIFILM owns the copyright to [[Image:Capemaypoint.JPG]] (which is
> the actual photo I took from that location).
>
> Frankly, I think this conclusion is pretty much indisputable by anyone
> with basic knowledge of copyright law.  In fact, it follows naturally
> from the absurdity of the law being any other way.  The Mozilla
> Foundation (or is it the Mozilla Corporation?) doesn't own this text
> simply because I used their software to create it.  Cakewalk doesn't
> own the songs just 'cause they're created using their music production
> software.  Corel doesn't own a painting because it was designed using
> Corel Paint.  Likewise, Google doesn't own an image simply because you
> used Google Earth to create it.
>
> Discussing this issue is, in and of itself, educational.  And using an
> image to facilitate such a discussion is fair use, which means it's
> not illegal and not an act of civil disobediance.
>
> Of course, that discussion was kept to the talk page.  The original
> purpose of my creation and distribution of the image was to show how
> well Google Earth can create a particular real life photo.  Even if
> that's not educational (and it is), it's use for the purposes of
> commentary, which in many ways is actually a stronger argument for
> fair use than merely educational purposes anyway.
>
> And frankly, Wikipedia should try to keep most, if not all, of its use
> *in the article space* to *commentary*, not simply educational
> purposes.  When you are commenting on a work, there is no real
> substitute for the actual work itself.  Pretty much any other use
> (save parody, which isn't really applicable to Wikipedia), can be
> theoretically substituted rather adequetely without resorting to fair
> use.  Even if Dolly the Sheep is dead and all the images of her are
> copyrighted, it's still possible for an artist to look at *several*
> images and create an original work which accurately depicts what the
> sheep looks like.
>
> Someone else mentioned how fair use images aren't treated like fair
> use text.  Well, that's essentially how fair use text is treated.  If
> you're commenting on the quote itself, then you use the quote itself.
> If, instead, you're using the information contained in the quote, then
> you read up on a bunch of different sources and paraphrase it, copying
> the facts but not the expression.  The only real difference is that
> there are a lot more Wikipedians who are skilled at writing but not
> nearly as much at drawing.
>
> Anyway, I've turned this into a rant about something completely
> different.  Sorry.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>geni stated for the record:
>>
>>>So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
>>>deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.
>>>
>>>--
>>>geni
>>
>>No, no action.  An erroneous "keep" is harms no one, since copyvios,
>>attacks and libel, and similar damaging material are not subject to
>>Votes for Deletion.
>
>
> Have you ever tried to bring up issues of copyright violation on AFD?
> I have. I got kinda outvoted (to be fair the subject was to do with
> schools).
>
> Hoaxes are subject to AFD. Are you going to claim that voteing to keep
> them does no damage?
>
> --
> geni

Good point.  Allow me to modify my proposal accordingly: anyone whose
vote shows a culpable lack of elementary research should be penalized.
This would include both those who deleted Jimbo's example that began
this discussion, and those who /carelessly/ vote "keep" on fraudulent
material.

Note that in both cases "I did my research but that was too subtle"
ought to be considered as a defense.  For example, both "okay, so he's
genuinely notable in Kyrgyzstan, but I don't read Kyrgyzyse and that's
the only language he's been published in" and "okay, so it's a hoax, but
numerous credentialed scientists were also taken in" would be considered
as mitigating factors by the Review Board.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0TnHMAt1wyd9d+URAseDAJ9IgyPAbgUb/xktBLnQZ18//pU8QwCdEa98
Psz2Wz6vtfaFz4O6eZCiDyU=
=alEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use images
	(was	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>Amen. This is the goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy -- proper fair
>use when necessary, well thought out, with the issues at stake well
>understood.
>
>A number of people have occasionally taken calls for a restricted fair
>use policy to imply copyright paranoia or some sort of feebleness in
>standing up for fair use rights. This is of course not anyone's goal.
>In my mind, the more careful, deliberate, and (hopefully) informed we
>are in the implementation of fair use policies, the more confidence we
>can have in our use of fair use images, and the more empowered we
>actually are in the end. Poor or pointless invocations of fair use
>strengthen nothing but the arguments and hysterical claims of those
>many parties out there whose goals are to make copyright law as
>binding and restrictive as possible.
>
Absolutely.  Unfortunately, there are extreme views at both ends of this
spectrum.  The simple fact that publishing an image would somehow be in
the public interest is not enough to defeat someone's copyrights.  On
the other hand it is also simplistic to say that because there is a
subsisting copyright the image cannot be used at all.  "Fair use" is a
tool on the path to free use that can be used to great effect in the
right circumstances.  By rejecting it completely we also make it easier
for those favoring more restrictive copyrights because they can now take
the abandoned ground unopposed.

Ec


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
I have edited the following email to me to obscure the author's
identity, changing or omitting identifying details.  My point is not
about this author but about what I perceive as a sickness in the
process.  I should note that I get at least one email of this type daily.

This email is in two parts.  The first part is the example, but if you
don't need an example to convince you that there's a problem, then
please skip to the analysis part, which is probably more important and
something we should discuss in detail.

1. THE EXAMPLE

>I am an American author.  None of my novels are vanity books.  I have
>been published outside of the USA as well as within, by  <FAMOUS
>PUBLISHER> in Italy and Methuen in Britain. One of your deleters has
>questioned my  authenticity, which I resent.
>
>I have had over a million books published over the years.  In Fantasy,
>mystery, science fiction, adventure, historical, and non fiction. I am
>a former employe of The New York Times, as well as a former
>editor-in-chief of <Fancy Magazine>, a quarterly full color magazine
>for members of <a famous organization>. I am a member of the New York
>Newspaper Guild.  I also teach creative writing, and have lectured
>widely for libraries in NY and California.
>
>I am bi coastal sharing my time in New York and California.
>
>I would like my entry corrected.

It took me all of 2 minutes to confirm that:
(a) All of the things this author says are true
(b) He's actually being modest about his accomplishments
(c) our VfD page is ludicrous

The nominator raises the possibility that the presses of his books are
vanity presses.  A quick check shows presses such as Fawcett and Playboy
Paperbacks, neither of which (obviously) are vanity presses.

2. THE ANALYSIS

I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator
should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!!  We have
gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to
be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN
raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can
help improve the article.

In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of
Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I
looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if
there's a problem here.

Then, pop a note on the talk page.  "Hey everybody, I don't know much
about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and
had trouble verifying the information.  It's probably my own lack of
searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here.  Is this
article as good as it could be?"

I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.

I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".

--Jimbo


from_name: Rémi Kaupp

subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiMedia] Search in article source code

body:
Well, according to [[m:Help:Searching]], the search option in MediaWiki
*does* search through the wikitext :)

For what you want to do, you might be more interested in SQL queries, see
http://www.wikisign.org/

Korrigan

Le Vendredi 20 Janvier 2006 11:24, Brice V a ?crit :
> Hi,
>  I suggested an evolution on french Wikipedia for the soft WikiMedia :
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Propositions_pour_le_logicie
>l#Page_sp.C3.A9ciale_de_recherche_dans_le_source_des_articles
>
> The idea is to produce a special page that enable the search in the
> source code of the wikipedia articles.
>
> For example, if i try to search [[Cat?gorie:Avion]] and
> [[Cat?gorie:?bauche]] i get all articles sorted by the number of match..
> and there is so more examples...
>
> Maybe i got no answer because of this evolution isn't very secure ? i
> don't know.
>
> Another example : we got the question on the french Guilde of guides ;)
> on how searching some URL on wikipedia articles, because of a change of
> this url by the webmaster. The Wikipedia search and google search (i
> think) don't enable this kind of search. A special page that enable
> source code search is imho an interesting idea to solve a lots of
> request (evolution proposal).
>
> What could you say about this ?
>
> Thanks
> (sorry, my english is still so poor ;)
>
> Brice (alias Boly38)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> jayjg wrote:
>
>> By the way, I'm not arguing for the use of "fair use" images on User
>> pages.
>> However, I *am* arguing against the use of bad arguments to remove them
>> (and, in general, against the use of bad arguments to defend *any*
>> action).
>> "Server space" simply won't fly, as it appears to be an almost limitless
>> resource in other contexts, and "it hinders distribution of a free
>> encyclopedia" won't fly, as User pages are not part of the encyclopedia
>> content we are trying to distribute.  The more relevant arguments
>> seem to
>> center on legal liability issues, though in reality the potential for
>> any
>> real litigation based on their use appears to be nil, if for no other
>> reason
>> than if someone actually did threaten to sue Wikipedia based on a
>> fair use
>> image maintained on a user page (which is extemely unlikely), it would
>> promptly be deleted, ending any action.
>
> The fact that we could just remove any fair use image if legal action
> was ever threatened or initiated seems to be a particularly bad
> argument for *keeping* them.

We still need to have a reasonable fair use argument.  Before we give
ourselves the benefit of the doubt there needs to be some doubt.  On a
user page we would probably be quicker to comply with a take down order
because that image was less important to us, or its purpose was already
spent.  The day may still come where we have to say no; retaining the
right to say no when circumstances warrant is a tremendous strategic
advantage even if we never exercise that right.  We just need to avoid
acting with extreme stupidity.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
On 1/20/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> jayjg wrote:
> > By the way, I'm not arguing for the use of "fair use" images on User
> pages.
> > However, I *am* arguing against the use of bad arguments to remove them
> > (and, in general, against the use of bad arguments to defend *any*
> action).
> > "Server space" simply won't fly, as it appears to be an almost limitless
> > resource in other contexts, and "it hinders distribution of a free
> > encyclopedia" won't fly, as User pages are not part of the encyclopedia
> > content we are trying to distribute.  The more relevant arguments seem
> to
> > center on legal liability issues, though in reality the potential for
> any
> > real litigation based on their use appears to be nil, if for no other
> reason
> > than if someone actually did threaten to sue Wikipedia based on a fair
> use
> > image maintained on a user page (which is extemely unlikely), it would
> > promptly be deleted, ending any action.
>
> The fact that we could just remove any fair use image if legal action
> was ever threatened or initiated seems to be a particularly bad argument
> for *keeping* them.
>
> Chris

I haven't made any arguments for keeping them.  What I am saying is that if
we are to have a discussion on the topic, let's make sure that the arguments
made are sound, and the scenarios proposed are reasonable.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Thanks to Gmaxwell for removing this from my user page. D'oh! How embarrassing.

The image itself has been deleted too. Does anyone have a copy to
hand? I want to put it on Uncyclopedia, where it would almost
certainly be just fine in a suitable context. Parody and satire allow
*fantastic* leeway for fair use ...

- d.


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
On 1/20/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
> >really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
> >place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
>
>
> This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
> beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.
>
> Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!

That seems to be the trend throughout Wikipedia; I'm sure that you can
recall a number of cases in the recent past where trying to delete
things without attempting to engage in discussion has caused trouble
;-)

The solution is to stop treating all of these issues with such
urgency.  Nobody will die because Article X or Category Y exist in a
"bad" state for a few days while we talk things over.

Our byzantine system of deletion rules doesn't help, of course;
there's an enormous benefit to getting an AFD result on something
quickly, since it can then be used to bludgeon everyone else (with the
"re-creation of deleted material" CSD clause, or simply to cry that
there was "no consensus to delete/merge/whatever" if anyone tries to
make major changes).

The other option would be to transwiki "Don't be a dick" back to en:
and to link to it prominently on every policy page ;-)

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Brice V

body:
Hi,
 I suggested an evolution on french Wikipedia for the soft WikiMedia :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Propositions_pour_le_logiciel#Page_sp.C3.A9ciale_de_recherche_dans_le_source_des_articles

The idea is to produce a special page that enable the search in the source
code of the wikipedia articles.

For example, if i try to search [[Cat?gorie:Avion]] and
[[Cat?gorie:?bauche]] i get all articles sorted by the number of match.. and
there is so more examples...

Maybe i got no answer because of this evolution isn't very secure ? i don't
know.

Another example : we got the question on the french Guilde of guides ;) on
how searching some URL on wikipedia articles, because of a change of this
url by the webmaster. The Wikipedia search and google search (i think) don't
enable this kind of search. A special page that enable source code search is
imho an interesting idea to solve a lots of request (evolution proposal).

What could you say about this ?

Thanks
(sorry, my english is still so poor ;)

Brice (alias Boly38)


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
On 1/20/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, theoretically we could. But it's IMO a bit sideways from the
> > mission (we're here to write an encyclopedia) *and* it's a fair use
> > image, and we do have a reasonably accepted policy to minimise fair
> > use images to when there really isn't a substitute. And to get the
> > fair use images off the user pages. So it really doesn't belong on my
> > userpage and Gmaxwell was entirely right to remove it (and I left a
> > note on his talk page thanking him).
>
> I feel we've got this backwards. We've set about removing fair use images from
> user pages because we usually don't have a fair use rationale for them; OK,
> that's reasonable. We avoid fair use images in articles if we can  because we
> want to be as free as possible -- again, completely reasonable. However, when
> we do actually have a solid fair use rationale for using an image on user
> pages, and it's a piece of community humour, why then should we remove it?

To simplify things.  "Fair use" is a very, very complicated part of
copyright law, with much of it coming from court decisions rather than
statute law.  It's full of grey areas, and situations where the
outcome of the case depends upon which appeals court you wind up with.

The goal of the Wikipedia fair-use policy is to avoid as many of the
grey areas as possible, and only use images where we're almost certain
to win if it winds up in court.  Critical commentary is one of the
best-understood areas of fair use, with few grey areas, which is why
Wikipedia allows it.  Parody, on the other hand, is one of the
least-understood areas, and one which results in lawsuits even for
cases where it's clearly allowed.  That's a pretty good reason for not
allowing it on Wikipedia.

--
Mark Wagner
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
grm_wnr wrote:

>David should have the image now.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Wp_ayb.gif

Thank you!

- d.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 1/20/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hadn't really thought about until you brought it up, but are there
> really any grounds to says that aerial photographs can generate
> copyrights at all? There is no creativity involved, especially when
> surveying the entire planet. They are about as close as one can get to
> a 2-D photograph -- they have no creative input at all, simply labor
> and technology (which as we know in the U.S. has not been interpretted
> as establishing creativity in and of itself).
>
Actually, I brought that up in my discussion on the talk page of this
image (which itself was deleted!).  I took the position there that
there might be some minimal level of creativity involved there which
was sufficient to grant copyright, but that even if that were so that
the fact that the copyright argument were so tenuous was a factor
bolstering the argument for fair use.

> The only "transformation" that I know of taking place in these images
> is the removal of clouds, but this is simply a manipulation of which
> photos are used in any one rendering, and is itself so mechanical and
> obvious an idea and implementation that it would seem difficult to
> claim it as an expression of artistic creativity.
>
The aerial photos are *slightly* three dimensional, less so on the
satellite photos.  And there is a choice to some extent as to what
time to take the photo for lighting purposes, what day, etc.  I'm not
sure if a court would grant copyright to such photos or not.  There is
a good argument either way.

But I think the chance that a court would give a judgement to the
State of New Jersey (against me or Wikipedia) based on the usage of a
tiny portion of such aerial photos, for the purpose of commentary, on
a Wikipedia user page, is exactly equal to *zero*.

> Of course without a case showing this to be a definitive
> interpretation one would not want to base anything like Wikipedia
> policy around such a notion (at least, I wouldn't), but it is an
> interesting question.
>
> FF

Yes, I agree that it is interesting.  Unfortunately my *discussion* of
the question was deleted.  Wikipedia is not a home page provider,
after all.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Notability meta-guidelines

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>>I actually don't see /how/ you could create 30 articles on a
>>single Pok?mon character without violating a) WP:NOR, b)
>>WP:V, c) copyright, d) the laws of physics.
>>
>>
>I don't know whether documenting every single thing the character does
>in every episode would violate copyright. But you have a point.
>
My impression was that many Pok?mon characters regularly violate the
laws of physics.

>>Yes, with WP:NOR and WP:V doing a good job at covering just
>>about everything else - most of what /could/ be called "nn,
>>d." can more succinctly be summed up as "The subject of this
>>article is non-notable because what has been written amounts
>>to original research and is not verifiable". I've been
>>arguing this for about a year now.
>>
>>
>This is a very interesting approach. In other words: If no one else has
>written about it, it musn't be notable. We don't decide for ourselves
>what is notable, any more than we decide for ourselves what truth is.
>The trouble is that there certainly *are* areas where nothing serious is
>written about it, yet is clearly interesting. [todo: find me an example
>someone :)]
>
The idea that notability should be synonymous with verifiability is not
new.  There would be fewer problems if that were the case, because it's
much easier to have objective guidelines for verifiability.

>>Well, a while ago someone said "there are /no/ notability
>>guidlines", and I almost believed it. Of course, this was
>>before I realised what a trollpit AfD was; we quite clearly
>>*do* have notability guidelines, cf. WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc.
>>
>>
>Yeah. The other thing is, now that I think about it, very very many
>bands have articles written about them in local "music scene" papers.
>But these have two problems:
>A) So many articles are written, it doesn't really mean much in terms of
>notability. Even debut performances can get writeups in advance.
>B) Actually finding these articles. If they're not on the internet, how
>would you find them?
>
I can see where your "A" question can be troubling.  We can perhaps
reject such a reference if it is only advertising, but every time that
you raise an argument that would limit the use of certain kinds of
articles in an otherwise acceptable publication you create more room for
argument.  What is more harmful: occasional articles about unremarkable
bands, or endless debates about notability?  If we have an article about
a forgettable band, forget it is exactly what the readers will do with
the article, without a hundred people busy reminding them to forget it.
The very boredom of these things will make them self-limiting.

"B" is a more interesting question.  Perhaps the other side of that
question is, "If they're already on the internet, why should we bother
adding them?"  Finding these articles is the challenge, but that's what
research is all about.  The function of libraries is to make this
information available.  Bibliographies tell you what to look for.  It
might be nice to find ways to better share our existing resources
through something like http://www.librarything.com/index.php

Ec


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rob stated for the record:

> This would be a kangaroo court waiting to happen.
>
> We should of course do more to encourage research before someone submits
> something for deletion.  However, people have different research skills,
> different access to resources for doing so, and differing opinions on where
> to set the bar for inclusion.  So this "review board" would either confine
> itself to the worst offenses (like the guy who put up [[Jean-Luc Picard]]
> for deletion), which can be covered by normal admins and WP:POINT anyway, or
> have a chilling effect on WP by essentially criminalizing differences of
> opinion.
>
> Submitting an article to AfD really should be no big deal.  Things that
> shouldn't be deleted get nominated, but that doesn't mean the sky is
> falling.  Just vote keep and get on with editing.

I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo
receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why
"we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete
easily-verified information about highly notable people.  The AfD gang
is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily
basis.

Will these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks make the sky
fall?  No, the servers won't even crash.  Is this continuing harm to the
encyclopedia a real issue that must be fixed promptly because the rate
is accelerating?  Yes.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0U6cMAt1wyd9d+URAmMLAKCGOE6AEPvwaXsBlgioT+rKf5SuOwCggsmz
6+fyJE/qM+pF9A6Enk4OnB0=
=kxwb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Notability meta-guidelines

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>Ones with atomic number >103. Whether they exist or not is a grey area.
>They can generally be "made to exist" for short periods of time. I'm not
>sure whether it's fair to include an element just because it *has* been
>made to exist (for a millionth of a second) and exclude another because
>they couldn't decide whether made it exist or not. Anyway, scientific
>theories have a place in Wikipedia, right or wrong - provided they have
>been published in reputable journals.
>
>Question: Are there any "reputable" sources that publish articles about
>Pok?mon characters?
>
When we move from "notable" to "reputable" we are just replacing one
subjective criterion with another.  Not only that, we are making a
decision for the reader that he should be making himself.  We can cite a
dubious publication; we can even have an article about it since it at
least does exist.  If the publication devotes itself entirely to Pok?mon
fancruft or KKK rants it's fair for us to say that in our article about
it.  It's then up to the reader to determine how reputable it really is.

Ec


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Gmaxwell for removing this from my user page. D'oh! How
> embarrassing.
>
> The image itself has been deleted too. Does anyone have a copy to
> hand? I want to put it on Uncyclopedia, where it would almost
> certainly be just fine in a suitable context. Parody and satire allow
> *fantastic* leeway for fair use ...

Why can't we use it as parody and satire within Wikipedia user space?

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Gmaxwell for removing this from my user page. D'oh! How embarrassing.
>>
>> The image itself has been deleted too. Does anyone have a copy to
>> hand? I want to put it on Uncyclopedia, where it would almost
>> certainly be just fine in a suitable context. Parody and satire allow
>> *fantastic* leeway for fair use ...
>>
>
> You could try a DB dump, or [[User:Goplat]]...
>
>

David should have the image now.

grm_wnr


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mailing list spam measures

body:
Due to rising levels of spam on mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, I've set the lists
to automatically discard all non-subscriber posts, as has been previously done
on wikipedia-l and wikien-l.

With a ratio of something like 50 mortgage & viagara spams to each "forgot to
subscribe before asking a question" post, it's rather time-consuming. :(

As always, if you want to read through the web archives or news gateway, you can
disable direct mail delivery when you subscribe.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060120/33979a20/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Matt R wrote:
> Why can't we use it as parody and satire within Wikipedia user space?
>
> -- Matt

Because fair use is not "free content", and Wikipedia is a free content
encyclopaedia. We should have as little of it as possible. In fact, I
think we should take a leaf out of other language Wikipedias and just
remove all fair use images. Having fair use images limits our
distribution potential in countries which aren't the US (which is most
of them).

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
--- Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Matt R wrote:
> > Why can't we use it as parody and satire within Wikipedia user space?
> >
> > -- Matt
>
> Because fair use is not "free content", and Wikipedia is a free content
> encyclopaedia. We should have as little of it as possible. In fact, I
> think we should take a leaf out of other language Wikipedias and just
> remove all fair use images. Having fair use images limits our
> distribution potential in countries which aren't the US (which is most
> of them).

But user space isn't the encyclopedia. What's the problem with using such an
image in user space, if we have a decent fair use case for it (parody and
satire)?

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/20/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually I think you've just highlighted a point where Wikipedia /does/
>>have a claim to fair use: commentary. Parody and satire are not within
>>the scope of an NPOV encyclopedia, but commentary probably *is*.
>>
>>BTW, what is the current reason fair use images are allowed on en:?
>>
>
>I suspect historical ones. They were allowed to start with (since if
>they are truely fair use they probably are better than nothing) and I
>doubt you could get a consensus together to get rid of them.
>
Deleting fair use would take away nearly all book covers, album
covers, film/tv/game/software screenshots, logos, many symbols,
modern-day stamps and currency, photos of unusual or rare products,
works by 20th-century artists, etc. Even if energetic Wikipedians
were to get busy and stalk all the celebrities to get candid snaps,
you're still going to end up with an image-less Star Wars article.

Sometimes de: is held up as a counterexample of how one doesn't
really need copyrighted images, but I'll hazard a guess that many
de: readers "sneak over" via interwiki to look at the forbidden
pictures on en:. (I notice de: sometimes "launders" images in
legally-dubious ways, such as taking a photograph of a Yoda doll,
or somebody wearing a Darth Vader Halloween costume.)

So it doesn't seem reasonable to simply say "no fair use at all".
I am in favor of it being heavily regulated, to where only
irreplaceable images are allowed and in enumerated contexts.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Matt R wrote:
> But user space isn't the encyclopedia. What's the problem with using such an
> image in user space, if we have a decent fair use case for it (parody and
> satire)?

Because it's a waste of server space if we're not using it in the
encyclopaedia.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject:
[WikiEN-l] FYI: www.wikipedia.de does not longer redirect to
	de.wikipedia.org on a temporary basis

body:
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> Guettarda wrote:
> > While I don't know a whole lot about the law, and even less about German
> > law, I find this baffling.  If it were a minor I could see there being some
> > logic, if it was a living person I could see some sort of "defamation"
> issue
> > (although that would be stretching it).  I don't understand what the issue
> > is here ("we don't want our family's good name sullied by linking it with
> > him"???), and I most certainly don't understand what the legal grounds are
> > for requiring the name to be removed.
> >
>
> Nor I. Information wants to be free...

And, weirdly enough, apparently members of the Chaos Computer Club are "deeply
involved in the case" *against* de Wikipedia. If anyone is going to argue
"information wants to be free", it's going to be hackers, right?

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
On 1/20/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> In fact, I
> think we should take a leaf out of other language Wikipedias and just
> remove all fair use images. Having fair use images limits our
> distribution potential in countries which aren't the US (which is most
> of them).

I agree.  Disallowing "with permission" images but allowing fair use
images does seem extraordinarily inconsistent.  I recognise *why* fair
use images are still allowed, but the precedent is there to be as free
as we possibly can be.  And fair use certainly can't count as "free
content".

--
Sam


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

> What does a book cover add to an article on War and Peace?

If nothing else, it makes it clear that the article is about the
book, not the movie, or the board game, or the ...

Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article?
Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled
"The famous photograph".

>
> Most uses are just decoration, and they are stopping free images
> being used to replace them. You can be quite lateral with illustration.

Where are you expecting to get free images with which to illustrate
Star Wars? They don't exist. Photos of Yoda dolls are not only
pathetic, but they are not enencumbered copyright-wise either - the
movie maker retains rights to the characters, and gives out licenses
to reproduce them in other media. WP does not have such a license.

Anyway, even if you eliminate "most uses" because they are just
decoration, you haven't got rid of all of them. And if the use of
copyrighted material compromises WP's goal of being a free
encyclopedia, that principle applies to copyrighted textual quotes
as well. So unless you're prepared to delete fair-use quotes, you
still haven't got a "free encyclopedia". In fact, the quotes are a
more serious problem for the freeness goal, because while the images
are tagged and filterable, the quotes are not easily removable.

Stan


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
>>>ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
>>>and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
>>>instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
>>>subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
>>>effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
>>>
>>>
>>Jumping into VFD discussions with a reference to this email? Though
>>let's see how many times the obnoxious have to be hit over the head
>>with this before someone decides it's "spamming" and blocks them!
>>
>>You see what I mean when I say that AFD/DRV consider themselves worlds
>>unto themselves, and bitterly resist anything perceived as outside
>>interference, i.e. the rest of the Wikipedia infrastructure.
>>
>>
>Many of us have been saying for a long time that the *fD gangs are doing
>active and hard-to-repair damage to the reputation of this encyclopedia.
> Of course, every time we do, the reply is an accusation that we are
>mindless inclusionist, and no serious discussion can be held.
>
It seems as if Jimbo has finally installed electricity in the outhouse,
and now he can see the light. :-)

>Well, here's a serious proposal to encourage discussion:
>
>I propose <sigh> yet another level of bureaucracy -- a Deletion Review
>Board (which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the useless
>WP:VfU).  The Review Board would be empowered to penalize those who
>nominate and those who vote support such egregiously careless and
>/damaging/ deletions.  Deletions of unpublished garage bands can
>continue just as they do today.
>
It's not the nominations or the votes that do the harm, but the decision
based on those votes.  We should be more interested in what happens to
the article than to those seeking to delete it.  A merely punitive role
doesn't do anythng for us.  I can forsee such a Review Board soon being
taken over by the very people who are now giving everybody a headache.

No attempt to delete for lack of notability should be considered valid
unless there has first been a good-faith attempt to discuss it with the
contributor so that he can improve the article.  Articles that have had
improvements should not be on the same footings as one that is totally
unchanged.  Votes that are time-stamped before an improvement clearly do
not reflect a review of those changes.  Whatever timeframe is chosen
before something can be deleted should start with the last vote rather
than the first.  Undeletion should not be seen as some kind of personal
attack on those who deleted the article who then feels obligated to
defend his deletion.  Perhaps the act of undeletion should be on a par
with one more keep vote that just starts the clock running again.

Even with all those safeguards I suspect that the vast majority of
things that are deleted will stay deleted without much of a fuss.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
--- Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:

> Matt R wrote:
> > But user space isn't the encyclopedia. What's the problem with using such
> an
> > image in user space, if we have a decent fair use case for it (parody and
> > satire)?
>
> Because it's a waste of server space if we're not using it in the
> encyclopaedia.

What? We have lots of other images that we're quite happy to use on user pages,
like user photos. Not to mention user boxes, editor biographies, etc. Are they
a waste of server space too? Obviously not. Wikipedia is edited by a community.
Things that help build that community contribute to writing the encyclopedia.
Conserving 105 kilobytes is not a reasonable justification for removing a darn
good piece of community humour.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
On 1/20/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the argument constantly made on AfD discussions is that server space
> is never an issue.  By the way, nothing that happens in user space is "in
> the encyclopedia", including userboxes - is that all a "waste of server
> space" too?.

Actually, that's slightly different, as text deletions aren't
permanent and continue to occupy server space.  Image deletions are
different.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
jayjg wrote:
> Well, the argument constantly made on AfD discussions is that server space
> is never an issue.  By the way, nothing that happens in user space is "in
> the encyclopedia", including userboxes - is that all a "waste of server
> space" too?.

I don't think everything on user pages (or in fact, pages which aren't
in article-space) is a waste of server space. Talk pages are obviously
highly useful, as are user pages which give information about interests
and qualifications. For example, on my page I list subjects I am
interested in and some pages I have contributed to. I think that's
useful. I also have some probably "not useful" stuff, like the haiku.
But I very much doubt either of those aspects are fair use.

Fair use images are inherently in conflict with what we are trying to do
- build a free content encyclopaedia. We should minimise our
dependencies on fair use as much as possible. If fair use material is
not being used as part of an article, there is absolutely NO reason to
have it on Wikipedia at all. People who use use fair use material when
it's not directly contributing to the encyclopaedia are missing the
point of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should rely upon the contributions of its editors, not on
material others have created, if possible. Of course it's impossible to
get a new photo of a historical event, taken by a Wikipedian, but we
should make sure that all fair use images which aren't of past events
should be replaced with new images which Wikipedians have contributed.
That's what Wikipedia is about to me.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Matt R wrote:
> What? We have lots of other images that we're quite happy to use on user pages,
> like user photos. Not to mention user boxes, editor biographies, etc. Are they
> a waste of server space too? Obviously not. Wikipedia is edited by a community.
> Things that help build that community contribute to writing the encyclopedia.
> Conserving 105 kilobytes is not a reasonable justification for removing a darn
> good piece of community humour.

See my previous reply to jayjg. We're specifically talking about fair
use here, not user pages in general.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
>--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> The image itself has been deleted too. Does anyone have a copy to
>> hand? I want to put it on Uncyclopedia, where it would almost
>> certainly be just fine in a suitable context. Parody and satire allow
>> *fantastic* leeway for fair use ...

>Why can't we use it as parody and satire within Wikipedia user space?

Well, theoretically we could. But it's IMO a bit sideways from the
mission (we're here to write an encyclopedia) *and* it's a fair use
image, and we do have a reasonably accepted policy to minimise fair
use images to when there really isn't a substitute. And to get the
fair use images off the user pages. So it really doesn't belong on my
userpage and Gmaxwell was entirely right to remove it (and I left a
note on his talk page thanking him).

People can still link to it at [[Uncyclopedia:Image:Wp ayb.gif]] as
they wish (interwiki link), though you can't make it display as an
image that way.

- d.


body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

>Wikipedia should rely upon the contributions of its editors, not on
>material others have created, if possible. Of course it's impossible to
>get a new photo of a historical event, taken by a Wikipedian, but we
>should make sure that all fair use images which aren't of past events
>should be replaced with new images which Wikipedians have contributed.
>That's what Wikipedia is about to me.

I concur.

I definitely don't want fair use images to go from en: completely. My
favourite article with heavy use of fair use images is [[Xenu]]. One
is the cover of "Dianetics", illustrating a point in the article about
Scientology book covers after the Xenu story was put into Scientology;
one is the [[Sea Org]] logo, which also comes from the Xenu story; and
one is a sample of L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting, showing the only
known example of the word "Xenu" in his own handwriting. None of those
three are particularly replaceable. But their use in that article is
pretty clearly academic fair use, and I did run them past Jimbo before
it was made a front page feature, given Scientology's famously strong
legal defence of anything it sees as a copyright or trademark
violation. So far we haven't heard a peep out of Scientology on the
matter, and they're well aware of the article (and at least one staff
member has edited it), so I would presume they accept legal action on
the matter would be a losing proposition (though I believe they have a
few years before we can be sure laches has kicked in).

- d.


from_name: Rob

body:
This would be a kangaroo court waiting to happen.

We should of course do more to encourage research before someone submits
something for deletion.  However, people have different research skills,
different access to resources for doing so, and differing opinions on where
to set the bar for inclusion.  So this "review board" would either confine
itself to the worst offenses (like the guy who put up [[Jean-Luc Picard]]
for deletion), which can be covered by normal admins and WP:POINT anyway, or
have a chilling effect on WP by essentially criminalizing differences of
opinion.

Submitting an article to AfD really should be no big deal.  Things that
shouldn't be deleted get nominated, but that doesn't mean the sky is
falling.  Just vote keep and get on with editing.

On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> I propose <sigh> yet another level of bureaucracy -- a Deletion Review
> Board (which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the useless
> WP:VfU).  The Review Board would be empowered to penalize those who
> nominate and those who vote support such egregiously careless and
> /damaging/ deletions.  Deletions of unpublished garage bands can
> continue just as they do today.
>
> The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
> various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
> and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
> offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
> thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
> too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, theoretically we could. But it's IMO a bit sideways from the
> mission (we're here to write an encyclopedia) *and* it's a fair use
> image, and we do have a reasonably accepted policy to minimise fair
> use images to when there really isn't a substitute. And to get the
> fair use images off the user pages. So it really doesn't belong on my
> userpage and Gmaxwell was entirely right to remove it (and I left a
> note on his talk page thanking him).

I feel we've got this backwards. We've set about removing fair use images from
user pages because we usually don't have a fair use rationale for them; OK,
that's reasonable. We avoid fair use images in articles if we can  because we
want to be as free as possible -- again, completely reasonable. However, when
we do actually have a solid fair use rationale for using an image on user
pages, and it's a piece of community humour, why then should we remove it? It
just seems like the tail wagging the dog.

My apologies; I don't think this is worth this much debate, but it ticked me
off.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kat Walsh stated for the record:

> Perhaps this is what a "deletion cabal" could do: simply make the call
> to speedy pull a nomination, rather than penalize the nominator. I'd
> imagine anyone whose nominations were continually getting pulled for
> being inappropriate would eventually start to think about them more,
> no penalty necessary.
>
> -Kat
> Potentially Awful Ideas R Us

I would like to think that -- really I would -- but two years on the
ArbComm have turned me into a bitter, cynical, twisted shadow of my
former cheery, optimistic, happy-go-lucky self.

Have nominations painlessly canceled, with no repercussions at all,
would make the deletionists /more/ likely to nominate stuff for
deletion, not less.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0XVTMAt1wyd9d+URAoimAJ9+2OAWnXdO1LyKt6YeR1TyCr6j7wCfa7JC
vM+d/KOF1BvTDNh4JNKlTbo=
=BdW7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>> Now, what does the Abbey Road album cover add to its article?
>> Quite a bit it turns out - the article even has a section entitled
>> "The famous photograph".
>
>
> Yes, but these few real uses are swamped by the rubbish ones.

If it's a matter of principle, then there are no "real uses" that
are acceptable, no exceptions possible.

>
> We dont have to illustrate everything. You can take photos of the
> stars at film openings, or prints on the walk of fame, there are
> lots of free photos out there.

"Prints on the walk of fame"? Exactly how does that clue people
in about Darth Vader's menacing appearance, or how Yoda and
Obi-wan are made-up to imitate the Campbellian archetype? If
pictures are just decorative, then why not just eliminate all
of them? (And yes, I know there are those on the far end of
the sigma curve who think that's a great idea.)

>
> 99.99% of the images labelled as fair use are not. 99.99% of the
> fair use text is. A few errors either way are not important to
> the goal of making a free encyclopaedia. The lies and blatent
> copyright violation in the images is.

If it's a matter of principle, then no fair-use quotes are acceptable,
ever. If it's a 99.99% issue, then you're saying you accept the
basic principle that fair use is allowable in an otherwise-free
encyclopedia, and we're just talking about doing a better job of
enforcing policy. Which is it?

> I too can find a handful of fair use images. But I have yet to see
> something in say [[Category:Promotional images]] that is actually
> a promotional image (and there is really no justification for us
> having real promos anyway as we dont accept permission images). Its
> a blanket copyvio category. There are thousands of them, and more
> added every day.

The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily
complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to
get any complaints about the *images* in them. When WPians have sent
email asking about images, the response is always "sure, use it all
you like". So in the big project of tightening up fair use, I put
basic sorting, policy clarification, and response time at the top,
then clearing out photos copyrighted by photographers and news
organizations, and only then am I going to worry about clarifying
the status of celebrity headshots. Like every other big WP project,
it doesn't work to declare failure because not everything can be
fixed in one day.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Matt R wrote:
> I feel we've got this backwards. We've set about removing fair use images from
> user pages because we usually don't have a fair use rationale for them; OK,
> that's reasonable. We avoid fair use images in articles if we can  because we
> want to be as free as possible -- again, completely reasonable. However, when
> we do actually have a solid fair use rationale for using an image on user
> pages, and it's a piece of community humour, why then should we remove it? It
> just seems like the tail wagging the dog.
>
> My apologies; I don't think this is worth this much debate, but it ticked me
> off.

Because fair use images are fundamentally against the principles of a
free content encyclopaedia. If a fair use image isn't improving an
article, or if there is a replacement free image, then the fair use
image should be deleted with impunity. Each fair use image on Wikipedia
hinders our efforts to create a distributable free content encyclopaedia.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Registering www.wikipedia.se for
	sv.wikipedia.org

body:
Switzerland, yes; Denmark, no. Yes, Faroese and Greenlandic are
"regional languages" of the Kingdom of Denmark, but they are spoken
only by tiny percentages of the population.

Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroes also have their own domain names --
using YOUR logic, Greenlandic should only be at www.wikipedia.gl,
Icelandic at www.wikipedia.is, and Faroese at www.wikipedia.fo

And yet, the people tending to the portal cared enough to protect
those minorities by including them. Despite the fact that the
Greenlandic Wikipedia only has about a dozen articles, and each of
them has their own domain name.

S?mi doesn't have it's own domain though...

And yes, wikipedia.fi should be a portal. But who pays for it? Not the
Foundation.

I think that if the FOundation pays for your domain, you should have a
portal for ALL of the langauges of Sweden. If you pay for it yourself
though, it's up to you.

Mark

On 19/01/06, Andreas Vil?n <andreas.vilen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is that Switzerland and Denmark have several common
> languages for different geographical locations (as well as Finland as
> I have pointed out... Why aren't www.wikipedia.fi or
> www.wikipedia.co.uk portals?) To force www.wikipedia.se to be a portal
> to Swedish and then all the minority languages of Sweden is just
> absurd.
>
> /Andreas
>
> On 1/19/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think they would if you had it redirect to the Swedish
> > Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for languages, not countries.
> >
> > Please see, for example, http://www.wikipedia.ch or
> > http://www.wikipedia.dk or http://wikimedia.co.uk
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 18/01/06, Andreas Vil?n <andreas.vilen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is taking NPOV to the extreme... 99% of all people living in
> > > Sweden except to get to a site in Swedish when they go to a website
> > > with the ending .se, probably most Swedish Finns would go to
> > > www.wikipedia.se (and surely not sv.wikipedia.org) if they wanted to
> > > find Wikipedia in Swedish, not www.wikipedia.fi. But as I have said
> > > numerous times, this is another discussion.
> > >
> > > The question is: "Is it possible to get Wikimedia to pay for the
> > > domain name www.wikipedia.se?"
> > >
> > > /Andreas
> > > On 1/18/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Andreas Vil?n" <andreas.vilen at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > news:cb099c010601180538p372b1ef3q1d762142d2ab1196 at mail.gmail.com...
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > All top domains I search for are redirects to their country's primary
> > > > > language, I don't see why www.wikipedia.se shouldn't. In fact, since
> > > > > wikipedia.fi is, that would be pure discrimination. Especially since
> > > > > Swedish is far more widespread in Finland than Finnish is in Sweden.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they should therefore be updated to provide proper portal
> > > > facilities...unless there's a chapter in that country in which case surely
> > > > they ought to be doing something with "their site"?
> > > > --
> > > > Phil
> > > > [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

geni stated for the record:

> On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>>I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.
>>
>>Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo
>>receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why
>>"we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete
>>easily-verified information about highly notable people.  The AfD gang
>>is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily
>>basis.
>>
>
>
> I recive (through the helpdesk) emails about this on a daily basis as
> well. However I also get a stunning number asking about link exchange.
> I also recive complaints about people reverting stuff. Should we start
> a comitte to regualate that?
>
> --
> geni

geni, I wish you'd drop the straw-man arguments.  As you know full well,
those seeking and being denied link exchange are not comparable to
million-selling authors whose internationally-published works are being
falsely accused of being vanity printings.

Complaints about being reverted are not so easily dismissed -- by you or
me.  The same nasty personalities who are delighted by calling a renowed
scientist a quack or a best-selling author a hack are just as delighted
by reverting well-intentioned edits with hateful personal attacks.  So:
yes, we should have a committee to oversee on-article personal attacks.
 I think we should call it something like ... the "Arbitration
Committee" or something like that.  I'll be one of the first to
volunteer to serve on it, and I'll even accept a three-year hitch.  And
furthermore, I'll bet you that I'll serve one of the longest spans in
office of any Arbiter.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0XhwMAt1wyd9d+URApxHAJ9t+sbcW2gR0AAMKDC7W/X1IAfLAgCfWlgo
FvyLquhq81Djf1J8/hqzwcM=
=IGja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to
	fix it

body:
On Jan 20, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> Have nominations painlessly canceled, with no repercussions at all,
> would make the deletionists /more/ likely to nominate stuff for
> deletion, not less.

Yes, because Lord knows those evil deletionists must be PUNISHED!
Drilled into the ground, pounded into dust, made never to return.

Your inflammatory statements are only serving to fan the partisan
flames here. We could be having a rational discussion about ways to
improve the deletion system so stuff that should be kept gets kept and
stuff that should be deleted gets deleted, but instead you're just
pulling out the "deletionists are evil, let's form a committee to ban
them" card. That's definitely not a logical or dispassionate response.

-FCYTravis


body:
Yes, I've been paying attention, thanks.  I've personally gone to a number
of message boards to discuss AfDs with groups who are offended by an AfD
discussion. Usually patient discussion and explanation works wonders.
Perhaps a "So you've been nominated for deletion" page would be helpful in
this manner as well.

Is it a problem?  Yes, but I think your proposed solution would be an
infinitely larger problem.

On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.
>
> Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo
> receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why
> "we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete
> easily-verified information about highly notable people.  The AfD gang
> is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily
> basis.
>
> Will these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks make the sky
> fall?  No, the servers won't even crash.  Is this continuing harm to the
> encyclopedia a real issue that must be fixed promptly because the rate
> is accelerating?  Yes.
>
>


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
Hi,

here is a small update.

The preliminary injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. was
suspended. It is not yet gone but it is currently not preventing
Wikimedia Deutschland from redirecting wikipedia.de to
de.wikipedia.org.

If you read an AP article from today, please be careful. At least in
the first versions, there are some misconceptions in that article.

Wikimedia Deutschland did not pay any fine. There was just a 500 Euro
(~600 US Dollar) deposit.

The dispute is not yet setteled but I am personally confident that the
injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. will finally be
denied/lifted/eaten by the court in the near future.

The reason of the suspension of the injunction were manyfold:
The injunction was very unprecise (it did not even contain the name of
the person this trouble is all about), so the injunction itself did
not make much sense apart from the "you are forbidden to redirect
wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org). And the injunction was far to
harsh. Shutting down the redirect of 350.000+ pages just because of
one disputed article is not that justified.

So, the blogosphere has also commented on this situation very loud.
There are now a couple of articles in (mostly german) blogs just
containing "The name of Tron was Boris Floricic".

I did not make any statistics but the number of pages in the internet
containing the civil name of Boris seemed to have increased a lot. AP
is quoting someone with the brillian insight that this effect is most
likely not in the intention of the parents who tried to remove the
name from wikipedia.org.

Here are some English articles I can recomment you for *critical!* reading.

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/68603
Wikimedia fights the block on its web site due to "Tron" articles

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,396307,00.html
How a Dead Hacker Shut Down Wikipedia Germany

Mathias


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
--- Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:

> Because fair use images are fundamentally against the principles of a
> free content encyclopaedia. If a fair use image isn't improving an
> article, or if there is a replacement free image, then the fair use
> image should be deleted with impunity. Each fair use image on Wikipedia
> hinders our efforts to create a distributable free content encyclopaedia.

You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not* the
distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the framework
which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.

There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in *articles*,
wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use images from
user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use rationale for
using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for the AYB
image.

It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the article
space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad thing to
delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
Matt R wrote:
> You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not* the
> distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the framework
> which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.
>
> There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in *articles*,
> wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use images from
> user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use rationale for
> using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for the AYB
> image.
>
> It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the article
> space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad thing to
> delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.

They all get bundled together in the downloads, though.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


list: foundation-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Foundation-l] Just for fun:;	Polish Finace Ministry created
	its own Wiki

body:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:

>I think you may find it interesting:
>
>Polish Ministry of Finance has just started wiki-based service:
>
>http://www.podatki.gov.pl/wiki/
>
>"Podatki" means "taxes" :-)
>
>The idea of the Wiki is to let people complain about absurds in Polish
>taxation system and to propose projects how to change the situation.
>
>Is it the first example when wiki was launched by goverment?
>
>
Great! and using MediaWiki software at that!

It's probably not the first government usage in general, but it could be
the first to deal with taxation issues.  I would have been less
surprised if this had started in a place like Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
--- Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:

> Matt R wrote:
> > You're confusing user space with article space. User pages are *not* the
> > distributable free content encyclopedia. User pages are part of the
> framework
> > which builds the distributable free content encyclopedia.
> >
> > There is a perfectly reasonable goal of avoiding fair use images in
> *articles*,
> > wherever possible. As I understand it, we also remove most Fair Use images
> from
> > user pages because we normally don't have any decent Fair Use rationale for
> > using them there. However, as a parody, we do have a rationale for the AYB
> > image.
> >
> > It's a good thing to keep a few fun things on Wikipedia outside of the
> article
> > space. It's a good thing to be wary of fair use images. It's a bad thing to
> > delete humour because of misplaced "fair use" political correctness.
>
> They all get bundled together in the downloads, though.

Do you mean the databse dumps? You can download just the articles.

-- Matt
>

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


subject:
[Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal
	to	fix it

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Travis Mason-Bushman stated for the record:

> On Jan 20, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> Have nominations painlessly canceled, with no repercussions at all,
>> would make the deletionists /more/ likely to nominate stuff for
>> deletion, not less.
>
> Yes, because Lord knows those evil deletionists must be PUNISHED!
> Drilled into the ground, pounded into dust, made never to return.
>
> Your inflammatory statements are only serving to fan the partisan flames
> here. We could be having a rational discussion about ways to improve the
> deletion system so stuff that should be kept gets kept and stuff that
> should be deleted gets deleted, but instead you're just pulling out the
> "deletionists are evil, let's form a committee to ban them" card. That's
> definitely not a logical or dispassionate response.
>
> -FCYTravis

Since the statement you attribute to me has absolutely no resemblance to
anything I actually wrote, it's clear that you are only seeking to fan
the partisan flames here. We could be having a rational discussion about
ways to protect Wikipedia from the on-going damage it is suffering, but
instead you're just pulling out the "falsely attribute an absurd
position to him, then ridicule that position he never took" straw man.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
 sean at epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD0X2wMAt1wyd9d+URAnPWAJsHWvxpFdnSjMq4mjjqvUAlmlFSWgCfQNFS
iIeGhfocj8KgZStFPgNFDtg=
=TlE6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> Sometimes de: is held up as a counterexample of how one doesn't
> really need copyrighted images, but I'll hazard a guess that many
> de: readers "sneak over" via interwiki to look at the forbidden
> pictures on en:. (I notice de: sometimes "launders" images in
> legally-dubious ways, such as taking a photograph of a Yoda doll,
> or somebody wearing a Darth Vader Halloween costume.)

I'm sure that a Darth Vader Halloween costume would be copyright protected.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
jayjg wrote:
> By the way, I'm not arguing for the use of "fair use" images on User pages.
> However, I *am* arguing against the use of bad arguments to remove them
> (and, in general, against the use of bad arguments to defend *any* action).
> "Server space" simply won't fly, as it appears to be an almost limitless
> resource in other contexts, and "it hinders distribution of a free
> encyclopedia" won't fly, as User pages are not part of the encyclopedia
> content we are trying to distribute.  The more relevant arguments seem to
> center on legal liability issues, though in reality the potential for any
> real litigation based on their use appears to be nil, if for no other reason
> than if someone actually did threaten to sue Wikipedia based on a fair use
> image maintained on a user page (which is extemely unlikely), it would
> promptly be deleted, ending any action.

The fact that we could just remove any fair use image if legal action
was ever threatened or initiated seems to be a particularly bad argument
for *keeping* them.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 1/20/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I've been paying attention, thanks.  I've personally gone to a number
> of message boards to discuss AfDs with groups who are offended by an AfD
> discussion. Usually patient discussion and explanation works wonders.
> Perhaps a "So you've been nominated for deletion" page would be helpful in
> this manner as well.

I like the "so you've been nominated for deletion" page idea.

I also like the idea of "speedy keep" being more widely used; if
someone comes up with a really strong justification for why something
should not be deleted, particularly if it completely rebuts the
nominator's reason for nominating it, why waste time arguing about it?

Perhaps this is what a "deletion cabal" could do: simply make the call
to speedy pull a nomination, rather than penalize the nominator. I'd
imagine anyone whose nominations were continually getting pulled for
being inappropriate would eventually start to think about them more,
no penalty necessary.

-Kat
Potentially Awful Ideas R Us

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast
upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci


body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/20/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>The real irony here is that while we're apparently getting daily
>>complaints about the *text* of people's bios, we don't ever seem to
>>get any complaints about the *images* in them.
>>
>
>Helpdesk does. Have you any idea how hard it is to get an image
>deleted if it is on a wiki where you don't speak the language?
>
A complaint from the actual copyright holder of a picture in a
person's bio? There seems to be plenty of third parties concerned
about copyvios, but not actual photographers saying "hey, that's
mine and not legitimate here!" Between purportedly having thousands
of copyvios and being a top-20(?) website, you'd think we'd be
getting a hundred image takedown notices each week. (Or maybe we
are and it's not being publicized?)

Stan


subject:
[Flag] Re: [Flag] Re: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious
	proposal to	fix it

body:
On Jan 20, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Since the statement you attribute to me has absolutely no resemblance
> to
> anything I actually wrote, it's clear that you are only seeking to fan
> the partisan flames here.

Excuse me? My quote is a *direct quote* from your earlier e-mail.
Unaltered and unedited. Are you now retracting your statement?

You wrote: "I would like to think that -- really I would -- but two
years on the ArbComm have turned me into a bitter, cynical, twisted
shadow of my former cheery, optimistic, happy-go-lucky self. Have
nominations painlessly canceled, with no repercussions at all, would
make the deletionists /more/ likely to nominate stuff for deletion, not
less."

You proposed to form a committee whose sole purpose would be to punish
"deletionists" by banning them from deletion pages. That is inarguably
a hostile act that will do nothing but embitter those you target and
make them more determined to oppose *anything* you present as being the
work of, as you said, a "bitter, cynical, twisted" person. You could
have made a rational suggestion, like geni's "So your article has been
nominated for deletion" page, which I have already worked to improve,
or kat's call for more speedy keeps. Those are both rational, logical
ideas. Creating an anti-deletionist bureaucracy is nothing but spite.

-FCYTravis


body:
--- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Let's develop a similar procedure here.  If someone
> sees a deletion
> nomination where deletion could obviously be avoided
> if a merge or
> redirect were to be negotiated, then that person
> should remove the AfD
> tag and start a discussion on the talk page about
> that alternative
> action.  The discussion should not proceed to
> deletion until those
> proposing deletion have diligently investigated all
> alternatives. *NO
> ONUS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THOSE OPPOSING DELETION*.
> It should be  for
> those proposing that the article, category, article
> template or other
> encyclopedia component, should be deleted, to show
> by due diligence
> that the item cannot be reorganised in a fruitful
> manner.

Damn, that sounds too much like _work_.

That's probably part of the problem with AfD: People
don't want to expend the effort to do any sort of
research. That's also probably part of the reason any
suggested reforms get shot down in a ball of flames
(mixing my metaphors here, I believe); most of them
require more work than AfD.

-Hermione1980

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to
>really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking
>place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.

This appears to be the preferred way of proceeding for many: try to
beat a bad idea into the ground *rather than* discuss it.

Presumably, that's the way COMMUNITY CONSENSUS works!

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
>ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
>and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
>instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
>subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
>effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".

Jumping into VFD discussions with a reference to this email? Though
let's see how many times the obnoxious have to be hit over the head
with this before someone decides it's "spamming" and blocks them!

You see what I mean when I say that AFD/DRV consider themselves worlds
unto themselves, and bitterly resist anything perceived as outside
interference, i.e. the rest of the Wikipedia infrastructure.

- d.