Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
Sam Blacketer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > >> As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of >> the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. >> > I agree; also the fact that it seems to have taken place nearly two years > ago has some weight in persuading me that a heavy-handed response is not > appropriate. The biggest part that concerns me is the dubious judgment in > admitting doing it to a journalist from a major newspaper. > > That last point could qualify him for some version of an e-Darwin Award. :-) Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
<> Okay but you're talking past me, because I never espoused this position either. In fact quite the opposite. If I had I would have *no room whatsoever* for primary sources right? No sense in quoting a primary source if the knowledge had already been published in a secondary source. I'm sure you can see this. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual licensing. Discussing is taking place on EN here: [[Wikipedia talk:Transition to CC-BY-SA]] A final vote will be on Meta to move all the projects. --Falcorian On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, White Cat wrote: > Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said to > be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far. > - White Cat > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > dger...@gmail.com writes: > > > > I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby > > vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering > > questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > What is holding up the move? > > > > > > **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Sam Korn wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz >> wrote: >>> To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is >>> their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability >>> being used to undelete stuff that is not helpful to this project and >>> creates these sorts of distractions, but it is now his fight. >> >> I agree mostly with these sentiments. If there was a case to be made, >> I would argue that it should be presented as "using the admin tools in >> a way likely to bring the project into disrepute". >> >> There has been no breach of our copyright policy, as the content was >> not posted on Wikipedia. I do not recall ever taking on-wiki actions >> against a user for breaching the GFDL on another website. >> >> As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of >> the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. > > As said on ANI... > > Sam, how is it "minor"? A comparable case is User:Everyking, where he > was emergency desysopped for even suggesting that he might disclose > deleted information on Wikipedia review--and that pales in comparison > to this. This admin did disclose information that was apparently > deleted for copyright purposes, posted it onto one of the busiest > non-WMF websites in existence, and then had it splashed over one of > the major media sources on the planet Earth that he did it with his > WMF admin tools. This is minor how? > > Any admin can freely recover content deleted for copyright purposes > and then repost it wherever and however they want? There is a better place than this mailing list to debate whether there has been a serious case of abuse of administrator tools. I know I've posted in this thread myself, but please, let's not have the discussions spread over several different venues. At the very least, the sitting arbitrators should withdraw from this discussion (as they may be required to arbitrate) and the former arbitrators who are privy to the ArbCom mailing list discussions should probably also stay out of the discussion here. As a sitting arbitrator, I'm going to do exactly that and stop posting in this thread until the matter has been resolved. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Sam Blacketer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > >> As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of >> the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. >> > > I agree; also the fact that it seems to have taken place nearly two years > ago has some weight in persuading me that a heavy-handed response is not > appropriate. The biggest part that concerns me is the dubious judgment in > admitting doing it to a journalist from a major newspaper. The initial posting of the information in question to Wikipedia (by an IP) and the deletion of two revisions of the article in question, were both done in February 2007. It is not clear when the use of tools to view those deleted revisions, and the Facebook posting, took place (the WSJ article doesn't say). There was also an OTRS ticket associated with the deletions - though that was not stated in the deletion log (it should have been). Like Sam Blacketer and Sam Korn, it is the "disrepute" aspect and the judgment aspect that concerns me here. I don't really want to say more, though, as an on-wiki ArbCom venue would be more appropriate than here. And waiting for the user in question to respond is also important. There should, though, really be a place on Wikipedia itself for open public discussion like this that doesn't require the formality of RFAR or the non-transparency of the ArbCom mailing list, and is less chaotic than ANI. At the moment, WT:RFAR is all there is for this "is there a problem here" pre-RFAR query - see a post made there by Masem on another issue that has garnered little response. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: >> To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is >> their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability >> being used to undelete stuff that is not helpful to this project and >> creates these sorts of distractions, but it is now his fight. > > I agree mostly with these sentiments. If there was a case to be made, > I would argue that it should be presented as "using the admin tools in > a way likely to bring the project into disrepute". > > There has been no breach of our copyright policy, as the content was > not posted on Wikipedia. I do not recall ever taking on-wiki actions > against a user for breaching the GFDL on another website. > > As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of > the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. As said on ANI... Sam, how is it "minor"? A comparable case is User:Everyking, where he was emergency desysopped for even suggesting that he might disclose deleted information on Wikipedia review--and that pales in comparison to this. This admin did disclose information that was apparently deleted for copyright purposes, posted it onto one of the busiest non-WMF websites in existence, and then had it splashed over one of the major media sources on the planet Earth that he did it with his WMF admin tools. This is minor how? Any admin can freely recover content deleted for copyright purposes and then repost it wherever and however they want? - Joe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of > the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. > I agree; also the fact that it seems to have taken place nearly two years ago has some weight in persuading me that a heavy-handed response is not appropriate. The biggest part that concerns me is the dubious judgment in admitting doing it to a journalist from a major newspaper. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
> As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of > the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. I agree. Admins un-delete things all the time because they think it might be useful to someone elsewhere (usually they undelete it to someone's user space, but it makes little difference), the only problem here was that the admin in question carelessly neglected to follow the GFDL when doing so (and/or get permission from the copyright owner). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is > their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability > being used to undelete stuff that is not helpful to this project and > creates these sorts of distractions, but it is now his fight. I agree mostly with these sentiments. If there was a case to be made, I would argue that it should be presented as "using the admin tools in a way likely to bring the project into disrepute". There has been no breach of our copyright policy, as the content was not posted on Wikipedia. I do not recall ever taking on-wiki actions against a user for breaching the GFDL on another website. As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] From "Private Eye"
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Angela Anuszewski > wrote: > > Excuse my ignorance, but excatly what is Private Eye? > > I looked it up in a handy online encyclopedia... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye > > Carcharoth > I know I could have looked it up in that handy encyclopedia you've got there, but I intentionally asked on-list so that it doesn't get excess page hits, now everyone will know just by checking their email! ;-) Angela -- Wikipedia:[[User:Psu256]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] From "Private Eye"
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Angela Anuszewski wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, but excatly what is Private Eye? I looked it up in a handy online encyclopedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] From "Private Eye"
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Angela Anuszewski < angela.anuszew...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, but excatly what is Private Eye? > > Angela > > -- > Wikipedia:[[User:Psu256]] > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > It's a British satirical magazine, edited by Ian Hislop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] From "Private Eye"
Excuse my ignorance, but excatly what is Private Eye? Angela -- Wikipedia:[[User:Psu256]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:36 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2009 7:57:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, > snowspin...@gmail.com writes: > > "Encyclopedia" and "record of only what has been published in > reliable > secondary sources" are not synonymous terms.>> > > > > > > And yet the community needs a method of determining "Is this > encyclopedic?" > We already loosely use an expression like "this is not encyclopedic" > in AfD. > Apparently there is some sort of processing going on, on the editor > level, > to allow them to determine that. > > If the determination is simply the answer to the question "Has this > ever > been published by anyone anywhere?" then we come back again to > Notability, since > this answer destroys notability entirely. > > However the community seems to want Notability. And so my > conclusion is > that this contradiction means that "This has been published" is not > a full > answer to "Is this encyclopedic?" Well, you've also switched scales. Notability, defined as some level of coverage from sources, works on a topic level. If you applied it to the article content level - every claim must be double-sourced - it would be disastrous. I mean, I'm not saying secondary sources are useless. I'm just saying, "knowledge published in reliable secondary sources" and "encyclopedia" are not equivalent. That's a statement on a line-by-line, fact-by-fact scale. -Phil ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] From "Private Eye"
2009/1/8 James Farrar : > From the letters page in the current edition (Eye 1227, p. 14): > > Sir, > > Re "Nooks and Corners", Eye 1226. It was a treat to see my rather > amateurish photography appear (via Wikipedia) on page 12 of Eye 1226, > depicting in all its glory West Bromwich's less-than-lovely "The > Public". > > As an Eye reader of many years, I shall now look forward to the > greater honour of having this letter printed, which will neatly fulfil > your obligation under the relevant GNU Free Documentation and Creative > Commons Attribution ShareAlike licences to give me a credit! > > Yours etc, > David Waterson > Solihull > > > --- > > I laughed a lot. :) > Hmm the image in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Public_north.JPG but they cropped it down a bit so a bit of the building is actually missing from the private eye version. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] From "Private Eye"
>From the letters page in the current edition (Eye 1227, p. 14): Sir, Re "Nooks and Corners", Eye 1226. It was a treat to see my rather amateurish photography appear (via Wikipedia) on page 12 of Eye 1226, depicting in all its glory West Bromwich's less-than-lovely "The Public". As an Eye reader of many years, I shall now look forward to the greater honour of having this letter printed, which will neatly fulfil your obligation under the relevant GNU Free Documentation and Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licences to give me a credit! Yours etc, David Waterson Solihull --- I laughed a lot. :) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Durova wrote: > It's come up on ANI. I await his reply before concluding how to proceed. Coren has posted at ANI saying the arbitration committee is aware of this and is investigating. I can confirm this as well. This mailing list thread seems to be the first mention in the "wikisphere" of this Wall Street Journal article. The on-wiki mentions I'm aware of so far are the Signpost tip page and the ANI thread. I first learnt of this matter here on the mailing list. I raised it with the committee a couple of hours before the ANI thread started, but didn't say anything here at the time because it was not clear which admin account was involved. Not sure what mailing list etiquette is on these matters, versus on-wiki stuff, but one of the accounts mentioned doesn't publicly link to the primary account, so please be circumspect about repeating account names here. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
Bah forgive me, I was trying to be sarcastic. Did not work so well :S To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability being used to undelete stuff that is not helpful to this project and creates these sorts of distractions, but it is now his fight. On 1/7/09, Durova wrote: > Lynching and drama don't interest me in the slightest; please don't suggest > those terms. The integrity of the project is paramount. > > -Durova > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > >> If I were not on a cell phone and had time, I would join the angry mob >> and start an RFAR :) I don't think he has any excuse for his actions >> which knowingly violated our copyright rules. >> >> Feel free to start one or someone else is likely to do it. After all >> lynching gets good drama ;). >> >> On 1/7/09, Durova wrote: >> > It's come up on ANI. I await his reply before concluding how to >> > proceed. >> > >> > -Durova >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz > >wrote: >> > >> >> And I imagine no way to get it unless views of deleted revisions is >> >> logged somewhere that I don't know of I suspect this is rather >> >> unlikely unless wmf has them privately. >> >> >> >> On 1/7/09, Soxred93 wrote: >> >> > Unfortunately, we don't have the name of that particular admin. >> >> > >> >> > X! >> >> > >> >> > On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:04 PM [Jan 7, 2009 ], Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Who ever the admin is violated our copyright policies at the very >> >> >> least as I am sure he did not give the original contributor credit >> >> >> (that is assuming that the original contributor even has the right >> >> >> to >> >> >> post that). >> >> >> >> >> >> For an admin to do that is probably a good reason to lose the bit. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/7/09, Gwern Branwen wrote: >> >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> >> >>> Hash: SHA512 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123129220146959621.html >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "John Soong, 18, says that after he had failed to get jobs at >> several >> >> >>> chains that use the test, he began to poke around for an answer >> >> >>> key, >> >> >>> driven by "altruistic, and maybe vengeful," motives. In a >> >> >>> discussion >> >> >>> section of a Wikipedia entry, he saw a mention of a set of Unicru >> >> >>> statements and answers that had been posted there but removed. >> >> >>> Using >> >> >>> privileges as a volunteer Wikipedia administrator, which gave him >> >> >>> access to deleted page histories, Mr. Soong, a University of >> Virginia >> >> >>> student, was able to recover the answer key and re-post it on >> >> >>> Facebook." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> - -- >> >> >>> gwern >> >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> iEYEAREKAAYFAkllIJsACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oIQ9wCgkhjvk65QkqLHVfRlsNr6R9qE >> >> >>> 3CIAnjNSNtb2bBBoEYMQMCCJtKHZor+S >> >> >>> =hFKM >> >> >>> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ___ >> >> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >> >> >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> >> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> >> >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ___ >> >> > WikiEN-l mailing list >> >> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> > >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://durova.blogspot.com/ >> > ___ >> > WikiEN-l mailing list >> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > > > -- > http://durova.blogspot.com/ > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > Hence why I put "provided the text is not a copyright violation" in my > prior post. > > Regardless posting text that he does not have the copyright permission > for, regardless if it is from the GFDL or from a third source... This > admin has crossed a certain ethical line. Nonsense! Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > The reason why it is not ok in this case is because the admin in > question posted text that he does not own the copyright to. Provided > the text is not a copyright violation on its own, this admin has > violated the GFDL by not giving credit to the original author. > This is the kind of comment characteristic of those who aren't happy unless they are persecuting somebody. If this is indeed a copyright issue, then it should be up to the owners of the material to take action against this individual. It is not the business of third parties to enforce copyright on behalf of Kronos. While there may be enough uncertainty about the copyright to prevent it being shown on a publicly visible Wikipedia page, if someone who sees this differently wants to post such deleted material on some other site he should be free to do so with the understanding that he personally accepts whatever legal risks may come with his actions. I think that a strong argument can be made against the copyright of this material on the basis that copyright does not apply to information but to forms of expression, and an answer key may be only information. This person is free to make that argument if this ever gets to court. Our policies regarding copyright tend to be risk-averse to the extreme, and as a site we are free to take such a position. We have no business trying to broadly impose our rules on people acting on unrelated sites. When we delete something the most that we can infer from that act is that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It may still belong somewhere else. Soong should be commended for his campaign, as long as he does not insist on pursuing it on Wikipedia, and, by all appearances, he hasn't done that. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
Legal reasons. GFDL isn't compatible with it. GFDLs new version is said to be compatible but the release of that has been delayed many times so far. - White Cat On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, wrote: > > In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, > dger...@gmail.com writes: > > I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby > vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering > questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>> > > > > -- > > What is holding up the move? > > > **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, dger...@gmail.com writes: I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>> -- What is holding up the move? **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
2009/1/8 : > Whether or not Geni's interpretation of this particular point is on-target > is tied as well to our current blatant disregard for mirrors which do not even > link to the history page in the first place. I mentioned that a while back > and since then I know of nothing that the foundation or any other official > group has done to look into it. > If we ignore these supposed violations of the GFDL, there will come a point > when any suit over any new violation can simply use the same argument as > "historic right-of-way" that is, "its been this way for a long time and > they've > done nothing about it." > Of course the interpretation that all mirrors (and our own merges) even need > to link in all of history, is still open to debate. I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:40:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes: As for your interest in this thread (intended point)... I think Geni is right in saying that our current practice of merging is in violation of GFDL. We cannot ignore any part of the GFDL license as it is legally binding. A solution to the problem can be achieved culturally (by altering our merge practices) and technically (by altering the source code - perhaps the creation of a [[Special:Merge]]).>> -- Whether or not Geni's interpretation of this particular point is on-target is tied as well to our current blatant disregard for mirrors which do not even link to the history page in the first place. I mentioned that a while back and since then I know of nothing that the foundation or any other official group has done to look into it. If we ignore these supposed violations of the GFDL, there will come a point when any suit over any new violation can simply use the same argument as "historic right-of-way" that is, "its been this way for a long time and they've done nothing about it." Of course the interpretation that all mirrors (and our own merges) even need to link in all of history, is still open to debate. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
I do not have a personal war over fiction. I hardly edit the topic area. I should have no more than 10 edits in the past year plus. It is very distasteful to improve articles on fiction nowadays with the amount of crap you need to put up with. And this thread isn't only about fiction related articles and has a much broader range. As for your interest in this thread (intended point)... I think Geni is right in saying that our current practice of merging is in violation of GFDL. We cannot ignore any part of the GFDL license as it is legally binding. A solution to the problem can be achieved culturally (by altering our merge practices) and technically (by altering the source code - perhaps the creation of a [[Special:Merge]]). This isn't the first time GFDL has caused us pain and I do not think it will be the last. Please do not panic. - White Cat On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM, wrote: > > In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:06:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, > wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes: > > I am sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. > Merge > was proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it > was > never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of that > consensus.>> > > > > I am not speaking of *your* personal war over fiction. > I am speaking of the broader issue of the merging of *anything* > in-project. > > We, as a community, encourage the merging of stubs. That has been the > case > since before I even started editing five years back. I myself have merged > some articles in the past, although only a handful. > > It would be sadistic if, the idea that merging, which in and of itself, is > a > seemingly innocuous edit, would carry as-well the *hidden hammer* of > copyright infringement. Wouldn't it? > > Here's how you merge... oh you've done it? Well good, now I can clobber > the > hell out of you. > That's not the spirit of the project. Therefore there is a contradiction > somewhere in the assumptions. > > Will Johnson > > > **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rank hath its privileges
Lynching and drama don't interest me in the slightest; please don't suggest those terms. The integrity of the project is paramount. -Durova On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > If I were not on a cell phone and had time, I would join the angry mob > and start an RFAR :) I don't think he has any excuse for his actions > which knowingly violated our copyright rules. > > Feel free to start one or someone else is likely to do it. After all > lynching gets good drama ;). > > On 1/7/09, Durova wrote: > > It's come up on ANI. I await his reply before concluding how to proceed. > > > > -Durova > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz >wrote: > > > >> And I imagine no way to get it unless views of deleted revisions is > >> logged somewhere that I don't know of I suspect this is rather > >> unlikely unless wmf has them privately. > >> > >> On 1/7/09, Soxred93 wrote: > >> > Unfortunately, we don't have the name of that particular admin. > >> > > >> > X! > >> > > >> > On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:04 PM [Jan 7, 2009 ], Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > >> > > >> >> Who ever the admin is violated our copyright policies at the very > >> >> least as I am sure he did not give the original contributor credit > >> >> (that is assuming that the original contributor even has the right to > >> >> post that). > >> >> > >> >> For an admin to do that is probably a good reason to lose the bit. > >> >> > >> >> On 1/7/09, Gwern Branwen wrote: > >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >> >>> Hash: SHA512 > >> >>> > >> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123129220146959621.html > >> >>> > >> >>> "John Soong, 18, says that after he had failed to get jobs at > several > >> >>> chains that use the test, he began to poke around for an answer key, > >> >>> driven by "altruistic, and maybe vengeful," motives. In a discussion > >> >>> section of a Wikipedia entry, he saw a mention of a set of Unicru > >> >>> statements and answers that had been posted there but removed. Using > >> >>> privileges as a volunteer Wikipedia administrator, which gave him > >> >>> access to deleted page histories, Mr. Soong, a University of > Virginia > >> >>> student, was able to recover the answer key and re-post it on > >> >>> Facebook." > >> >>> > >> >>> - -- > >> >>> gwern > >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > >> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > >> >>> > >> >>> iEYEAREKAAYFAkllIJsACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oIQ9wCgkhjvk65QkqLHVfRlsNr6R9qE > >> >>> 3CIAnjNSNtb2bBBoEYMQMCCJtKHZor+S > >> >>> =hFKM > >> >>> -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >> >>> > >> >>> ___ > >> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list > >> >>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> ___ > >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list > >> >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> > > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > WikiEN-l mailing list > >> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> > > >> > >> ___ > >> WikiEN-l mailing list > >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://durova.blogspot.com/ > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:06:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes: I am sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. Merge was proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it was never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of that consensus.>> I am not speaking of *your* personal war over fiction. I am speaking of the broader issue of the merging of *anything* in-project. We, as a community, encourage the merging of stubs. That has been the case since before I even started editing five years back. I myself have merged some articles in the past, although only a handful. It would be sadistic if, the idea that merging, which in and of itself, is a seemingly innocuous edit, would carry as-well the *hidden hammer* of copyright infringement. Wouldn't it? Here's how you merge... oh you've done it? Well good, now I can clobber the hell out of you. That's not the spirit of the project. Therefore there is a contradiction somewhere in the assumptions. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
I am sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. Merge was proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it was never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of that consensus. - White Cat On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:41 AM, wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:35:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, > wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes: > > Just like "deleting" a merge requires admin tools. You are welcome to file > a > bugzilla on this.>> > > > > It's not at all like it. > In this case, anyone can do a merge. You simply cut and paste the text > and > then redirect the page. This is open to any editor. However, some > commentators are stating that doing this violates the license, and the > *sole* way to > do it without doing so, would be to use tools that some editors do not > have. > > So we set up a situation, where we allow and encourage merging, and then > when editors actually do it, we threaten them with a copyright infringement > lawsuit. > > That is not acceptable. I'm not going to file a "bug report", because > this > is an conflicting interpretation of what we can, should, may, or might do. > I > don't personally think we need the history in order to fulfill the license > requirements. But I'll strenously object to anyone trying to use that to > clobber mergers when we are allowing and encouraging them to do exactly > that. > > Will Johnson > > > > **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
