Dear Wikipedians,
Yesterday, I was blocked from using Wikipedia on the grounds that I am a
sockpuppet master of two accounts, 2006BC and AChan.
There is a big problem with this. They are two living, breathing people who
had previously already identified themselves on their user page and
elswehere.
They have both already complained about this separately although Ambi, her
friend David Gerard and others are sticking to their guns despite the
absurdity of their position being pointed out. Ambi is a former member of
the Arbitration Committee, and her friend David Gerard seems enjoy a similar
high position. Has anyone else had experience of dealing with these people?
I don't know what to do other than to request to be unblocked but it seems
that there is little likelihood of justice being done.
Ambi had previously filed a Request for Arbitration against me and I was
going to respond with one relating to her abusive conduct and POV editing.
I would appreciate any ideas people had about what to do. My knowledge of
Wikipedia policies is pretty good in theory but has clearly come up short in
practice as I have been completely banned for no good reason.
Thank you
Darren Ray
My IP is By the way 24.6.87.47.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
I've been banned from editing by Raul654 Now the only edit I did was correct an small error on Boxer Johnny Tapia's career record now .I usually just read Wikipedia otherwise .I wasnt a member at the time of edit ....... is that reason my IP was banned I'm confused.
Best Regards
Mike Steudle
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fair enough. Is it required that the original uploader provide the
> > fair use rationale, or can someone else? If we require the original
> > uploader, that might be a problem. If you're not the original
> > uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
> > responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
> >
> > -Matt
> No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
>
> Mgm
Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright
holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The
existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the
defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by
their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either
- what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the
four factors based on the evidence presented.
Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair
use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at
least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their
work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then
having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going
to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's
advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their
recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and
they're not going to take advice from the adversary.
I also wanted to respond to your message on another thread, MGM:
> You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone
> else put in an article. Too many people know too little about
> copyright law or are just completely ignorant.
But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're
authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our
contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as
example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually
exercise fair use as much as images do.
I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the
mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so
I will understand it for you."
Here's a 'modest proposal', while I'm at it:
Wikipedia should partner with MajorSearchProvider (Google, for sake of
example). Have the en image archive merge with Google Image Search.
Since so many of these fair use images probably come from people going
to Google Image Search and searching for the topic, wham - now they're
all there.
We all get good PR from the connection. Wikipedians can diligently tag
and cat images, adding to the value of Google's search. Sources are
implicit, and google's spider can probably make a good hash of
extracting the copyright terms from the page. Google's lawyers can
make the call on any technical measures which need to happen to meet
fair use - e.g. automatically resizing to thumbnails, restricting
certain images due to legal takedown notices. In event of the "big
lawsuit", Google can use their trillions of dollars to defend it like
they have before.
Now that I've stated it, I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but
does it spur any ideas? (other than that I'm nucking futs?)
[[User:Kwh]]
On 10 Mar 2006 at 20:25, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are
> bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual
> problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they
> possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a
> WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't.
Not that I have any intention of doing such a thing... but I still
have some concerns about the whole WP:OFFICE business. Sure, I
realize the necessity for something like that; as long as Wikipedia
and its parent foundation exist as real-world entities rather than
just disembodied Internet phenomena, there will be people in charge
who have bills to pay, legalities to comply with, servers to keep
running, and so on... and, hence, concerns for which their butts are
on the line in a manner not shared by the typical geek just editing
Wikipedia for the fun of it. Nevertheless, in a site which prides
itself on openness and rule by community consensus, having actions
take place unilaterally and secretively goes against the grain, and
should be kept to an absolute minimum.
There's kind of a feel that, if an article happens to offend the
"wrong" people (who have some kind of political, financial, or legal
leverage to use against Wikipedia/Wikimedia?), the Wikipedia Secret
Police can just make it disappear, and community consensus (and all
the Wikipedia pillars) be damned.
We already know that the community is secondary to the goal of
producing an excellent encyclopedia. But is that, in turn, secondary
to some secret corporate agenda held by the Foundation Office?
Blanking articles into sub-stubs and protecting them doesn't seem
conducive to producing an excellent encyclopedia, and doing this
without explanation is not conducive to the community.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 3/24/06, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> KWH wrote:
> >
> >
> > Spot on, but I would add - Joe User /can/ have an image in /his/
> > article.
>
> By "his article" I assume you mean "article on Joe User" - if that's not
> what you meant, please see [[WP:OWN]].
When I take Article X and edit it to create my "own" version, I have
exercised my right under the GFDL to prepare a derivative work of the
previously current version of Article X (which is a derivative of the
previous ver, etc.). So yes, it's just as it is described at
[[WP:OWN#Legal ownership of text]]. I can and will put an image in it
and claim fair use. I can take that version, copy the html, and put it
on my own website. I can exercise a right to fork and write my own
version of every Wikipedia article with 10 fair use images each on my
own MediaWiki. The question is, will my version be published on
Wikipedia?
I point out this critical distinction because I hear a lot of folks
arguing from the standpoint of "you can't claim fair use on that", or
"you just can't do that". I most certainly can, but if you don't feel
it's fair use, you can redact it from your version.
[[User:Kwh]]
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Editor's guides
> Is there such a thing as editors' guides to specific areas?
>
> For example, the Trinidad and Tobago article attracts people all
> the time
> who add "new" information which is already contained in some
> subarticle.
> They don't expect the level of depth of Trinidad and Tobago
> articles that
> exist, so they just add something that's "missing", probably
> unaware of what
> exists.
I think there's a better way to frame the problem. The problem is
when people look for information in the way they expect to look for
it, under the heading where they expect to find it, they aren't
finding it.
In my daily trawl through Google News I've noticed several reports
headed "Bono targets Wikipedia entries" or similar -
http://people.monstersandcritics.com/article_1149947.php/Bono_targets_Wik
ipedia_entries
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS09/6
03240358/1001/NEWS
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_21211811.shtmlhttp://www.playfuls.com/news_000098_Bono_targets_Wikipedia_entries.html
which all basically seem to recycle a UPI wire report that Bono's Make
Poverty History campaign is editing our articles to push their agenda,
and have edited Iowa representative [[Jim Nussle]]'s entry to say
"As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Nussle and Iowa
also have an incredible opportunity to influence and save lives in
Africa and the world's poorest countries by fully funding the fight
against global AIDS and extreme poverty."
This has already been removed as POV-pushing. I've put a friendly note
on [[User talk:67.155.175.170]] to ask them to kindly not do this again,
and point out that [[WP:NOT[[ a soapbox.
Perhaps it would be an idea to put out a press release deprecating the
practice, regardless of how much we may individually support the aims of
MPH, since it only creates work for people in removing it again?
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Should any of us declare war on vandals?
Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if
shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is,
would rather have their edits last, influencing others?
Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting
vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?
Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith?
Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea.
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica. A more detailed
review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
==================================================
>> Because you're a valued Britannica customer, I'm writing to you today about
a subject that has received widespread news coverage - it is a subject
that's being taken very seriously by all of us at Encyclopædia Britannica
and one on which we have worked extensively with our editors, contributors,
and advisors for many weeks.
In one of its recent issues, the science journal Nature published an article
that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannica
with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of
knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject.
Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but
Nature's article claimed that Britannica's science coverage was only
slightly more accurate than Wikipedia's.
Arriving amid the revelations of vandalism and errors in Wikipedia, such a
finding was, not surprisingly, big news. Perhaps you even saw the story
yourself. It's been reported around the world.
Those reports were wrong, however, because Nature's research was invalid. As
our editors and scholarly advisers have discovered by reviewing the research
in depth, almost everything about the Nature's investigation was wrong and
misleading. Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not
inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not
even in the Encyclopædia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and
its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.
Since educators and librarians have been among Britannica's closest
colleagues for many years, I would like to address you personally with an
explanation of our findings and tell you the truth about the Nature study.
Almost everything Nature did showed carelessness and indifference to basic
research standards. Their numerous errors and spurious procedures included
the following:
* Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles. Several
of the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of,
or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together from
more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of
certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors
never created, approved or even saw.
* Mistakenly identifying inaccuracies. The journal claimed to have
found dozens of inaccuracies in Britannica that didn't exist.
* Reviewing the wrong texts. They reviewed a number of texts that were
not even in the encyclopedia.
* Failing to check facts. Nature falsely attributed inaccuracies to
Britannica based on statements from its reviewers that were themselves
inaccurate and which Nature's editors failed to verify.
* Misrepresenting its findings. Even according to Nature's own
figures, (which grossly exaggerated the number of inaccuracies in
Britannica) Wikipedia had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. Yet the
headline of the journal's report concealed this fact and implied something
very different.
Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original
data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's
editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they
declined.
The Nature study was thoroughly wrong and represented an unfair affront to
Britannica's reputation.
Britannica practices the kind of sound scholarship and rigorous editorial
work that few organizations even attempt. This is vital in the age of the
Internet, when there is so much inappropriate material available. Today,
having sources like Britannica is more important than ever, with content
that is reliable, tailored to the age of the user, correlated to curriculum,
and safe for everyone.
Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research,
it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and
retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.
We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough
(7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it from
our Web site at www.eb.com.
==================================================