In a message dated 11/26/2008 7:41:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
When the link between the student accounts was discovered recently, it
turned into a long thread at AN/I where a number of unfriendly things were
said about both the students and the lecturers >>
It's helpful if you give a link since this is likely to be deeply buried by
now in some archive.
I don't understand the problem with assigning editing Wikipedia to a
classroom.
Why not?
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
I made an anonymous complaint to the IWF against google last night as google.co.uk definitely hosts these images as an image search of Virgin killer makes abundant and targeting wikipedia is not fair.
I hope this helped tip the balance.
As someone committed to not having pedophile activism promoted on wikipeia I fully agree with Gerard that blocking the VK article text, which in no way advocated child porn
Thanks,
Richard Weiss
+(504) 3298 6511
What's On? Ask the TV Genius!
www.tvgenius.net
(TV Genius SA is a company registered in Honduras. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately.)
2008/11/26 Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com>:
> I don't know whether this is a reasonable place to put this problem,
> but the articles on Ireland on en.wikipedia.org need a serious look by
> people with a neutral view.
wikien-l might be a better location; I've sent this reply there.
> Right now we've got a clique of about 10
> editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming
> conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles
> themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding
> arbitration.
Having had a look at these debates once or twice before (and a similar
set involving the term "British Isles"), yeah, they're big and messy
and affect a lot of articles. A resolution would be good for everyone.
> A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move
> [[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to
> [[Ireland]], and [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]].
> That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move [[Ireland]]
> to [[Ireland (island)]], keep [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] where it
> is, and move [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland]]. If any of you
> would like to take a look, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to…
> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28islan…
A quick summary of the background, for those who (like me) have to
keep reminding themselves of the nuances:
"Ireland" is a big lump of land northwest of France. It contains two
political entities, "Ireland" (that's the formal name), an independent
nation state sometimes known as "Eire" or (mostly in the UK) "the
Republic of Ireland", and "Northern Ireland", which is a part of the
UK. Prior to the 1920s, both were one and the same political entity,
which occupied all of the geographical island; this historical period
is described under [[Kingdom of Ireland]], etc.
Currently:
[[Ireland (disambiguation)]] - disambiguation page.
[[Ireland]] - geographical entity, primary title
[[Republic of Ireland]] - political entity
Proposal #1 above:
[[Ireland]] - disambiguation page, primary title
[[Ireland (island)]] - geographical entity
[[Ireland (state)]] - political entity
Proposal #2 above:
[[Ireland (disambiguation)]] - disambiguation page.
[[Ireland (island)]] - geographical entity
[[Ireland]] - political entity, primary title
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Nice quote by the EFF:
"...the community of Wikipedia editors is if anything the more
legitimate, reliable and grown-up adjudicator of which images are
appropriate subject matter for an encyclopedia. And the block on the
editing of Wikipedia by a large portion of the English population just
highlights the dangers of deleterious unintended consequences once we
travel down the low road of Internet censorship."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/internet-censors-must-be-accountable-t…
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-censorship-iwf-r…
This is apparently the *first* IWF decision *ever* to require review.
My prediction: they've been turned to mincemeat every media interview
they've done on the subject, we've looked like stars. Everyone
despises them. They aren't standing up too well under scrutiny. So I
suspect they'll quietly unblock Wikipedia and not block again without
at least telling us first. The censorship mechanism will stay in place
- the ISPs feel they aren't free not to sign up to this "voluntary"
scheme - and probably be refined to see if they can block sites like
us again without breaking everything as they did this time.
It is possible the IWF will try to make the decision stand. In which
case, party on.
- d.
In a message dated 12/8/2008 4:48:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
If the album cover is the key feature of the picture (which it would
be, since that's the point of making the picture) then it could well
be enough.>>
--------------------
I think it would be a hard case to win to try to suppose what the "intent"
of the picture taker was.
Substantially similar means that a typical person would say, "Oh that's the
same object" in a slightly different form.
A picture of you, holding an album cover, is the same object as a picture of
the album cover. Not in my book. Me standing in front of the Taj Mahal is
not the Taj Mahal.
It would be interesting however if someone were to stand in Times Square and
sue everyone who was taking pictures of each other. Since obviously their
*intent* is to violate the copyright of the giant billboards behind them....
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/7/2008 1:35:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com writes:
On second thought, those pics would be derivative works of the cover and
hence not acceptable for Commons.>>
----------------------
A derivative work must pass the "substantially similar" bar (in the US at
least).
I don't think a picture of you in your purple spandex alligator costume
holding up an album cover, while simultaneously eating a plate of spaghetti, is
substantially similar to the album cover itself (but I may be wrong).
Which is why, for example, an index to all the words used in a book, does
not violate the copyright of the book, because an index, is not a novel.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/7/2008 2:25:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
But child porn? please. Whomever that image /arouses/ belongs on a
sex offender registry.>>
-----------------------------------
Sure when we finalize the ink on the thought police.
But until then, you actually need to commit a crime to be a sex offender :)
W.J.
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)