Unfortunately I am not online at the moment so I can't look at the
history. But I wanted to comment quickly now in case I forget later.
The version that was live on the site when I wrote my original post was
an apparent copyvio, and it was later confirmed to be a copyvio.
Anthony wants to pretend that I was talking about some other version,
but that's Anthony for you.
The image was a blatant copyvio.
--Jimbo
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a
copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from
reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with
respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them. I see no
reason to trust anything about the article at all.
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and
in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources. And any
movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the
view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting
that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the
article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the
article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for
the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that
something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or
it's not. Either you have compared it with some original text, or you
haven't. Wouldn't it be better to verify a claim that someone is acting
illegally before making it. If we are going to criticize such
unsubstantiated claims when they are made about the subject of an
article, shouldn't the same standard apply to claims about our fellow
contributors.
I would not presume to say whether the information is verifiable or
not. I do not understand Tagalog, and I do not regularly keep tabs on
what is being said in Philippine publications.. Do you?
And what really is the standard for pop culture notability? There is
an extensive article for the 9th place finisher from the most recent
''American Idol''. This was the first season of ''Philippine
Idol''.
Why wouldn't it's 9th place finisher merit the same treatment, including
the way that publicity shots are accepted? This project isn't just
about what goes on in those countries that have a high proportion of
Wikipedians. It isn't just about the sophisticated standards that have
developed over a long period of time in our key countries. It's also
about educating editors in other countries, and you don't accomplish
that with automated messages about the evils of copyvios. These
techniques that one would associate with Gringo imperialism do nothing
to draw newbies into our fraternity.
I don't see User:The Green Archer as having with a serious problem. In
the spirit of "Don't bite the newbies" someone writing him a personal
message or taking this "lad" under wing would have accomplished more in
educating a new editor. Simply welcoming with an automated message that
shows newcomers the way to "Help" and "FAQ" pages is our equivalent
to
an automated telephone message telling us to "Press 1 if ..., Press 2 if
..., Press 3 if... , ..."
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l