geni wrote:
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email)
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form
doesn't work for images.
Oh good, I'm glad we can agree on /something/.
So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that
Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures
and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free
license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images
generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core
reason behind the NOR policy."
The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose
unpublished ideas or arguments"
Right.
So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that
the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to
ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video
doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished
ideas or arguments.
Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it
is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
The point was really verifiability.
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to
stop your trolling,
I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
Granted, but it's a fine line to walk between the two.
<snip>
you'd
better remember that the lawyers will be first against the
wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming
sooner than you think.
Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think
Ah, but his revolution was on the opposite side of the political
spectrum. Ours shall be a revolution of free culture, and stuff.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP