Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive U

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

I feel frustrated

I have been editing Wikipedia since February. Soon I realized a lot of articles were about topics such as next-door neighbours and aunt's kittens. I began searching for questionable contents... In the last weeks I found that fame and popularity implying notability, which clearly is not the spirit of WP:N. I quit editting for a couple of weeks, first arguing a travel and then arguing exams (which were true). I'm not for either discussing policies or how should they be applied; what I'm asking for is a bit of emotional support... I'm sad I had to appeal here and I would like to stay active, but I will not be able if I'm convinced that editing Wikipedia is a waste of time, because nobody cares about non-popular notable facts. Thank you. Rjgodoy 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, as long as someone brings the heart to editing an article, it should eventually shine. Take The Bus Uncle, for instance. It's an internet meme last year, and was the talk of the town back then. I decided to focus on the article last month and managed to recover many long lost reports about the incident. After some grammatical improvements and the application of new images, the article was nominated for a Featured Article and succeeded. Anyway, this shows that when you really take the effort, even the most awful articles can be featured one day, so don't give up.--Kylohk 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is plenty of goofy and/or trivial activity on wikipedia. Personally I just don't worry about the existence of non-notable pages. Instead I find it motivating to work on articles about core subjects. You might find it helpful to take a look at the WP:Vital articles page and see if there are any topics that interest you. Many of those pages are in need of significant TLC. — RJH (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses =). I'll think about improving some articles and I'll try not to worry so much about trivial activities. Rjgodoy 22:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry I am not able to post on the article itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Gun_Kelly

Upon the bottom of the page is comment about George Machine Gun Kelly's brutal killings.

As far as I could determine upon researching Kelly's life, while he might have been a bad person, he had not killed in the commission of crimes (or otherwise).

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/kelly/kelly.htm http://www.alcatrazhistory.com/mgk.htm

I am not attempting to "rewrite" history, but as a degree holding historian with an interest historic crimes, and the gangster era I think that the comment is incorrect and is an attempt to make the article reflective of the commonly held beliefs about Kelly rather than the historical person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.165.159 (talk)

• Why can't you? It seems the page is not protected. Rjgodoy 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Messages

Why do people mark large additions to discussions as minor? Simply south 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Then they are using minor editors incorrectly. You arne't meant to mark major edits as minor.--Kylohk 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of X...

Surely everyone's seen an article by the name "Criticism of X...". I was just reading Criticism of Windows Vista, for instance. That got me wondering, would it be out of line to make an article called "Support of X..."? It seems only right that if we have criticism articles, we should have support articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .V. (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think both of them should be allowed, per WP:NPOV. However, I'm not sure about writing separate articles for each POV. Rjgodoy 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surely by WP:NPOV you meant to say WP:POVFORK, and by "both" you meant "neither unless it is a notable subject in its own right". --tjstrf talk 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I was thinking aloud since I didn't know about WP:POVFORK.
    • "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." (from WP:POVFORK)
    • " "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors." (from WP:POVFORK)
    • As I understand it, support arguments may be included in "Criticism..." because they are constructive criticism. Is this correct?

Rjgodoy 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• It depends on whether there really is significant criticism of the item in question, and whether they are verified. However, it is always best to have rebuttals with each criticism to sound neutral.--Kylohk 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A cautionary note here. The credibility of a rebuttal needs to be taken into account as well and sources provided so credibility can be determined. There are far too many people with pet theories of gravity and websites who would happily fill Gravity with their "rebuttals" explaining why they are the only one who actually knows what is going on, for example - BanyanTree 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Research about the self-correcting mechanism

The internet is still a fairly recent phenomenon. Whereas communities and groups enjoyed thorough research, theories and knowledge about virtual communities are relatively limited. I am busy with researching how virtual communities communicate, interact and exchange knowledge and information. Most importantly, I am interested in the relation between virtual communities and knowledge creation, especially the correcting mechanism of Wikipedia-the users.

As Wikipedia is one of the biggest and most popular virtual communities, and as it is focused on knowledge creation and knowledge exchange is it perfect to contribute to this research.

I can get lots of data and information from the site it self. But in this context, people are crucial. Crucial for understanding the motivators and visions which are necessary to have a website as successful as Wikipedia.

I am therefore looking for people who are active on Wikipedia who would find it interesting to give interviews. These interviews are necessary to complete this research successfully. Obviously you will be able to express your own opinion and illustrate Wikipedia as you see it.

Just put your name on my user page or send me a message,

thanks NeniPogarcic 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo

Dokdo - See WP:RM(May 21) poll at Talk:Dokdo#Requested Move May 2007. Candidates for a new article name are Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, Takeshima/Dokdo, and Dokdo/Takeshima. We are trying to "get as many disinterested editors as possible to express an opinion" there. 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The requested move made Front page news on Chosun Ilbo, South Korea's largest newspaper. Says something (not sure what) about the growing influence of Wikipedia. (This is not the first time that this page has made the news in Korea see Kim Tae-gyu (staff reporter on The Korea Times) "Winning Over Takeshima in Cyberspace --Philip Baird Shearer 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, but: "A couple of years ago, the usages of Takeshima overwhelmed those of Dokdo in cyberspace ... However, recent news reports and Web pages embrace the title of Dokdo more frequently. Obviously, it is an encouraging sign for us - the world is beginning to buy the Korean idea" - Doesn't that justify the article being located at Takeshima, if Dokdo is only "beginning" to be used? I have no dog in this fight, I say use Liancourt, that's the only name I know, but I was amused that a pro-Dokdo source would give pro-Takeshima folks their best ammo - acknowledging what the most common name is. --Golbez 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Creaters and user

I just want to say thank you to the creaters and users of wikipedia. This is a great site and has the usefull information I need to get things done. I wish I could make a donation, but I don't have paypal or anything. HAHA!

Thanks a bunch guys. This is helping me out with my English exam very much.

05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can make a donation in the form of useful edits to our articles. Paul Carpenter 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of RMS Titanic passengers

On the French WP we have an article Liste des passagers du Titanic. We think there is a copyvo from Encyclopedia Titanica.

I thought WP:en had such an article near RMS Titanic . Am I right or I have a dream?

Did you already meet such an issue? If yes, how did you solve it?

Regards Jpm2112 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you suspect a copyvio, then rewrite the whole thing in your own words, citing that page as a reference. Then it will be your own word with referenecs.--Kylohk 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Under US law lists of "facts" are not protected by copyright. Under US law it doesn't matter how much effort the original author put into compiling the list. A list of "facts" lacks a "creative spark". A creator can claim copyright on a list of facts — if there was something creative about how it is presented. But obvious orders, like alphabetic order, or order by date, don't count.

See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.

This seems counter-intuitive. And other nations, Australia, IIRC for one, made the other choice. Geo Swan 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Once more, for each country, a particular law. Well... Thanks for your answers. Jpm2112 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much Wikipedia

I guess someone has been using too much Wikipedia. Quoted from a current eBay listing:

This week I am listing a 1/2 year of Civil War Newspapers that are very similiar to the Harper's Weekly which I have sold in the past..They are the Illustrated London News and have many stories on the war in America along with prints from England and U.S. as well.They average 22 pages in length(Harper's have 16)...Condition is very good..These are originals!!!....This issue is excellent~~~~

Foreign and Colonial News: America. - Article - February 21, 1863 - (31 paragraphs)

Major-General J.E.B. Stuart, Commanding Cavalry of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. - illustration - February 21, 1863 - (1 paragraph)

Major-General J.E.B. Stuart, Commanding Cavalry of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

Some people will just never forget to sign, even if they are not on Wiki! Chris Buttigieg^talk 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I think that is on the Wikiholic test somewhere (if it hasn't been deleted by now). Signing four tildes in e-mails and on other fora. I've nearly done it myself a few times. Carcharoth 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the test still exists in Wikipedia for humorous purposes. But I assume that person may have scored over a 1000, judging by his behavior! Hee hee.--Kylohk 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

~~~~ (or of varying length) is also used in some blogs and online text to indicate tiredness or repetitiveness, for lack of a better word. For example, "I'm really tired now. Off to bed~~~". x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For the Army!

Hi! I just uploaded those... they are photos of the army parade in Rome held last saturday, including some shot of military and peacekeeping vehicles, units and corps from all the world (especially Italy, of course).

We need help in categorizing them, adding info about weapons snown, descriptions and so. Since en.wiki is full of weapon-lovin' redn.. has some *very nice* projects about army and weapons :-D i am calling for your help.

If you happen to have some spare time, you could take a look, at last year ones, too... --Jollyroger 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GeorgiaGuy is stalking me

User:Georgia guy for some unknown reason has started stalking me. Can you all please tell him that doing such is inappropriate. I think stalkers should immediately be blocked. Astroguy2 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Georgia Guy is also calling adding an alterative name to an article vandalism. He clearly doesn't know what vandalism means. Vandalism is adding meaningless content to an article. Alternative names are not meaningless. Astroguy2 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Might be a false assumption, but your very first 10-20 edits include a number of actions that are unusual for newbies, such as {{move|Rogue planet}}, all in rather short time (which indicates you didn't have to search very long). Add to this the fact that your edit summaries were surprisingly good for a newbie and you might understand that GeorgiaGuy got suspicious when you created an article that has just been deleted (and is unlikely to be created by a complete newbie, I might add). I apologize if this is just a misunderstanding, but even your edits to this page indicate that at least you were very familiar with the way Wikipedia works before creating an account. Malc82 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wha'ts wrong with that? Violask81976 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The question that GeorgiaGuy raised was if this could be a sockpuppet for a blocked user. Malc82 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

BetacommandBot - Can one bot that cause so much angst really be doing the right thing? Should it be allowed as much latitude as it has? --evrik ^(talk) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea, completely hated by anyone who is practically trying to expand or create new pages in wiki, defended only by hardcore wiki beaureucrats. Very pointless bot. Reaper7 18:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely. All copyrighted images used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia must have an accompanying fair use rationale (see WP:FURG) for each intended use of the image. This is established in policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #10(c) and also at m:Resolution:Licensing policy #4. Whether it causes angst is not much of a concern here; we tried it the 'lax' way for a considerable period of time. It didn't work. Now, the policy is being given some teeth in the form of this bot. Long overdue. --Durin 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether this bot's work is right or wrong, whether it is needed or not needed, there remains the essential point that large numbers of people are being upset by it. Even if there is an argument that the bot is doing a good job (which I do NOT accept, myself), there is still a legitimate argument about whether or not it is doing its work in an acceptable manner. It is clear from the bot's TalkPage that large numbers of people have not understood the objections raised by this bot, and feel that it is leaving unclear messages on their TalkPages. The bot should be stopped and reviewed. This is an example of over-zealous behaviour potentially driving editors away from our community, to the detriment of everyone - indeed there is evidence that at least one editor has already resigned over the issue. Timothy Titus 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot does a fantastic job of highlighting the practices it is operating under. Further, several people (myself included) are taking pains to educate those users who have questions regarding its operation. That a number of people disagree with the policy that images must have a fair use rationale for each use does not change the policy. --Durin 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think what's caused so much confusion is that it is pretty hard to find guidelines that tell you exactly how to write a good "fair use rationale". I found WP:FURG, WP:NONFREE and WP:LOGOS, but all of them aren't easy to interprete for someone who is happy not to be a lawyer and didn't follow every detail of the Fair-use debate on Wikipedia. The bot only complains that there is a FU-problem, but what's lacking here is easily accessible information and guidance. All the standard message says is "go to WP:NONFREE" but this page has an extremely vague instruction on how a fair use rationale should look like. Malc82 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malc82 - you make an excellent point, and you make it well. This is far more useful than the brick-wall of "we're just right" that seems to be coming from other directions. A solution to this problem is clearly needed, and brick-walls are rarely a solution to anything! Timothy Titus 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The BetacommandBot is perhaps the most hated bot in wikipedia. It should get a barnstar for that (I'm being sarcastic). What the bot is doing is obviously pissing off various editors. Add some holier-than-thou attitude as you can see in several replies (you might want to look in the talk page history as well as at the archives at User talk:Betacommand), this bot deserves a reconsideration for approval. --Melanochromis 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• All the bot is doing is enforcing policy. The policy was treated in a very laissez faire way for far too long. There's no reason to stop a bot that is acting properly, within policy. If there's particular bugs with it, fine...let's address those. But, if you want to shut down the bot you might as well turn off our fair use policy. We tried enforcing this manually for a hell of a long time. It didn't work. --Durin 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you guys have asked for instructions on how to write a fair use rational. here is how you do it. If anyone has questions just ask me.—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here! we even have a template. Its pretty simple to follow {{Non-free_media_rationale}}. :) Just put in the source, description, where its being used, put yes or no to if the image is replacable, and the purpose of the use. (in the purpose, explain why the image is needed, and in what articles are you claiming fair use in. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Eagle, since you're stepping up to the plate, will you draft a standard fair-use rationale for an album cover-art thumbnail to be included on a page discussing the album. And will you get the people running it to stop BCbot until your text is available, and BCbot can direct people to it? Jheald 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jheald, as I've stated it is not possible to make a boiler plate fair use rational. If it were we would have a template like {{album-fairuse}}. If you need help on how to write a good fair use rational on an album feel free to ask me, but I can't make a boilerplate one, as each use is different from each other. The justification of why we must use it is never the same. I could draft up something that fills in most of the details if you wish, but you will still need to provide some important information that is unique to each image. For now I'm going to leave the bot running, its not like these images are going to get deleted in 5 days... keep in mind that while it is making a backlog for us here, think of the huge image backlogs this thing will be making. There is time for you to justify your uploads, and those of other articles that you deem important. Unfortunately we have tried to do this tagging by hand for a year now, and it has amounted to nothing but a backlog, albeit one that we cannot see, because it is untagged. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We actually do have a template like {{album-fairuse}}. It's called {{Non-free album cover}}, and it could easily solve this problem once and for all. But "easy" is apparently against Wikipedia policy...  ;) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated, each fair use rational is *not* the same. If they are, they are missing something very important and that is the following: why do we have to use this particular non-free image? Do we really need to use it? Does it do anything more then decorate the page? Is there something unique about this cover that the reader needs to see in order to understand part of the article? Otherwise just find a free image from say... the concert tour, and put a picture of them playing one of the songs. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Eagle101: You keep missing the point. Every album cover is covered under the exact same fair use clause. Get it? Therefore, the "rational" for using it is the same for every uploaded album cover. Now, that is a very easy template to make. --Thorwald 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence, in what articles are you claiming fair use in -- Who is you? There's no you on Wikipedia, per WP:OWN. And in fact, it shouldn't make a different who claims fair use; something is either being fairly used, or it isn't. There are 10 whole criteria dedicated to determining whether or not something objectively is fair use. Are you suggesting that every piece of copyrighted material on Wikipedia needs a Wikipedian to sponsor it? If so, you'd better have a ton of people standing by, or have the Betacommandbot fired up to start pulling all of the copyrighted material OTHER than images, which form the basis for a ton of entries on this project. Every description of a novel, every description/depiction of a copyrighted work of art, every discussion of a song lyric, every place copyrighted material is incorporated into Wikipedia -- for all this, you want individual editors to make the claim? It's preposterous, not needed, and certainly not called for by current Wikipedia policy. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, by you I mean the uploader, or the person making the claim of fair use. I hope that clears things up. Of course we don't own any of these images, we can't. All we are doing is claiming that we may use them. We don't own the copyright, its not released under the GPL, or similar. The owener of the image is the person that made it or that has the copyright. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the properly abbreviated WP:FUC (which I actually used when I wrote my standard FUR, but never found again) reads pretty different from WP:FURG when it comes to the crucial question "How do I write a FUR (for logos in my case)?". I provided FUR's to a number of logos and think I won't have huge problems to write them myself. All I was trying to say is that you shouldn't be that surprised when people get upset, because the bot's message really isn't helpful. Links to FURG and FUC should be provided in the bot message, not only the VP.

I perfectly understand the need to comply with the laws, although I find it a bit odd that the foundation that always tells users to be bold sets far stricter limits than the law does, instead of being bold themselves. Malc82 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I really don't think wikipedia has or wants to spend the money to defend itself in court over a non-free image, especially when we can be providing correct rationales to start with. As far as the policy conflict let me read into it, and if I can't figure it out, hopefully someone who knows will be along. Also please try to keep in mind that we are striving to be a free encyclopaedia, it says so on the upper left hand corner of every wikipedia page ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I really don't think wikipedia has or wants to spend the money to defend itself in court over a non-free image, especially when we can be providing correct rationales to start with. This is an unconvincing argument for a couple of reasons. One, Wikipedia has NEVER been subject to any legal jeopardy on the basis of improper fair use of copyrighted material, because, two, Wikipeida's fair use policies are WAY more strict than the law requires. Please remember when dealing with these issues: The law is RARELY a concern for us in these types of questions, because the law permits a much wider latitude of uses! What's up for debate here is Wikipedia's own self-limiting policy, part of its continuing valuation of free content over encyclopedic content. Eagle - you know, from a practical standpoint, there can never be a libre/free version of, say, a Beatles album cover. Album covers are always going to be non-free, but we'd be perfectly protected, and morally "pure" to our principles, if we'd simply add a boilerplate fair use rationale to album covers and logos. It's hard for me to believe that all this is about legally protecting Wikipedia, since there's really no threat. The law would let us go much, much further. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the bot is not it's use - tagging images that don't have the right liscencing. That is of course a fair thing. But think about this - if the bot tags something and gives a jargon-free explanation as to why, then surely few (if any) people would complain. Perhaps a link to some templates or examples of properly tagged album covers (in the case of album covers) would be a brilliant addition. I for one saw an album image tagged as being not of fair use, and since I've seen many more like it with the same tags couldn't understand why. And the bot's reasons were impossible to decipher, it took forever to find out exactly why the bot found a problem and even longer to find a template to apply to the page. The Hurball Company 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The case for a standard rationale for album cover-art thumbnails

Eagle, the whole point about cover-art image thumbnails specifically on article pages on that particular album is that then we can produce a standard text, because there is a standard rationale that is sufficient in these cases.

• Taking the law first, it is important to note that for media cover-art the standard of justification required is different to say a detail from a copyright photograph. The difference derives from (to use the terminology of Judge Posner in Ty Inc vs Publications International before the Seventh Circuit) the complementary rather than substitutive nature of including the thumbnail in the critical or review article. The existence of a good encyclopedia article including a thumbnail image is likely to be a positive, rather than negative, factor for awareness and sales of the album. (Appropriately limited) use of elements of the work in the derived work are therefore likely to be economically complementary to the original, rather than substitutive.

The use of thumbnails itself specifically was considered by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in Perfect 10 vs Google, and accepted in the context of an appropriately transformative work. A critical or review article is something that would fall under that heading (in Google's case it was a page of search results).

So purely in terms of U.S. law, we're in the clear (as seems to be accepted at Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline#Disputed:_album_cover_advice earlier today).

• Secondly, the Foundation resolution Resolution:Licensing_policy. That resolution, at item 3, identifies as a ground for use "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". That is exactly what cover-art thumbnails do. So we're in the clear there too.
• Thirdly, Wikipedia policy, which is supposed to follow Wikipedia consensus. The crucial line would appear to be WP:FAIR#Images, "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)". I read that as saying the article must be devoted to critical commentary of the item (or the body of work). This reading appears to be supported by WP:FURG#Necessary components: "What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? ... If the image is a CD album cover, then only a very small portion is being used." It is the album which is the work in question which the fair use criteria are to be tested against, and small thumbnails of album covers pass that test. Specifically album thumbnails will always pass criteria 1 to 10 of WP:FAIR, including criterion 8: "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot". As to your point about uniqueness, well generally an album does only have one cover.

Therefore, it makes sense to have a standard piece of text, applicable to any album cover thumbnail, to express this. Jheald 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jheald, we continue to have different understandings of Wikipedia policy. There can be no such thing as boilerplate text to provide fair use rationale. If there were, I'd start selling t-shirts with copyrighted imagery tomorrow and claim it as fair use, and could readily do so under your interpretation of law (much less Wikipedia policy).
• Also, please understand that consensus is a tool on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation can and does routinely trump consensus. So does ArbCom. So do other people acting in various capacities, such as admins closing AfDs. If consensus were to lead us over a cliff, we've got the abilities to go against consensus and we should in some cases. --Durin 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address Jheald's argumentation at all. Admins should rule over an AfD-consensus? What are you talking about? Admins are usual Wikipedians who are given the tools precisely because they are assumed to be trustworthy enough not to rule over consensus in a consensus-finding process. Your view is alarming! Malc82 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've been addressing Jheald's argumentation all day long. Forgive me if I'm avoiding rehashing old material. As for alarming; ignoring consensus when it is obviously at odds with policy and purpose of Wikipedia is a good thing. If a thousand people somehow agreed the mainpage should be deleted, and nobody protested should we delete the main page? Of course not. That's an absurd case of course, but I hope you get the idea. Sometimes, consensus gets it wrong. Also note Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions. --Durin 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to jump into the middle of a-b discussion, but...if you admit that all albums pass the 10 criterions, what's the difference between saying in each one "this image does this...blah blah blah(1) this image does this...blah blah blah (2)" and going down the criterons, on EVERY single album artwork image, and doing the same thing, and having a boilerplate template? That's what i don't get in this whole controversy. If anyone can explain that, then just do. Violask81976 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: And as far as the tshirt, that isn't fair use if i rememeber correctly because you're making money off of it. Wiki makes no money off of it.

Durin, those would be T-shirts containing an encyclopaedia's worth of album reviews would they? Please. Of course there can be boilerplate text to explain a fair-use rationale, if there is a sufficient rationale that is precisely them same in every case.

But downstream mirrors could, and do, make money off of Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On your second point, why is it leading us over the cliff to accept fair-use album thumbnails? Rolling Stone magazine does exactly that in their List of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Why do you want to hobble Wikipedia not to be able to do likewise? Jheald 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• We will continue to disagree on boilerplate text. I fail to see how boilerplate text can describe how a particular image is useful to a particular article, because the boilerplate text knows nothing about the article or even the image. It's categorically incapable of addressing the fair use concerns. --Durin 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you're avoiding the question. Tell me what's the difference. Violask81976 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't a question here. The policy is clear. --Durin 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's so clear then tell me what the difference is. I'm sorry, but i'm a 16 year old who avoids any kind of research work. If you want me to do right, then please tell me what the difference is. I'm just as stubbern as you, and about 2 feet away from starting my orn music wiki that folows only US laws, not more. If it's so clear, then tell me. Violask81976 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"There can be no such thing as boilerplate text to provide fair use rationale. If there were, I'd start selling t-shirts with copyrighted imagery tomorrow and claim it as fair use, and could readily do so under your interpretation of law (much less Wikipedia policy)." - That entire statement is absurd. The analogy just doesn't make any kind of sense, I have no idea what logical processes were involved in constructing it because you continue to be quite opaque in your reasoning, but your implication seems to be that allowing simple boilerplate texts would be giving the go-ahead to blatant copyright infringement. As Malc82 mentioned your second paragraph is equally baffling. This tedious discussion could be made more bareable and productive if you (or anyone else really, I'm not picking on you) would actually bother to address individual points, rather than waving off what is a well-reasoned argument with a throwaway "We have different interpretations" comment. Yes, it is quite evident there are different interpretations, the point of the debate is to perhaps standardise those interpretations, find out what is causing the problems, and to provide clarity. --Iae 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm a bit exasperted. But, when I spend most of a day citing policies, guidelines, and even U.S. law and I'm repeatedly told those are insufficient cites, I get a little tired of trying to explain fair use law to people who insist on saying that they can use fair use images willy nilly without a concern for how those images are used. Get to the crux of the matter. We are a free encyclopedia. Fair use images are not free. Their use is strictly regulated. All of you can complain about that until the cows come home, but this IS the stance of the foundation. You want to convince me that you're right and I'm utterly wrong? Ok fine. You're right, I'm a blithering idiot (hell I'm even proud of it, see my userpage). Guess what? The foundation's stance still hasn't changed. meanwhile, Jheald inists the foundation's stance supports his position when considerable prior practice proves otherwise. So ignore me. I don't care. You still do not get to provide no fair use rationales or fair use rationales that have no inkling of how the image significantly contributes to an article. --Durin 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In a situation where an album cover art is used to illustrate an article on the album (an in no other situation) then perhaps you could provide an example where the fair use rationale for one album would need to be different for another album? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could you perhaps show me how a rationale intended for hundreds of uses could possibly explain how image:X significantly contributes to article:Y? Each case is different. If you think they are not, we might as well remove the requirement of having fair use rationales. They are utterly redundant. We claim its fair use, therefore it is. End of rationale. --Durin 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It seems to me that showing a thumbnail of the cover art adds the following info "this is what the album looks like". Now we can decide that that's significant or we could decide that it's not, and that we should remove all cover art from album articles, but I cannot for the life of me see how we could decide differently for different albums.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:X shows the album art for Article:y which is a musical album with album art. Solved. Violask81976 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem stems from the fact that images are used purely for decorative purposes, there's no reference to or discussion of the album cover at all in most articles. Some album covers will be widely discussed, there's the infamous Blind Faith album cover or the iconic Dark Side of The Moon cover, then there's covers, again, such as Dark Side of the Moon which is used on the article of every track with no justification. There's a totally incorrect mentality that album/track infoboxes need an image and that come hell or high water, an image will be found and used. Fuck policy and fuck the foundation. It's not difficult to justify why an image must be used, hell, it'll take no more than a few seconds and the same rationale can probably be used on more than one article. Nick 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right - the same rationale can probably be used on more than one article. It just so happens that the vast majority of album art is used in the same way and thus will have the same rationale. Why not use a boilerplate for this? Why force users to write identical rationales over and over again, seemingly for the sake of it? As you also correctly mention, covers like Dark Side of the Moon would need separate rationales detailing their use elsewhere. Whether album art is even required or not is beside the point in this discussion. --Iae 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. Does using an album cover for simple illustration actual fall within the boundaries of our non free image policy and can a suitable rationale be drawn up for the bulk of images, through a template or not ? Nick 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be sarcastic or mean or anything, but was there sarcasm there?Violask81976 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

@Durin: ways in which a cover art image will significantly contribute to an article are actually explicitly set out at WP:FURG#Necessary components. I assume you have actually read these policies? It actually suggests as potential significance rationales: "Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article? Is the image the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (eg, a corporate logo, DVD box art)"

@Nick: as I set out at the top, different standards apply when use of an image is complementary to a normal exploitation of it, compared to when use of the image is substitutive. Use of a cover art thumbnail in an article on an album, because it is likely to be complementary, is a different case to other use of a copyright photograph, which is likely to be substitutive. To establish transformative use in the first case, it is sufficient that the article is presenting a critical review of the album. On the other hand, to establish transformative use of the image in the latter case is a lot harder, and this latter case is when a discussion of some feature or detail of the image must be of crucial inescapable relevance to the writing of the article. The two cases are different. Jheald 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

@Durin(2): re freedom: the relevant goals here that the Foundation has expressed are to create an encyclopedia; and to encourage free content. The second aim is relevant in all sorts of cases where the Foundation rejects non-free content because it is replaceable with free content. But it is not relevant here, because you can't replace an album cover with your own newly created image. Jheald 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, check the non-free album cover template, there is a discussion to add a hardcoded fair use rationale there for all albums. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that what we actually need (and can justify) is standard per-use text, for the specific case the image is being used on the particular album page. An all-permissive per-image text isn't going to work. So I think it is probably a bad idea to pack the two concepts onto the same template. What seems to me better is two different templates, one per-image, and one per-use. Jheald 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin: Are you saying that an image of an album cover may not be used in an article about that album unless the cover itself is special in some way and the article discusses the cover itself? So you mean that most articles about albums should not show an image of the cover? --Apoc2400 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to be the underlying thrust of the deletion push; the ability to encyclopedically write about copyrighted material is really, really under assault - which is fine, and all, just different than things have been the last couple of years. And yes, if it's not obvious, I think this is the very, very wrong direction for the project. But I am just one, and the Betacommandbot is mighty...  :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that the example Betacommand himself gives of an acceptable fair use rationale, Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg, is completely generic and could be applied to the use of any album cover. Doesn't this just prove the point?

The rationale for Image:AHardDaysNightUSalbumcover.jpg seems to me equally acceptable, but is no less generic.

Wouldn't it be better to have one centrally written rationale for this kind of use, which can be lawyered, and which we can make sure covers all the bases legally, rather than a hotch-potch of half baked homebrew ones? Jheald 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this is comedy. After all that arguing about how every FUR must uniquely show that the image itself is discussed in the article and no two FURs could ever be the same, the two examples given are as generic as can be. If that's all you want, why the fuss? Just provide the boilerplate.Malc82 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. So can we have this bot stopped somehow? And make an other bot to go around a but standard rationale templates on all the obvious cases like low-res album covers that are only used on the page about that album? --Apoc2400 09:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best argument is something Jheald (and Judge Posner) said. Album cover thumbnails have a "complementary rather than substitutive nature" meaning that album cover thumbnails won't harm the copyright owners, copyright owners even might benefit from it. The law allows this kind of fair use, so why not make use of it?

The album cover page [1] of The Beatles' A Hard Days Night features a good fair use rationale. It states that "The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original." This fair use rationale is applicable to most album covers. A boilerplate is a good idea.

I believe album covers are no copyright deal, as long as wikipedia is not making money off of them and on condition that the album covers are low quality images, not suitable for piracy, and are not excessively used (only in encyclopedic album and artist articles).

Many sites (without profit motive) feature fair use album covers as a visual aid. Album covers tend to say something about an artist/a band, about their genre, their style, their vision. In general death metal album covers look very different from trance album covers, cover art is never merely "decoration". Why shouldn't wikipedia make use of album covers when it doesn't harm the copyright owners? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 12:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Public Domain images as needing fair use rationale

I wish to voice my disappoval of BetacommandBot. It tagged every page using Image:Coast guard flag.gif as lacking a fair-use rationale. The problem is the file is public domain, since it is a symbol created by the U.S. federal government. Even more of a problem is that the image is used in the Coast Guard Stub template, so over 100 articles had the fair-use rationale needed template added to the talk page. Several people have left messages on the bot and user page, but there has been no response or acknowledgement of mistake, and no effort to correct it. To me this is acting in bad faith. Especially since the bot users continue to criticize the efforts of others before correcting their own mistakes. --Pesco 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how the bot works, but it is possible the bot created a list of images (either by running through all the images in a category or a database dump), and put it in a list. Note that two days ago the image tag was fixed, after almost 2 years of bearing the wrong tag. Yes, the bot could review the license to see if it has been changed since it began processing (no idea what the bot does to get a list of images to tag), but it is not that serious (especially considering that no image would be automatically deleted, and that the image has spent 2 years with a "deleteable" tag). -- ReyBrujo 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Great point Pesco. The author of the bot should be prepared to answer each individual mistake its program creates or they should not be able to use the bot. The bot asks countless people to retrace their steps and provide rationales for "duh" images, yet the author is too lazy to address each question that comes at them regarding the tagging. Perhaps they should design a bot to give a blanket response to everyone! That would be as efficient as the current mode of conduct. Shut the bot down. (Mind meal 08:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

ReyBrujo, thanks for your comments. The template used on the image was PD-flag. So even though the template did become obsolete, it's clear the image was being claimed to be in the Public Domain. If the bot were to just make a list the user could review before changes were made, I don't think 100+ templates added to talk pages using this image would have been made. The incorrect template message was used, as well. It says the image template requires a fair use rationale to be made, but it didn't. The Bot tells thousands of editors that the devil's in the details, so after it posts a technically incorrect template it should be corrected/removed. --Pesco 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support disabling this bot

Betacommandbot left a message on my talk page about an image I uploaded, Image:National_Front.gif. This image is a replica of a political campaign poster, which makes it a clear cut example of a legitimate fair use image, and had already been noted and categorized as such. It appears in the National Front (France) article where, with an accompanying translation, it serves as an example of that party's anti-immigrant platform and demonstrates the controversial nature of that party's position, which notable and reliably sourced observers have contended is religiously biased and racist.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but recovery of legitimate and encyclopedic images such as this one can take a thousand keystrokes once they get deleted. Copyright violation is a significant and ongoing problem at this site and I support the editors who address the matter. If this bot did a good job identifying frivolous and decorative image use I would support it, but too much collateral damage is happening here. So many complaints have accumulated at Betacommand's talk page that one user actually issued a block warning.

Let's not get as heated as that, but clearly this bot needs to be taken out of service for a while and tweaked so that it doesn't damage useful and encyclopedic content. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova if you would look at the image and the warning it simply states that a fair use rational needs to be given. I also presume that the image was scanned, but there is no source as to where we got that image. I'm sure if I dug into it I could write a justifiable fair use rationale here, but it does need one. Please keep in mind that the upload tag even asks the uploader to add a rationale. Do so and everything is fine :). If you need help doing so I'm glad to help. A rationale could go something like, there are no free posters, we can't get one. (said in the tag), and perhaps for the rational say something like "this image is used in critical commentary of a political event in the article National Front (France)". You should also say what article the rational applies to. Again I'd be glad to help you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My online time is minimal right now, so I don't have the chance to check out every detail completely. I got that image from the official National Front party website, which I believe I noted when I originally uploaded it. Otherwise it would have been deleted long ago for lack of source information. Betacommandbot claimed lack of fair use copyright rationale, not lack of source, and the image has been in the article for over a year without any rational human being raising a challenge to its appropriateness. My point here is that this bot is creating useless work for established Wikipedians who act within law and policy. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I could write an essay on everything that's wrong about BetacommandBot, but quitting is just far more productive. Bye. Pete.Hurd 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict, and Pete.Hurd beat me to it.) I support banishment. The method sucks, whether or not the goal is well-intentioned. I came across this business a few weeks ago, and the fact that Wikipedia seems to sanction this was one straw/camel factor in my decision to cut down on my contributions to the project: it reinforced my perception of the degree of zealotry out there. The issue at hand is legal, and if it is important enough to address, it's important enough to do right. An action to address fair-use on a large scale should be more organized—have more of a top-down approach—than the contributions of one obsessive "student" and robot tagging a bazillion pages. Was there consensus for this bot-project, including consensus on its magnitude? The bot's user page is conveniently silent on what it really does. –Outriggr Â§ 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • This bot is simply out of control and should be shut down. Album covers? I mean really. Define a new task for your bot already. (Mind meal 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't know that I'd consider it sanctioned by Wikipedia after reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand --Powerlord 10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here I've asked BetaCommand to pause his activities until more debate takes place on these issues. It seems to me that the problem might be with the current wording of the fair use policy. A convincing case has been made that templates should be sufficient fair use rational for items like album covers; however, the current policy pages make no allowance for this. It might also be a good idea to reopen the bot approval on this issue. It was granted at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5, but with virtually no outside input. - SimonP 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After getting no response from the operator, and observing several more problematic taggings I've blocked the bot for 24 hours. - SimonP 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it mean the hell will come back in 24 hours?? It affects more than just album covers as I was saying in the other discussion. This bot cannot actually read any description or make any distinction. It is using the album cover excuse as a means to keep it running. There needs to be also some kind of bot to undo the damage that has already been done. And yes at this rate it might be asking for too much. Benjwong 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol Benjwong. My sentiments exactly. (Mind meal 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree - this bot is extremely disruptive. Many of the images have the Fair Use rational given in the licensing tag itself. License violations can be addressed through the normal process. This nit picky stuff can be address through the improvement process GA & FA. There are no easily identified examples for adding the rational for each type of image. This needs better organization to make this extremely simple for the everyday editor. Heck.. I've been here for 2 years and have read all of these policies and I'm still confused on what is needed. Morphh ^(talk) 13:47, 06 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I also support the disabling of this bot. I've already posted my concerns over this bots actions on a high level, not even talking about a specific example on the talk page, and have gotten no response for the bot's author, just other editors who quote policy to justify the bots actions. It makes me wonder what the real purpose of this bot is, it is just an playground for the bots author to see what can be done and the prove a point, or is it a genuine attempt on helping the project? Based on the (lack of) response from the author, it's been impossible for me to assume good faith. // laughing man 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two very different discussions happening on this issue. Here there is a near consensus that these edits should stop, while at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard there is a near consensus to just the opposite. There does seem to be a debate about whether current policy demands a non generic fair use rational for certain images. To me this seems to be a legitimate argument, the fair use rational at Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg has been presented as an exemplary rational for fair use of an album cover, but it still seems to be totally generic. I'm thus going to leave this bot blocked. There is a problem with fair use images, but it is not a crisis. 24 hours of discussion and debate on this issue will do no harm to the encyclopedia and could help clarify some of these issues. - SimonP 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents. I have no problem with copyright LAW. Where an identified LEGAL infringement is identified by a human user of Wikipedia, then I am 100% behind that user.

Obviously, there is a perceived problem with this indiscrimate and random bot (our friend Betacommandbot), and I personally feel that one major problem is its indiscriminate and apparently random nature.

If you give me, as an occasional Wikipedia uploader over the years, the chance to respond to ANY accusation of an invalid copyrighted upload, then I can FOR SURE answer you.

But if you give me 2-7 days only to respond, then there is no way I can guarantee a response 365-days-a-year, 24-hours-a-day - I am one of those humans who sadly has a non-Wikipedia/Internet-based life. However, since Wikipedia is (I understand) populated by human beings with a propensity to discuss any issues intelligently in lieu of idiotic knee-jerk reactions, I wouldn't imagine this could ever be a problem, and I therefore feel I am among understanding friends.

Well...

Not unless bots are introduced arbitrarily to make such apparently obvious complex and human decisions - and to make them, no less, in such totally arbitrary and unintelligent ways as regards time or context ("bot detects a bunch of text in the right place or not" appears to be the "intelligent" programming on display here).

The laughable situation seems to be this - if WP editors enter random licensing text such as "this is random licensing text to fool idiot bots", then the troublesome bot will almost certainly leave them alone.

Such is its intelligence.

Such is its value to Wikipedia.

Has it a value to Wikipedia then?

My answer would be: "absolutely not".

Note I do not dispute for one moment any "Wikipedia policies" - that is NOT the issue here.

The issue is essentially whether or not Wikipedia exists for human beings or not - this case being a particular one in point.

Apologies in advance for any perceived cynicism.

Regards and KUTGW folks.--DaveG12345 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplate fair-use being used for gallery

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the fair-use rationales used for the images in the gallery at Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde#Album singles just a boilerplate copy of the rationale used for the main fair-use album cover image in that article? Carcharoth 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why there cannot be a generic template for fair use claims

Fair use is a legal doctrine that may be used as a defence against a claim of copyright infringement. Technically speaking, until you've actually been to court and successfully invoked your claim of fair use to defend against such a suit, you're using the work illegally. In practice it's often possible to reasonably anticipate where a claim of fair use will be successful, typically by analogy with cases in which the defence has been successfully raised, and as such, the use is commonly regarded as "kosher", as it were, while still technically being illegal.

This reality raises a couple of issues. Since fair use is a defence, it's necessary to be able to explain on what basis your use falls within that defence. Since the defence applies only to particular uses of a work, you need to be able to make such an explanation for all of your uses of the work. And since claims fall into the "kosher" category by being based on solid analogies with existing cases in which the defence has been successfully raised, you need to explain the analogy you have employed, by reference to the specific fair use factors that apply to the particular work and the particular use in question.

There is no boilerplate fair use claim to be used against copyright infringement, just as there is no boilerplate claim for, say, self-defense in a murder trial, or for an estoppel claim in a breach of contract suit. Fair use claims may be very similar to each other, but that only reflects that the particular analogy being employed is strong (or at least popularly thought to be strong).

Executive summary: since fair use is a legal defence, you need to explain how it applies in every case, and this means there can be no boilerplate claims. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus should not override a legal issue, and fair use rationals cannot be templated by definition. ^(H) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If editors find themselves typing (or cut & pasting) the same text time and time again, it should be templated. It's meaning doesn't change. You think pre-printed paper documents have no legal standing, because they're not hand-written? Andy Mabbett 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can at least agree that we need fair use in rather than just fair use templates. I dislike the new FUR template and prefer the method of headers for "Fair use in XXX" gren グレン 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bainer: two things. Firstly, be aware that judge-made law (common law and precedents) is just as much a real feature of Anglo-Saxon law systems as statute laws made by Congress. Use within the established parameters of "fair use" is in no sense 'illegal'. It's only when you try to push those parameters you run the risk of a Court declaring you have gone too far. Wikipedia is not trying to push those parameters.

Secondly, more importantly, I think you are confusing the idea of putting up per-image standard fair use rationales with per-use standard fair use rationales. You're correct: per-image standard fair use rationales won't fly, because they won't take into account the context the image is being used in. But per-use standard fair use rationales may very well be possible, when particular classes of images are all being used in the same way under the same rationale. Attempts to solidify such rationales are currently underway (though not yet complete) at WP:FURG. Jheald 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian bainer wrote: Technically speaking, until you've actually been to court and successfully invoked your claim of fair use to defend against such a suit, you're using the work illegally.

For a perhaps more studied view, let's turn to copyright expert and Creative Commons creator Lawrence Lessig, who wrote: Federal Law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without the authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use” and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.

I'm not sure the fair use of a copyrighted work should be considered "illegal until invoked" -- but fair use is most certainly NOT illegal. And since all of the fair use on Wikipedia is, by design, several orders more strict that what is required by law, I'm gonna' go ahead and say what we've all known all along -- Wikipedia does not have a LEGAL problem when it comes to fair use; this is purely a philosophical problem about internal Wikipedia policies and free/libre purity.

Something to keep in mind... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia irc

Is it common practice for admins to ban those who disagree with them in irc?

<Blargh> <schiste> any media is a "plus" but should NEVER be the main source
<Blargh> <Blargh> what 
<Blargh> <Blargh> lol
<Blargh> <Blargh> what should be the main source
<Blargh> <Becca> schiste: that's piffle.
<Becca> the media is the only good source on many things.
<Blargh> what other source
<Blargh> is there
<Blargh> besides the media
<Blargh> people?
* Becca sets ban on Blargh!*@*
* Becca sets mode +s #wikipedia
* #wikipedia :Cannot send to channel
<schiste> official bio, official websites, serious magazine ect...
<Sean_William> 0.o
* Zscout370 claps
<Ryulong> ha ha oh wow
<Sean_William> That was fun.
<schiste> What the hell ?
<Sean_William> Memes are not notable. END OF STORY.

I find this highly unprofessional. I was under the impression that civil discussion was tolerated without being banned for disagreeing. --BlarghHgralb 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at meta:IRC guidelines and the meta:IRC FAQ. Based on what you posted, I would agree that the ban seems overly harsh, but the log excerpt is too brief to say anything conclusive. — Ksero 12:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should provide a little more information regarding the conversation, though it does appear kind of harsh. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not logging so I can't really give anything more but I can assure you that the general discussion was over whether memes are notable if they have media references. Apparently the op got tired of people with pesky differing viewpoints and decided to ban me. --BlarghHgralb 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, small minds and childish attitudes often get in the way of progress, at least now you're in the distinguished company of Matthew who received a total WMF Irc ban. --MichaelLinnear 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting of irc logs is not acceptable. And may violate the terms of service of the IRC channel provider. Corvus cornix 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why they don't want people posting irc logs. So the ops won't look like asses. --BlarghHgralb 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No one from Wikipedia conrtols the terms of service of the channel provider. It's their rules, not Wikipedia's. Corvus cornix 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting an new booktitle for the computer science field (or other more fitting fields):

Amos, Martyn; GENESIS MACHINES - The new science of Biocomputing (c) Martyn Amos, 2006; EDITION: Atlantic Books, London ISBN-13/CIP 978-1-84354224-7

Amos is PhD in DNA computing amd a Senior Lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University and has, with this book created an easy reader for computer history in general, diving for the most of it ito the field of DNA computing (from the Schön-Affair to nowadays).

As it retrieves a pile of journalistic and researcher utterances (bibliography, websources, press releses) it gives a broad access to this field - and by the way - even for me as a Swiss, in very understandable English.

I just wanted to inform you, as I have no access to introduce it in the article itself. For an up-to-date-wiki.

Thanks a lot and many many greetings form Zurich.

Christoph Kujawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.156.167 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2007

UK Radio task force

A new task force as part of WikiProject Radio and WikiProject Radio Stations has been started by myself. The UK Radio task force covers UK radio in general, radio shows, the UK radio industry, the radio history in the UK as well as all the stations which broadcast in the UK. What the task force will hopefully be primarily focused on is improving the main articles (including ones not currently on Wikipedia but are of great importance) for UK Radio, of which all but one are currently stubs, which isn't particularly representative of the UK's major contribution and influence to radio broadcasting. Please feel free to join and help improve UK radio station articles on Wikipedia! --tgheretford (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't a recently created article showing up on my watchlist?

I recently created an article on the MOOREHEAD CIRCLE. It is listed as being on MY WATCHLIST, yet the edits (creation and one susequent edit by some-one else) do not appear on MY WATCHLIST per se. 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like the article you created was "Moorehead Circle" (with quotes). The other editor has moved the article to Moorehead Circle (without quotes) in line with the Wikepedia Manual of Style Guidelines. If you go back to the page, and click on the watch tab at the top, it should then show up as subsequent edits are made. Hope that helps. Regards,  Lynbarn  (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on myself

In response to some concerns by some in the community raised in my recent RfA about my actions during a conflict over the Gary Weiss article, I've submitted an RfC on myself here. I welcome any comments or questions from the community in the RfC. CLA 09:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An Essay on Sockpuppets

I have recently written an essay on sockpuppetry inspired by discussion at the village pump about legitimate uses of puppets. See it at User:Cool3/Puppets. Cool3 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can always propse adding the contents of that essay into the legitimate uses of sockpuppets section on WP:SOCK. The message behind it isn't bad at all.--Kylohk 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection wikipediaondvd.com I'm curious which articles they chose and I can't find where a list of it is. SakotGrimshine 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You could ask User:BozMo who was involved with it. Rmhermen 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who has AWB…

… is it possible to remove all links to Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter, which was just deleted by an AfD? I have a Mac and thus am unable to do so myself. Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list. I'm curious why having a Mac is limiting you? —RJH (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he doesn't have IE. Adrian M. H. 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't the concern. My bad at wording the request. I have Internet Explorer, though don't need it (and am using Safari) to get What links here. I was wondering if there was some way in AWB (which is not for Macs) to remove all redlinks -- that is, currently existing wikilinks -- to the deleted article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if AWB would be necessary. From [2], there aren't that many. Talk pages, userpages etc should obviously be left alone. Redirects to it should obviously be nominated under the appropriate speedy deletion cat. Nil Einne 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind, AWB would be useful as there are quite a number of multi red links in some pages e.g. in the Harry Potter movie pages. I think I've seen someone do it before... Nil Einne 12:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I create an alternate account?

I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, but I was wondering if it would be alright if I could make an alternate account to make misc edits to my user page. In the past, editing my user page and subpages was a habit of mine and now I try to edit my user pages as little as often, even resorting to using my IP every so often as not to increase the number of edits I've made to them any higher (I've made about 950 edits to user pages, although not all were to my own). Would it be acceptable if I used an alternate account to help me make such edits? Is the number of user space edits I make even something I should worry about? // DecaimientoPoético 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but I don't see it as disruptive. Either way, I don't see anything wrong with editing your userspace - unless that is all you are editing (WP:MYSPACE). x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the only reason I'm concerned about the number of user space edits I make is because I'm an admin hopeful and I don't want people to realize that a fairly large amount of my edits comes from my user pages. // DecaimientoPoético 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you create a sockpuppet account for a legitimate use, you would be encouraged to note that fact on its user page, and even if you didn't, its use in this instance would make it quite obvious to anyone who checked. I think that you would gain little or nothing by this technique and perhaps lose out from it if it creates the perception that you want to hide the amount of user space edits. It should not matter that you have made a lot of edits to your user space; I have, too, with sub-pages for drafts and a link directory, but it should not diminish my contributions in any way. Adrian M. H. 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, why would you want to lower your user page edits? As long as the edits are legitimate, there is nothing to fear about editing. Be bold. If you must use a alternate account, its user page should state so, so people will not assume that you have something to hide.--Kylohk 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recommend editing your userpage from an IP address. When looking at Special:Recentchanges, anon edits to userpages look suspiciously like vandalism and such edits could be reverted. Same with an alternative account editing your user page. It's no problem editing your userpage with your regular account. --Aude (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Poetic Decay has a fair point that a large amount of user page edits may raise some eyebrows at RFA. But creating an alternate account to edit your user page would raise more. Edit using your regular account but make a point of not emphasizing total edit counts in your nomination. One might also just not make as many user page edits. Cheers, BanyanTree 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As an editor reviewer, I can tell you that I advise people not to edit their user page excessively. However, the real issue is not the edit count (see editcountitis) but the ratio of personal to communal edits, i.e. your sense of priorities. If you have 1,000 edits to your userpage and 9,000 edits elsewhere, that's an admirable ratio because you've spent most of your time where it helps the project. YechielMan 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Um 1000 edits to your userpage and 9000 edits elsewhere doesn't actually sound to me like an admirable ratio. Why would anyone need to edit their userpage that much? Nil Einne 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But many of those 1000 edits could be small but useful things like adding another link to a directory, or working in a sandbox, yet those 9000 edits elsewhere could be major rewrites, creations, third opinions, RFF responses, AFD comments, VP comments, editor assistance, NCH responses, GA reviews, WikiProject discussion, SD noms, recent changes patrolling..... Adrian M. H. 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that if one has 1000 userspace edits and 9000 mainspace edits, the people at RfA would focus more on the 9000 mainspace edits as opposed to the 1000 userspace edits. I don't feel it's a problem for this sort of ratio (although 1:1 might raise some problems). x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this got a lot more attention than I expected. I was planning on commenting and ending this earlier, but now I'm glad I didn't. And to answer Nil's question, I used to be addicted to editing my user page and my subpages (as I said above) but now I avoid it whenever possible. Well, I now see that making an alternate account would be rather silly and pointless, so thank you, everybody, for talking me out of it, even if not intentionally. Happy editing, everyone, and good luck to me (and every other admin hopeful out there) if and when the time for my RfA comes along! :) // DecaimientoPoético 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying 1000 to 9000 is a terrible ratio and obviously the quality of the edits matters but for me, it's definitely not something to me that is an admirable ratio and would IMHO be too much in most cases. As for the specific issue of RFAs I rarely comment on RFAs anyway and IMHO it's dumb to worry too much about about RFAs. Instead, you should just make sure that your behaviour is good and what the community expects. If you made a lot of edits to your userpage at one time, that doesn't matter. What matters is that you've learnt that wikipedia isn't a social networking site or a place to run your personal homepage. Note also that there's a difference between behaviour that is frowned upon and behaviour that many wikipedians wouldn't encourage. Editing your userpage heavily is not behaviour that I would encourage, but it's not something that is likely to penalise you much in RFAs or whatever provided it isn't way too much. So in the end what I'm saying is there's no need to heavily restrict your userspace edits. Know what userpages are for and be resonable in all aspects of wikipedia and don't worry about RFAs. Nil Einne 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

legitimacy of wikipedia?

I wrote to a DoD spokesman, to try to get to the bottom of the DoD's claims that Guantanamo captives "returned to the battlefield". Up until a couple of weeks ago DoD and Bush Presidency spokesmen, including the VPOTUS, claimed there were dozens of Guantanamo captives who "returned to the battlefield". But they had only revealed three names. And when the DoD was forced, by court order, to release the names of all the captives, the three names Cheney et al claimed weren't on the official list.

On May 14th DoD spokesmen revealed six names, in Congressional testimony, the first three who were missing from the official list, and three other guys. Only one of these six names was on the official list.

So, I wrote this DoD spokesman, pointed out to him that the names he cited were missing from the official list, and suggested the DoD update the list.

Here is his first reply:

"Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I do appreciate it. Many folks in cyberspace don't give us that chance, so I am pleased that you are making efforts to get the story right.

"I'll have to get back to you shortly with an official response.

"Best regards,"

But after looking into it, his last reply was:

"As you do not represent any legitimate media, since Wikipedia is a strictly volunteer organization which is forbidden by academic institutions to be cited as a reference for term papers, etc., I must ask you to please refer all further questions to DoD Public Inquiries."

So, how large is the fraction of academic institutions that forbid students from citing wikipedia articles in their term papers?

In his defense, he did release the ID numbers of the six captives from the thirty the DoD claims "returned to the battlefield". But, since he did it in an email, not on the DoD's web-site, it doesn't satisfy WP:VER.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that academic institutions forbid citations from WikiPedia is a bit misleading - most professors reject any encyclopedia as a source because the role of an encyclopedia is to summarize information on a topic and be a starting point for research. So all academic papers need citations to original documents. I realize that some of the academics have made the "rule" (especially high school teachers) based on the perception that Wiki articles are unreliable, and that WikiPedia needs to get the word out that it is in fact a reliable source of general information (see the recent Chicago Tribune article), but the impact of forbidding citations is overblown. The fact is that WikiPedia is the best, and often the only, internet source for important topics that are either not popular enough to make it into commercial publications, or are given cursory treatment when they do.

I've written many essays in the university, and quoted Wikipedia alot, and I don't get low marks for that. As for the legitimacy of Wikipedia, it certainly does apply to biographies. After all, anything written nasty about a person can have a negative impact on their lives. (Due to Wikipedia being a top ten site) That's why there is WP:BLP--Kylohk 15:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is definitely not an authoritative source in American universities. Anyone can edit it. This is well known within wikipedia, to the point where wikipedians have written a Wikipedia:General disclaimer to alert people to this fact. yes, it is useful, and people have used wikipedia as a media source, but that doesn't mean they should. The DoD guy is obviously giving you the runaround, but he did give you another place to ask tyour question. MPS 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I never knew American universities have this restriction, here in the UK they don't seem to care much.--Kylohk 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the amount of work and diligence put into your pages such as this, User:Geo_Swan/working/total_official_names_as_of_May_15. If it were an article, might be the one with most sources. If the DOD spokesman has looked at your userpages, they should see the diligence and be less dismissive of Wikipedia. While caution is defintely warranted in using Wikipedia as a source for school papers, it has been used as a source in numerous academic papers, books, court cases, in the press, and many other places. --Aude (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What the extreme criticisms and accolades miss

A brief comment by someone who might be considered by others as an expert in at least one field, and an advanced amateur in a few others. Critics of WikiPedia miss the point, just as supporters often do. There is no other source of free information, mediocre or stellar, available to the general public. Before WikiPedia many tried to provide compilations of scholarly articles to the general public, written by the scholars themselves. These were eventually doomed by the pressure to publish or parish in peer reviewed (subscription) publications, the human trait of procrastination, the desire to be paid for our work, elitists, popularists railing against scholars, fear of marginalization by other scholars if work was included in populist forums, fear of loss of control, copyright laws in general, vandals, etc. Admittedly, these same considerations of human nature plague contributions to WikiPedias.

Nonetheless, WikiPedia represents a source where the wild west of the internet may not be tamed, but it is open to public view and "correction" by a dedicated group of people who are willing to abandon personal gain for the good of humankind. If scholars were willing to do the same all books would be freely available on the net and we would have an Encyclopedia Britannica for the masses, but they simply are not. In most cases scholarly materials are not available without fees ranging from $5 to $75+ per article.

Those who criticise WikiPedia as lacking in substance miss the point. They are the ones who created the need for WikiPedia by their refusal to timely contribute to earlier efforts. WikiPedia is imperfect, to say the least, yet it is the only source of "reviewed" information available to the general public. The choice is not between an Encyclopedia Britannica or WikiPedia. Were it not for WikiPedia, the choice would be between subscription journals and a free for all conglomeration of websites, each with an agenda on their particular topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PSSnyder (talk • contribs)

Good point. ssepp^(talk) 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point; the realization of Wikipedia's intended place in the world often gets lost in the hype or criticism. It still remains a work in progress. Gracenotes^T § 06:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That "work in progress" comment doesn't really work any more, now that our articles dominate most Google searches. (with great power comes great responsibility, etc.) It would be like building a stretch of interstate highway and leaving parts missing, but opening it to traffic anyway and saying "well, the road's a work in progress" - DavidWBrooks 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This always seemed to me to be a backwards argument - "others think that you are better than you know you are, so the onus of responsibility is on you to pretend that the flaws you know exist don't exist". A more balanced response would ask either that Wikipedia not be valued so highly or that readers learn more about Wikipedia so they can more accurately assess its value,which actually seem to be happening. Wikipedia:About continues to state, "Wikipedia is an ongoing work", which is precisely as it should be since I don't foresee anyone creating a template stating "Everything that is known and that will be known is already handled so we're locking this article and throwing away the key." - BanyanTree 07:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that "others" think we're better than we are - it's that we go out of our way to give that impression. We're the "free encyclopedia" rather than the "free volunteer-created collection of stuff people know or have heard about"; and we've done a lot to make the articles look professional and reliable. (Bullshit in an infobox carries a lot more weight than bullshit in a badly-written sentence.)

I sometimes think we should have a template atop every article saying Anybody could have altered this article in any way at any time - don't trust it without double-checking. THEN we could say "don't blame us if it's wrong." - DavidWBrooks 12:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy culture

I think we have developed a culture where "good" wikipedians do not edit controversial articles. Several processes such as RFA discourages controversy involvement.

I have been trying to gather community attention to a number of somewhat controversial issues for a few months now. Practically everyone declined to get involved even if they commented that they agreed/disagreed with me.

What do you guys/gals think about this?

-- Cat ^chi? 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm a "good" wikipedian, but I do avoid controversial articles like the plague. Any changes I make to those pages seem to last for an interval measured in seconds. I'd rather spend time working on safer subjects where useful additions tend to stick around longer. (E.g. many dry scientific articles.) — RJH (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I like a quiet life, to be honest. I only go near controversial articles when responding to 3O and RFF requests, in which an outside opinion is actively sought (and usually respected as well). The bulk of my mainspace work involves safe and uncontroversial subjects with low-traffic articles that relate to my areas of interest. That's another factor; whether I am actually interested in the subject. Adrian M. H. 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and IMHO this approach leaves controversial articles, topics and etc unattended. Controversial articles need ten times the attention as non-controversial/boring/uneventful articles. -- Cat ^chi? 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed out one of many weakness is a program run entirely by volunteers - nobody ever wants to do the unpleasant stuff. That's why people get paid to do so many things in life. - DavidWBrooks 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In a typical life cycle of a controversial article, there are often content disputes that go out of hand, with edit wars and all that. I've seen the Joseph Stalin article being the subject of a dispute that one side was blocked by ArbCom. Hence in the end, one side often suffers in controversial articles. And hence many people steer away from them.--Kylohk 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is people involved in the controversies using Wikipedia to try to influence public opinion. I don't know if anything can be done, however. Steve Dufour 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I usually find that a PoV template is sufficient in those case. When I see that I'm forewarned that the article may be biased and read accordingly. (But I only try to address it if the topic is obscure.) — RJH (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame, because the controversial articles are the ones where the best editors' skills are sorely needed. The talk pages to the Islam articles are a nightmare to wade through with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the Scientology articles are routinely dominated by the same ten edit-warring people over and over again (including myself). Some fresh voices and new blood are needed. wikipediatrix 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say the problem is unsolvable until stable versions of articles get implemented. This should, hopefully, avoid endless wars which cause "good" editors to stay away from controversial topics. I remember that stable versions feature has been promised to be ready this year, year ago and two years ago as well. Pavel Vozenilek 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GeorgiaGuy is stalking me

User:Georgia guy for some unknown reason has started stalking me. Can you all please tell him that doing such is inappropriate. I think stalkers should immediately be blocked. Astroguy2 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Georgia Guy is also calling adding an alterative name to an article vandalism. He clearly doesn't know what vandalism means. Vandalism is adding meaningless content to an article. Alternative names are not meaningless. Astroguy2 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Might be a false assumption, but your very first 10-20 edits include a number of actions that are unusual for newbies, such as {{move|Rogue planet}}, all in rather short time (which indicates you didn't have to search very long). Add to this the fact that your edit summaries were surprisingly good for a newbie and you might understand that GeorgiaGuy got suspicious when you created an article that has just been deleted (and is unlikely to be created by a complete newbie, I might add). I apologize if this is just a misunderstanding, but even your edits to this page indicate that at least you were very familiar with the way Wikipedia works before creating an account. Malc82 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wha'ts wrong with that? Violask81976 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The question that GeorgiaGuy raised was if this could be a sockpuppet for a blocked user. Malc82 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article

I've been wanting to make an article on peter answers but the thing says it's protected, so someones making the article, but its been worked on for like, 1 - 1½ months, and the subject isn't all that hard to discribe or write down, it shoudn't be this long for the article to be made, can't something be done?

no signiture given ♣

if its locked, then its because it cant be made, probably because of past spam, not that its being made.Violask81976 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Peter Answers and peter answers have been listed at Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007, preventing creation. Both were deleted multiple times for failing the speedy deletion criteria. - BanyanTree 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Astroguy2

A new user, User:Astroguy2, created a Billion pool so quickly. Please watch over all of this user's edits and check to see if this user is a sockpuppet of an already-blocked Wikipedian. Georgia guy 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be saying that he doesn't know who created the billion pool just over a year ago. He must be lying. Please write on his talk page some info; and please do not let the discussion stay between him and me. Georgia guy 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree that he doesn't seem to be a new user, his contribs are much to clean for a newbie. Malc82 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't know who created it before because I don't know. Georgia Guy for some reason thinks that everyone who says they don't know something is a liar. People who think that are plain stupid. Georgia Guy needs to quit stalking me.

Wikipedia irc

Is it common practice for admins to ban those who disagree with them in irc?

<Blargh> <schiste> any media is a "plus" but should NEVER be the main source
<Blargh> <Blargh> what 
<Blargh> <Blargh> lol
<Blargh> <Blargh> what should be the main source
<Blargh> <Becca> schiste: that's piffle.
<Becca> the media is the only good source on many things.
<Blargh> what other source
<Blargh> is there
<Blargh> besides the media
<Blargh> people?
* Becca sets ban on Blargh!*@*
* Becca sets mode +s #wikipedia
* #wikipedia :Cannot send to channel
<schiste> official bio, official websites, serious magazine ect...
<Sean_William> 0.o
* Zscout370 claps
<Ryulong> ha ha oh wow
<Sean_William> That was fun.
<schiste> What the hell ?
<Sean_William> Memes are not notable. END OF STORY.

I find this highly unprofessional. I was under the impression that civil discussion was tolerated without being banned for disagreeing. --BlarghHgralb 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at meta:IRC guidelines and the meta:IRC FAQ. Based on what you posted, I would agree that the ban seems overly harsh, but the log excerpt is too brief to say anything conclusive. — Ksero 12:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should provide a little more information regarding the conversation, though it does appear kind of harsh. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not logging so I can't really give anything more but I can assure you that the general discussion was over whether memes are notable if they have media references. Apparently the op got tired of people with pesky differing viewpoints and decided to ban me. --BlarghHgralb 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, small minds and childish attitudes often get in the way of progress, at least now you're in the distinguished company of Matthew who received a total WMF Irc ban. --MichaelLinnear 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting of irc logs is not acceptable. And may violate the terms of service of the IRC channel provider. Corvus cornix 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why they don't want people posting irc logs. So the ops won't look like asses. --BlarghHgralb 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No one from Wikipedia conrtols the terms of service of the channel provider. It's their rules, not Wikipedia's. Corvus cornix 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting an new booktitle for the computer science field (or other more fitting fields):

Amos, Martyn; GENESIS MACHINES - The new science of Biocomputing (c) Martyn Amos, 2006; EDITION: Atlantic Books, London ISBN-13/CIP 978-1-84354224-7

Amos is PhD in DNA computing amd a Senior Lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University and has, with this book created an easy reader for computer history in general, diving for the most of it ito the field of DNA computing (from the Schön-Affair to nowadays).

As it retrieves a pile of journalistic and researcher utterances (bibliography, websources, press releses) it gives a broad access to this field - and by the way - even for me as a Swiss, in very understandable English.

I just wanted to inform you, as I have no access to introduce it in the article itself. For an up-to-date-wiki.

Thanks a lot and many many greetings form Zurich.

Christoph Kujawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.156.167 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2007

Snakes

Are there snakes in alaska?

Apparently, yes – Garter Snakes are known in Southern Alaska – [3]

And don’t forget the Burmese Pythons – not in Alaska, but they are quite common in Florida these days, according to something I caught on Discovery Channel (UK) over the weekend!

Regards, Lynbarn 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is the best place for questions that do not relate to Wikipedia. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Universal wiki edit button

There is a movement in the wiki community to create a universal edit button -- an icon which will tell the user that they are looking at a wiki, in much the same way as the RSS icon identifies pages with RSS feeds. But they need more proposals, and more comments from Wikipedians. Visit www.aboutus.org/UniversalWikiEditButton to have your say. -- Tim Starling 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

is it just me...

or does there seem to be a large recent influx of new users to Wikipedia? In May/early June I have welcomed at least 2-3 new users a day, and normally I only do so once every week at most. I'm not a Welcome committee member, so I am only doing this when I see new users editing pages on my watchlist. What gives? Is it kids getting out of school? Does this happen every June? VanTucky 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe somebody in your area of interest is recruiting like-minded people. Dcoetzee 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) question, but yes as more kids get out of school, more new users popup. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For the Army!

Hi! I just uploaded those... they are photos of the army parade in Rome held last saturday, including some shot of military and peacekeeping vehicles, units and corps from all the world (especially Italy, of course).

We need help in categorizing them, adding info about weapons snown, descriptions and so. Since en.wiki is full of weapon-lovin' redn.. has some *very nice* projects about army and weapons :-D i am calling for your help.

If you happen to have some spare time, you could take a look, at last year ones, too... --Jollyroger 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Geographic names: Consistent policy?

Very amused, I read Lamest edit wars, but the decision of some of these edit wars made me think... Gdańsk and Bolzano are named after their current, politically established names, while Kiev and Istanbul after their internationally best known names. Wouldn't a consistent policy help? --KnightMove 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's even more complicated, because some locations such as Bolzano/Bozen have two "current, politically established names". On the other hand this isn't so much of a problem, because it can easily be solved by redirects. Malc82 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP message

Hey, The anon IP message:

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address.

Has links to dnsstuff.com. If possible links should be to another better site (not saying dnsstuff is bad) because dnsstuff has limited lookups, and some serious vandal-fighters etc need to be able to make more than 2 lookups a day (or something like that). I thought I would get more discussion on this, as well as the fact I do not know where this message is (I assume in the MediaWiki namespace, or some template). Thanks, Matt - TheFearow 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The lookup throttle can be avoided by registering an account, which is free. Sean William @ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous shoddy practice at WP:FAIR

At 01:49, 7 June 2007 the page WP:FAIR was edited to add the following text:

Examples of unacceptable use

• A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover [sic] used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not justify this by reference to attributes of the cover art. The mere fact that a picture has been placed on the cover of an album to sell it is not enough.

At 01:50, 7 June 2007 another user protected the page.

The text, in precisely these terms, had been the subject of dispute and analysis at Critical commentary on album covers on the talk page for WP:FAIR since 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC), as both users were well aware, with no sign of consensus as yet.

Whether or not this is a correct, necessary and desired interpretation of current policy goes to the heart of the discussion on this page at BetacommandBot above, and the parallel discussion at WP:AN, now subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG.

It is shoddy beyond measure for a tag team to try to unilaterally close down the issue in this way. Jheald 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users on their final warning

I've been thinking about how best to track vandals, and one good way would be to create a Category:Users on their final warning, and add it to the level 4 user warning templates, as well as the level 4im ones. Then users/admins could monitor ths category, and find users who have received their final warnings, and monitor contributions/etc. Not sure if this has been suggested before, but it would be incredibly usefull to newpage and rc patrollers as well as administrators and people monitoring troublesome users.

Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Many IPs have multiple final warnings because they are shared. The category woud quickly fill with these. In practice it is far more productive to monitor vandalism (so that it can be reverted) than monitor the vandals. In the short term of course a vandal with a level 4 warning is usually closely watched for a short while after the warning is given anyway. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Too much Wikipedia

I guess someone has been using too much Wikipedia. Quoted from a current eBay listing:

This week I am listing a 1/2 year of Civil War Newspapers that are very similiar to the Harper's Weekly which I have sold in the past..They are the Illustrated London News and have many stories on the war in America along with prints from England and U.S. as well.They average 22 pages in length(Harper's have 16)...Condition is very good..These are originals!!!....This issue is excellent~~~~

Foreign and Colonial News: America. - Article - February 21, 1863 - (31 paragraphs)

Major-General J.E.B. Stuart, Commanding Cavalry of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. - illustration - February 21, 1863 - (1 paragraph)

Major-General J.E.B. Stuart, Commanding Cavalry of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

Some people will just never forget to sign, even if they are not on Wiki! Chris Buttigieg^talk 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I think that is on the Wikiholic test somewhere (if it hasn't been deleted by now). Signing four tildes in e-mails and on other fora. I've nearly done it myself a few times. Carcharoth 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the test still exists in Wikipedia for humorous purposes. But I assume that person may have scored over a 1000, judging by his behavior! Hee hee.--Kylohk 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

~~~~ (or of varying length) is also used in some blogs and online text to indicate tiredness or repetitiveness, for lack of a better word. For example, "I'm really tired now. Off to bed~~~". x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us publicly recognize the genius of others

ORGCHART!!! why didn't wikimedia think of this first?

http://orgchart.forbes.com/ 82.108.170.101 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the idea is ridiculous! Co-operation like that -It will never catch on! --Aspro 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it did catch on, anon IPs and SPAs would spam the charts with Limecat as CEO of Google and Everywhere Girl as Head of R&D for Apple etc...

Yeah... they will need to restrict this to login.--Isotope23 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So I took the initiative and went in and made Limecat CEO of Google. I tried to make Darth Vader CEO of Apple and give Everywhere Girl the SVP of Industrial Design post at Apple but for some reason, the Apple changes didn't seem to save, whereas Limecat seemed to save okay.

Is this not what Marx said would happen?

Loo kat this place now. wikipedia's at war-with itself. The proletarians are fighting the bourgeoisie, only this time the proletarians are not outnumbered. Wiki will become communist, I tell ya.

So you know, I am no knowledgable Marxist, I only know what I learned in High-School AP World History. Violask81976 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree to some extent about being at war with itself. There are hot debates going on about WP:BLP and WP:FUR, and certain users have unilaterally made changes using their own intepretation.--Kylohk 11:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A hot debate is nothing like a war. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you know that Wikipedia is Communism? YechielMan 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but this isn't just a hot debate. the village pump, User talk:Betacommandbot, WP:FUC, WP:FURG, WP:FUR, WP:BLP. That's more then just a hot debate. Violask81976 18:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder what happend to the "Hammer and Sickle Vandal"?--Kylohk 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

BetacommandBot - Can one bot that cause so much angst really be doing the right thing? Should it be allowed as much latitude as it has? --evrik ^(talk) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea, completely hated by anyone who is practically trying to expand or create new pages in wiki, defended only by hardcore wiki beaureucrats. Very pointless bot. Reaper7 18:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely. All copyrighted images used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia must have an accompanying fair use rationale (see WP:FURG) for each intended use of the image. This is established in policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #10(c) and also at m:Resolution:Licensing policy #4. Whether it causes angst is not much of a concern here; we tried it the 'lax' way for a considerable period of time. It didn't work. Now, the policy is being given some teeth in the form of this bot. Long overdue. --Durin 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether this bot's work is right or wrong, whether it is needed or not needed, there remains the essential point that large numbers of people are being upset by it. Even if there is an argument that the bot is doing a good job (which I do NOT accept, myself), there is still a legitimate argument about whether or not it is doing its work in an acceptable manner. It is clear from the bot's TalkPage that large numbers of people have not understood the objections raised by this bot, and feel that it is leaving unclear messages on their TalkPages. The bot should be stopped and reviewed. This is an example of over-zealous behaviour potentially driving editors away from our community, to the detriment of everyone - indeed there is evidence that at least one editor has already resigned over the issue. Timothy Titus 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot does a fantastic job of highlighting the practices it is operating under. Further, several people (myself included) are taking pains to educate those users who have questions regarding its operation. That a number of people disagree with the policy that images must have a fair use rationale for each use does not change the policy. --Durin 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think what's caused so much confusion is that it is pretty hard to find guidelines that tell you exactly how to write a good "fair use rationale". I found WP:FURG, WP:NONFREE and WP:LOGOS, but all of them aren't easy to interprete for someone who is happy not to be a lawyer and didn't follow every detail of the Fair-use debate on Wikipedia. The bot only complains that there is a FU-problem, but what's lacking here is easily accessible information and guidance. All the standard message says is "go to WP:NONFREE" but this page has an extremely vague instruction on how a fair use rationale should look like. Malc82 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malc82 - you make an excellent point, and you make it well. This is far more useful than the brick-wall of "we're just right" that seems to be coming from other directions. A solution to this problem is clearly needed, and brick-walls are rarely a solution to anything! Timothy Titus 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The BetacommandBot is perhaps the most hated bot in wikipedia. It should get a barnstar for that (I'm being sarcastic). What the bot is doing is obviously pissing off various editors. Add some holier-than-thou attitude as you can see in several replies (you might want to look in the talk page history as well as at the archives at User talk:Betacommand), this bot deserves a reconsideration for approval. --Melanochromis 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• All the bot is doing is enforcing policy. The policy was treated in a very laissez faire way for far too long. There's no reason to stop a bot that is acting properly, within policy. If there's particular bugs with it, fine...let's address those. But, if you want to shut down the bot you might as well turn off our fair use policy. We tried enforcing this manually for a hell of a long time. It didn't work. --Durin 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you guys have asked for instructions on how to write a fair use rational. here is how you do it. If anyone has questions just ask me.—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here! we even have a template. Its pretty simple to follow {{Non-free_media_rationale}}. :) Just put in the source, description, where its being used, put yes or no to if the image is replacable, and the purpose of the use. (in the purpose, explain why the image is needed, and in what articles are you claiming fair use in. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Eagle, since you're stepping up to the plate, will you draft a standard fair-use rationale for an album cover-art thumbnail to be included on a page discussing the album. And will you get the people running it to stop BCbot until your text is available, and BCbot can direct people to it? Jheald 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jheald, as I've stated it is not possible to make a boiler plate fair use rational. If it were we would have a template like {{album-fairuse}}. If you need help on how to write a good fair use rational on an album feel free to ask me, but I can't make a boilerplate one, as each use is different from each other. The justification of why we must use it is never the same. I could draft up something that fills in most of the details if you wish, but you will still need to provide some important information that is unique to each image. For now I'm going to leave the bot running, its not like these images are going to get deleted in 5 days... keep in mind that while it is making a backlog for us here, think of the huge image backlogs this thing will be making. There is time for you to justify your uploads, and those of other articles that you deem important. Unfortunately we have tried to do this tagging by hand for a year now, and it has amounted to nothing but a backlog, albeit one that we cannot see, because it is untagged. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We actually do have a template like {{album-fairuse}}. It's called {{Non-free album cover}}, and it could easily solve this problem once and for all. But "easy" is apparently against Wikipedia policy...  ;) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated, each fair use rational is *not* the same. If they are, they are missing something very important and that is the following: why do we have to use this particular non-free image? Do we really need to use it? Does it do anything more then decorate the page? Is there something unique about this cover that the reader needs to see in order to understand part of the article? Otherwise just find a free image from say... the concert tour, and put a picture of them playing one of the songs. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Eagle101: You keep missing the point. Every album cover is covered under the exact same fair use clause. Get it? Therefore, the "rational" for using it is the same for every uploaded album cover. Now, that is a very easy template to make. --Thorwald 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence, in what articles are you claiming fair use in -- Who is you? There's no you on Wikipedia, per WP:OWN. And in fact, it shouldn't make a different who claims fair use; something is either being fairly used, or it isn't. There are 10 whole criteria dedicated to determining whether or not something objectively is fair use. Are you suggesting that every piece of copyrighted material on Wikipedia needs a Wikipedian to sponsor it? If so, you'd better have a ton of people standing by, or have the Betacommandbot fired up to start pulling all of the copyrighted material OTHER than images, which form the basis for a ton of entries on this project. Every description of a novel, every description/depiction of a copyrighted work of art, every discussion of a song lyric, every place copyrighted material is incorporated into Wikipedia -- for all this, you want individual editors to make the claim? It's preposterous, not needed, and certainly not called for by current Wikipedia policy. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, by you I mean the uploader, or the person making the claim of fair use. I hope that clears things up. Of course we don't own any of these images, we can't. All we are doing is claiming that we may use them. We don't own the copyright, its not released under the GPL, or similar. The owener of the image is the person that made it or that has the copyright. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the properly abbreviated WP:FUC (which I actually used when I wrote my standard FUR, but never found again) reads pretty different from WP:FURG when it comes to the crucial question "How do I write a FUR (for logos in my case)?". I provided FUR's to a number of logos and think I won't have huge problems to write them myself. All I was trying to say is that you shouldn't be that surprised when people get upset, because the bot's message really isn't helpful. Links to FURG and FUC should be provided in the bot message, not only the VP.

I perfectly understand the need to comply with the laws, although I find it a bit odd that the foundation that always tells users to be bold sets far stricter limits than the law does, instead of being bold themselves. Malc82 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I really don't think wikipedia has or wants to spend the money to defend itself in court over a non-free image, especially when we can be providing correct rationales to start with. As far as the policy conflict let me read into it, and if I can't figure it out, hopefully someone who knows will be along. Also please try to keep in mind that we are striving to be a free encyclopaedia, it says so on the upper left hand corner of every wikipedia page ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I really don't think wikipedia has or wants to spend the money to defend itself in court over a non-free image, especially when we can be providing correct rationales to start with. This is an unconvincing argument for a couple of reasons. One, Wikipedia has NEVER been subject to any legal jeopardy on the basis of improper fair use of copyrighted material, because, two, Wikipeida's fair use policies are WAY more strict than the law requires. Please remember when dealing with these issues: The law is RARELY a concern for us in these types of questions, because the law permits a much wider latitude of uses! What's up for debate here is Wikipedia's own self-limiting policy, part of its continuing valuation of free content over encyclopedic content. Eagle - you know, from a practical standpoint, there can never be a libre/free version of, say, a Beatles album cover. Album covers are always going to be non-free, but we'd be perfectly protected, and morally "pure" to our principles, if we'd simply add a boilerplate fair use rationale to album covers and logos. It's hard for me to believe that all this is about legally protecting Wikipedia, since there's really no threat. The law would let us go much, much further. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the bot is not it's use - tagging images that don't have the right liscencing. That is of course a fair thing. But think about this - if the bot tags something and gives a jargon-free explanation as to why, then surely few (if any) people would complain. Perhaps a link to some templates or examples of properly tagged album covers (in the case of album covers) would be a brilliant addition. I for one saw an album image tagged as being not of fair use, and since I've seen many more like it with the same tags couldn't understand why. And the bot's reasons were impossible to decipher, it took forever to find out exactly why the bot found a problem and even longer to find a template to apply to the page. The Hurball Company 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The case for a standard rationale for album cover-art thumbnails

Eagle, the whole point about cover-art image thumbnails specifically on article pages on that particular album is that then we can produce a standard text, because there is a standard rationale that is sufficient in these cases.

• Taking the law first, it is important to note that for media cover-art the standard of justification required is different to say a detail from a copyright photograph. The difference derives from (to use the terminology of Judge Posner in Ty Inc vs Publications International before the Seventh Circuit) the complementary rather than substitutive nature of including the thumbnail in the critical or review article. The existence of a good encyclopedia article including a thumbnail image is likely to be a positive, rather than negative, factor for awareness and sales of the album. (Appropriately limited) use of elements of the work in the derived work are therefore likely to be economically complementary to the original, rather than substitutive.

The use of thumbnails itself specifically was considered by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in Perfect 10 vs Google, and accepted in the context of an appropriately transformative work. A critical or review article is something that would fall under that heading (in Google's case it was a page of search results).

So purely in terms of U.S. law, we're in the clear (as seems to be accepted at Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline#Disputed:_album_cover_advice earlier today).

• Secondly, the Foundation resolution Resolution:Licensing_policy. That resolution, at item 3, identifies as a ground for use "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". That is exactly what cover-art thumbnails do. So we're in the clear there too.
• Thirdly, Wikipedia policy, which is supposed to follow Wikipedia consensus. The crucial line would appear to be WP:FAIR#Images, "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)". I read that as saying the article must be devoted to critical commentary of the item (or the body of work). This reading appears to be supported by WP:FURG#Necessary components: "What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? ... If the image is a CD album cover, then only a very small portion is being used." It is the album which is the work in question which the fair use criteria are to be tested against, and small thumbnails of album covers pass that test. Specifically album thumbnails will always pass criteria 1 to 10 of WP:FAIR, including criterion 8: "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot". As to your point about uniqueness, well generally an album does only have one cover.

Therefore, it makes sense to have a standard piece of text, applicable to any album cover thumbnail, to express this. Jheald 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jheald, we continue to have different understandings of Wikipedia policy. There can be no such thing as boilerplate text to provide fair use rationale. If there were, I'd start selling t-shirts with copyrighted imagery tomorrow and claim it as fair use, and could readily do so under your interpretation of law (much less Wikipedia policy).
• Also, please understand that consensus is a tool on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation can and does routinely trump consensus. So does ArbCom. So do other people acting in various capacities, such as admins closing AfDs. If consensus were to lead us over a cliff, we've got the abilities to go against consensus and we should in some cases. --Durin 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address Jheald's argumentation at all. Admins should rule over an AfD-consensus? What are you talking about? Admins are usual Wikipedians who are given the tools precisely because they are assumed to be trustworthy enough not to rule over consensus in a consensus-finding process. Your view is alarming! Malc82 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've been addressing Jheald's argumentation all day long. Forgive me if I'm avoiding rehashing old material. As for alarming; ignoring consensus when it is obviously at odds with policy and purpose of Wikipedia is a good thing. If a thousand people somehow agreed the mainpage should be deleted, and nobody protested should we delete the main page? Of course not. That's an absurd case of course, but I hope you get the idea. Sometimes, consensus gets it wrong. Also note Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions. --Durin 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to jump into the middle of a-b discussion, but...if you admit that all albums pass the 10 criterions, what's the difference between saying in each one "this image does this...blah blah blah(1) this image does this...blah blah blah (2)" and going down the criterons, on EVERY single album artwork image, and doing the same thing, and having a boilerplate template? That's what i don't get in this whole controversy. If anyone can explain that, then just do. Violask81976 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: And as far as the tshirt, that isn't fair use if i rememeber correctly because you're making money off of it. Wiki makes no money off of it.

Durin, those would be T-shirts containing an encyclopaedia's worth of album reviews would they? Please. Of course there can be boilerplate text to explain a fair-use rationale, if there is a sufficient rationale that is precisely them same in every case.

But downstream mirrors could, and do, make money off of Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On your second point, why is it leading us over the cliff to accept fair-use album thumbnails? Rolling Stone magazine does exactly that in their List of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Why do you want to hobble Wikipedia not to be able to do likewise? Jheald 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• We will continue to disagree on boilerplate text. I fail to see how boilerplate text can describe how a particular image is useful to a particular article, because the boilerplate text knows nothing about the article or even the image. It's categorically incapable of addressing the fair use concerns. --Durin 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you're avoiding the question. Tell me what's the difference. Violask81976 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't a question here. The policy is clear. --Durin 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's so clear then tell me what the difference is. I'm sorry, but i'm a 16 year old who avoids any kind of research work. If you want me to do right, then please tell me what the difference is. I'm just as stubbern as you, and about 2 feet away from starting my orn music wiki that folows only US laws, not more. If it's so clear, then tell me. Violask81976 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"There can be no such thing as boilerplate text to provide fair use rationale. If there were, I'd start selling t-shirts with copyrighted imagery tomorrow and claim it as fair use, and could readily do so under your interpretation of law (much less Wikipedia policy)." - That entire statement is absurd. The analogy just doesn't make any kind of sense, I have no idea what logical processes were involved in constructing it because you continue to be quite opaque in your reasoning, but your implication seems to be that allowing simple boilerplate texts would be giving the go-ahead to blatant copyright infringement. As Malc82 mentioned your second paragraph is equally baffling. This tedious discussion could be made more bareable and productive if you (or anyone else really, I'm not picking on you) would actually bother to address individual points, rather than waving off what is a well-reasoned argument with a throwaway "We have different interpretations" comment. Yes, it is quite evident there are different interpretations, the point of the debate is to perhaps standardise those interpretations, find out what is causing the problems, and to provide clarity. --Iae 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm a bit exasperted. But, when I spend most of a day citing policies, guidelines, and even U.S. law and I'm repeatedly told those are insufficient cites, I get a little tired of trying to explain fair use law to people who insist on saying that they can use fair use images willy nilly without a concern for how those images are used. Get to the crux of the matter. We are a free encyclopedia. Fair use images are not free. Their use is strictly regulated. All of you can complain about that until the cows come home, but this IS the stance of the foundation. You want to convince me that you're right and I'm utterly wrong? Ok fine. You're right, I'm a blithering idiot (hell I'm even proud of it, see my userpage). Guess what? The foundation's stance still hasn't changed. meanwhile, Jheald inists the foundation's stance supports his position when considerable prior practice proves otherwise. So ignore me. I don't care. You still do not get to provide no fair use rationales or fair use rationales that have no inkling of how the image significantly contributes to an article. --Durin 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In a situation where an album cover art is used to illustrate an article on the album (an in no other situation) then perhaps you could provide an example where the fair use rationale for one album would need to be different for another album? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could you perhaps show me how a rationale intended for hundreds of uses could possibly explain how image:X significantly contributes to article:Y? Each case is different. If you think they are not, we might as well remove the requirement of having fair use rationales. They are utterly redundant. We claim its fair use, therefore it is. End of rationale. --Durin 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It seems to me that showing a thumbnail of the cover art adds the following info "this is what the album looks like". Now we can decide that that's significant or we could decide that it's not, and that we should remove all cover art from album articles, but I cannot for the life of me see how we could decide differently for different albums.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:X shows the album art for Article:y which is a musical album with album art. Solved. Violask81976 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem stems from the fact that images are used purely for decorative purposes, there's no reference to or discussion of the album cover at all in most articles. Some album covers will be widely discussed, there's the infamous Blind Faith album cover or the iconic Dark Side of The Moon cover, then there's covers, again, such as Dark Side of the Moon which is used on the article of every track with no justification. There's a totally incorrect mentality that album/track infoboxes need an image and that come hell or high water, an image will be found and used. Fuck policy and fuck the foundation. It's not difficult to justify why an image must be used, hell, it'll take no more than a few seconds and the same rationale can probably be used on more than one article. Nick 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right - the same rationale can probably be used on more than one article. It just so happens that the vast majority of album art is used in the same way and thus will have the same rationale. Why not use a boilerplate for this? Why force users to write identical rationales over and over again, seemingly for the sake of it? As you also correctly mention, covers like Dark Side of the Moon would need separate rationales detailing their use elsewhere. Whether album art is even required or not is beside the point in this discussion. --Iae 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. Does using an album cover for simple illustration actual fall within the boundaries of our non free image policy and can a suitable rationale be drawn up for the bulk of images, through a template or not ? Nick 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be sarcastic or mean or anything, but was there sarcasm there?Violask81976 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

@Durin: ways in which a cover art image will significantly contribute to an article are actually explicitly set out at WP:FURG#Necessary components. I assume you have actually read these policies? It actually suggests as potential significance rationales: "Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article? Is the image the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (eg, a corporate logo, DVD box art)"

@Nick: as I set out at the top, different standards apply when use of an image is complementary to a normal exploitation of it, compared to when use of the image is substitutive. Use of a cover art thumbnail in an article on an album, because it is likely to be complementary, is a different case to other use of a copyright photograph, which is likely to be substitutive. To establish transformative use in the first case, it is sufficient that the article is presenting a critical review of the album. On the other hand, to establish transformative use of the image in the latter case is a lot harder, and this latter case is when a discussion of some feature or detail of the image must be of crucial inescapable relevance to the writing of the article. The two cases are different. Jheald 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

@Durin(2): re freedom: the relevant goals here that the Foundation has expressed are to create an encyclopedia; and to encourage free content. The second aim is relevant in all sorts of cases where the Foundation rejects non-free content because it is replaceable with free content. But it is not relevant here, because you can't replace an album cover with your own newly created image. Jheald 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, check the non-free album cover template, there is a discussion to add a hardcoded fair use rationale there for all albums. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that what we actually need (and can justify) is standard per-use text, for the specific case the image is being used on the particular album page. An all-permissive per-image text isn't going to work. So I think it is probably a bad idea to pack the two concepts onto the same template. What seems to me better is two different templates, one per-image, and one per-use. Jheald 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin: Are you saying that an image of an album cover may not be used in an article about that album unless the cover itself is special in some way and the article discusses the cover itself? So you mean that most articles about albums should not show an image of the cover? --Apoc2400 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to be the underlying thrust of the deletion push; the ability to encyclopedically write about copyrighted material is really, really under assault - which is fine, and all, just different than things have been the last couple of years. And yes, if it's not obvious, I think this is the very, very wrong direction for the project. But I am just one, and the Betacommandbot is mighty...  :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that the example Betacommand himself gives of an acceptable fair use rationale, Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg, is completely generic and could be applied to the use of any album cover. Doesn't this just prove the point?

The rationale for Image:AHardDaysNightUSalbumcover.jpg seems to me equally acceptable, but is no less generic.

Wouldn't it be better to have one centrally written rationale for this kind of use, which can be lawyered, and which we can make sure covers all the bases legally, rather than a hotch-potch of half baked homebrew ones? Jheald 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this is comedy. After all that arguing about how every FUR must uniquely show that the image itself is discussed in the article and no two FURs could ever be the same, the two examples given are as generic as can be. If that's all you want, why the fuss? Just provide the boilerplate.Malc82 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. So can we have this bot stopped somehow? And make an other bot to go around a but standard rationale templates on all the obvious cases like low-res album covers that are only used on the page about that album? --Apoc2400 09:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best argument is something Jheald (and Judge Posner) said. Album cover thumbnails have a "complementary rather than substitutive nature" meaning that album cover thumbnails won't harm the copyright owners, copyright owners even might benefit from it. The law allows this kind of fair use, so why not make use of it?

The album cover page [4] of The Beatles' A Hard Days Night features a good fair use rationale. It states that "The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original." This fair use rationale is applicable to most album covers. A boilerplate is a good idea.

I believe album covers are no copyright deal, as long as wikipedia is not making money off of them and on condition that the album covers are low quality images, not suitable for piracy, and are not excessively used (only in encyclopedic album and artist articles).

Many sites (without profit motive) feature fair use album covers as a visual aid. Album covers tend to say something about an artist/a band, about their genre, their style, their vision. In general death metal album covers look very different from trance album covers, cover art is never merely "decoration". Why shouldn't wikipedia make use of album covers when it doesn't harm the copyright owners? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 12:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Public Domain images as needing fair use rationale

I wish to voice my disappoval of BetacommandBot. It tagged every page using Image:Coast guard flag.gif as lacking a fair-use rationale. The problem is the file is public domain, since it is a symbol created by the U.S. federal government. Even more of a problem is that the image is used in the Coast Guard Stub template, so over 100 articles had the fair-use rationale needed template added to the talk page. Several people have left messages on the bot and user page, but there has been no response or acknowledgement of mistake, and no effort to correct it. To me this is acting in bad faith. Especially since the bot users continue to criticize the efforts of others before correcting their own mistakes. --Pesco 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how the bot works, but it is possible the bot created a list of images (either by running through all the images in a category or a database dump), and put it in a list. Note that two days ago the image tag was fixed, after almost 2 years of bearing the wrong tag. Yes, the bot could review the license to see if it has been changed since it began processing (no idea what the bot does to get a list of images to tag), but it is not that serious (especially considering that no image would be automatically deleted, and that the image has spent 2 years with a "deleteable" tag). -- ReyBrujo 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Great point Pesco. The author of the bot should be prepared to answer each individual mistake its program creates or they should not be able to use the bot. The bot asks countless people to retrace their steps and provide rationales for "duh" images, yet the author is too lazy to address each question that comes at them regarding the tagging. Perhaps they should design a bot to give a blanket response to everyone! That would be as efficient as the current mode of conduct. Shut the bot down. (Mind meal 08:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

ReyBrujo, thanks for your comments. The template used on the image was PD-flag. So even though the template did become obsolete, it's clear the image was being claimed to be in the Public Domain. If the bot were to just make a list the user could review before changes were made, I don't think 100+ templates added to talk pages using this image would have been made. The incorrect template message was used, as well. It says the image template requires a fair use rationale to be made, but it didn't. The Bot tells thousands of editors that the devil's in the details, so after it posts a technically incorrect template it should be corrected/removed. --Pesco 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support disabling this bot

Betacommandbot left a message on my talk page about an image I uploaded, Image:National_Front.gif. This image is a replica of a political campaign poster, which makes it a clear cut example of a legitimate fair use image, and had already been noted and categorized as such. It appears in the National Front (France) article where, with an accompanying translation, it serves as an example of that party's anti-immigrant platform and demonstrates the controversial nature of that party's position, which notable and reliably sourced observers have contended is religiously biased and racist.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but recovery of legitimate and encyclopedic images such as this one can take a thousand keystrokes once they get deleted. Copyright violation is a significant and ongoing problem at this site and I support the editors who address the matter. If this bot did a good job identifying frivolous and decorative image use I would support it, but too much collateral damage is happening here. So many complaints have accumulated at Betacommand's talk page that one user actually issued a block warning.

Let's not get as heated as that, but clearly this bot needs to be taken out of service for a while and tweaked so that it doesn't damage useful and encyclopedic content. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova if you would look at the image and the warning it simply states that a fair use rational needs to be given. I also presume that the image was scanned, but there is no source as to where we got that image. I'm sure if I dug into it I could write a justifiable fair use rationale here, but it does need one. Please keep in mind that the upload tag even asks the uploader to add a rationale. Do so and everything is fine :). If you need help doing so I'm glad to help. A rationale could go something like, there are no free posters, we can't get one. (said in the tag), and perhaps for the rational say something like "this image is used in critical commentary of a political event in the article National Front (France)". You should also say what article the rational applies to. Again I'd be glad to help you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My online time is minimal right now, so I don't have the chance to check out every detail completely. I got that image from the official National Front party website, which I believe I noted when I originally uploaded it. Otherwise it would have been deleted long ago for lack of source information. Betacommandbot claimed lack of fair use copyright rationale, not lack of source, and the image has been in the article for over a year without any rational human being raising a challenge to its appropriateness. My point here is that this bot is creating useless work for established Wikipedians who act within law and policy. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I could write an essay on everything that's wrong about BetacommandBot, but quitting is just far more productive. Bye. Pete.Hurd 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict, and Pete.Hurd beat me to it.) I support banishment. The method sucks, whether or not the goal is well-intentioned. I came across this business a few weeks ago, and the fact that Wikipedia seems to sanction this was one straw/camel factor in my decision to cut down on my contributions to the project: it reinforced my perception of the degree of zealotry out there. The issue at hand is legal, and if it is important enough to address, it's important enough to do right. An action to address fair-use on a large scale should be more organized—have more of a top-down approach—than the contributions of one obsessive "student" and robot tagging a bazillion pages. Was there consensus for this bot-project, including consensus on its magnitude? The bot's user page is conveniently silent on what it really does. –Outriggr Â§ 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • This bot is simply out of control and should be shut down. Album covers? I mean really. Define a new task for your bot already. (Mind meal 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't know that I'd consider it sanctioned by Wikipedia after reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand --Powerlord 10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion here I've asked BetaCommand to pause his activities until more debate takes place on these issues. It seems to me that the problem might be with the current wording of the fair use policy. A convincing case has been made that templates should be sufficient fair use rational for items like album covers; however, the current policy pages make no allowance for this. It might also be a good idea to reopen the bot approval on this issue. It was granted at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5, but with virtually no outside input. - SimonP 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After getting no response from the operator, and observing several more problematic taggings I've blocked the bot for 24 hours. - SimonP 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it mean the hell will come back in 24 hours?? It affects more than just album covers as I was saying in the other discussion. This bot cannot actually read any description or make any distinction. It is using the album cover excuse as a means to keep it running. There needs to be also some kind of bot to undo the damage that has already been done. And yes at this rate it might be asking for too much. Benjwong 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol Benjwong. My sentiments exactly. (Mind meal 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree - this bot is extremely disruptive. Many of the images have the Fair Use rational given in the licensing tag itself. License violations can be addressed through the normal process. This nit picky stuff can be address through the improvement process GA & FA. There are no easily identified examples for adding the rational for each type of image. This needs better organization to make this extremely simple for the everyday editor. Heck.. I've been here for 2 years and have read all of these policies and I'm still confused on what is needed. Morphh ^(talk) 13:47, 06 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I also support the disabling of this bot. I've already posted my concerns over this bots actions on a high level, not even talking about a specific example on the talk page, and have gotten no response for the bot's author, just other editors who quote policy to justify the bots actions. It makes me wonder what the real purpose of this bot is, it is just an playground for the bots author to see what can be done and the prove a point, or is it a genuine attempt on helping the project? Based on the (lack of) response from the author, it's been impossible for me to assume good faith. // laughing man 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two very different discussions happening on this issue. Here there is a near consensus that these edits should stop, while at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard there is a near consensus to just the opposite. There does seem to be a debate about whether current policy demands a non generic fair use rational for certain images. To me this seems to be a legitimate argument, the fair use rational at Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg has been presented as an exemplary rational for fair use of an album cover, but it still seems to be totally generic. I'm thus going to leave this bot blocked. There is a problem with fair use images, but it is not a crisis. 24 hours of discussion and debate on this issue will do no harm to the encyclopedia and could help clarify some of these issues. - SimonP 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents. I have no problem with copyright LAW. Where an identified LEGAL infringement is identified by a human user of Wikipedia, then I am 100% behind that user.

Obviously, there is a perceived problem with this indiscrimate and random bot (our friend Betacommandbot), and I personally feel that one major problem is its indiscriminate and apparently random nature.

If you give me, as an occasional Wikipedia uploader over the years, the chance to respond to ANY accusation of an invalid copyrighted upload, then I can FOR SURE answer you.

But if you give me 2-7 days only to respond, then there is no way I can guarantee a response 365-days-a-year, 24-hours-a-day - I am one of those humans who sadly has a non-Wikipedia/Internet-based life. However, since Wikipedia is (I understand) populated by human beings with a propensity to discuss any issues intelligently in lieu of idiotic knee-jerk reactions, I wouldn't imagine this could ever be a problem, and I therefore feel I am among understanding friends.

Well...

Not unless bots are introduced arbitrarily to make such apparently obvious complex and human decisions - and to make them, no less, in such totally arbitrary and unintelligent ways as regards time or context ("bot detects a bunch of text in the right place or not" appears to be the "intelligent" programming on display here).

The laughable situation seems to be this - if WP editors enter random licensing text such as "this is random licensing text to fool idiot bots", then the troublesome bot will almost certainly leave them alone.

Such is its intelligence.

Such is its value to Wikipedia.

Has it a value to Wikipedia then?

My answer would be: "absolutely not".

Note I do not dispute for one moment any "Wikipedia policies" - that is NOT the issue here.

The issue is essentially whether or not Wikipedia exists for human beings or not - this case being a particular one in point.

Apologies in advance for any perceived cynicism.

Regards and KUTGW folks.--DaveG12345 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplate fair-use being used for gallery

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the fair-use rationales used for the images in the gallery at Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde#Album singles just a boilerplate copy of the rationale used for the main fair-use album cover image in that article? Carcharoth 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why there cannot be a generic template for fair use claims

Fair use is a legal doctrine that may be used as a defence against a claim of copyright infringement. Technically speaking, until you've actually been to court and successfully invoked your claim of fair use to defend against such a suit, you're using the work illegally. In practice it's often possible to reasonably anticipate where a claim of fair use will be successful, typically by analogy with cases in which the defence has been successfully raised, and as such, the use is commonly regarded as "kosher", as it were, while still technically being illegal.

This reality raises a couple of issues. Since fair use is a defence, it's necessary to be able to explain on what basis your use falls within that defence. Since the defence applies only to particular uses of a work, you need to be able to make such an explanation for all of your uses of the work. And since claims fall into the "kosher" category by being based on solid analogies with existing cases in which the defence has been successfully raised, you need to explain the analogy you have employed, by reference to the specific fair use factors that apply to the particular work and the particular use in question.

There is no boilerplate fair use claim to be used against copyright infringement, just as there is no boilerplate claim for, say, self-defense in a murder trial, or for an estoppel claim in a breach of contract suit. Fair use claims may be very similar to each other, but that only reflects that the particular analogy being employed is strong (or at least popularly thought to be strong).

Executive summary: since fair use is a legal defence, you need to explain how it applies in every case, and this means there can be no boilerplate claims. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus should not override a legal issue, and fair use rationals cannot be templated by definition. ^(H) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If editors find themselves typing (or cut & pasting) the same text time and time again, it should be templated. It's meaning doesn't change. You think pre-printed paper documents have no legal standing, because they're not hand-written? Andy Mabbett 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can at least agree that we need fair use in rather than just fair use templates. I dislike the new FUR template and prefer the method of headers for "Fair use in XXX" gren グレン 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bainer: two things. Firstly, be aware that judge-made law (common law and precedents) is just as much a real feature of Anglo-Saxon law systems as statute laws made by Congress. Use within the established parameters of "fair use" is in no sense 'illegal'. It's only when you try to push those parameters you run the risk of a Court declaring you have gone too far. Wikipedia is not trying to push those parameters.

Secondly, more importantly, I think you are confusing the idea of putting up per-image standard fair use rationales with per-use standard fair use rationales. You're correct: per-image standard fair use rationales won't fly, because they won't take into account the context the image is being used in. But per-use standard fair use rationales may very well be possible, when particular classes of images are all being used in the same way under the same rationale. Attempts to solidify such rationales are currently underway (though not yet complete) at WP:FURG. Jheald 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian bainer wrote: Technically speaking, until you've actually been to court and successfully invoked your claim of fair use to defend against such a suit, you're using the work illegally.

For a perhaps more studied view, let's turn to copyright expert and Creative Commons creator Lawrence Lessig, who wrote: Federal Law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without the authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use” and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.

I'm not sure the fair use of a copyrighted work should be considered "illegal until invoked" -- but fair use is most certainly NOT illegal. And since all of the fair use on Wikipedia is, by design, several orders more strict that what is required by law, I'm gonna' go ahead and say what we've all known all along -- Wikipedia does not have a LEGAL problem when it comes to fair use; this is purely a philosophical problem about internal Wikipedia policies and free/libre purity.

Something to keep in mind... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikigroaning

I saw this at somethingaweful.com and thought it might be a fun thing to bring to everyones attention. I know somethingaweful is hardly a major news outlet, but "The Art of Wikigroaning" seems like the type of thing that could make a funny signpost segment or essay or something.

"The premise is quite simple. First, find a useful Wikipedia article that normal people might read. For example, the article called "Knight." Then, find a somehow similar article that is longer, but at the same time, useless to a very large fraction of the population. In this case, we'll go with "Jedi Knight." Open both of the links and compare the lengths of the two articles. Compare not only that, but how well concepts are explored, and the greater professionalism with which the longer article was likely created. Are you looking yet? Get a good, long look. Yeah. Yeeaaah, we know, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. (We're calling it Wikigroaning for a reason.) The next step is to find your own article pair and share it with your friends, who will usually look for their own pairs and you end up spending a good hour or two in a groaning arms race. The game ends after that, usually without any clear winners... but hey, it beats doing work."

Modern warfare - Lightsaber combat

Lizards - Dragons

Prime number - Optimus Prime

Civil war - Civil War (comic book)

Gray's Anatomy - Grey's Anatomy

Raphael (archangel) - Raphael (Ninja Turtle)

Citizen Kane - Clerks 2

Category:American philosophers - List of big-bust models and performers

Women's suffrage - List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs

IRC - Prom

Buzz Aldrin - Jean-Luc Picard

Base (mathematics), Base (topology), Base (group theory), Base (chemistry), Base pair, Military base - All your base are belong to us

Have a nice day. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This sort of observing that "Wikipedia Article on Some Bit of Pop Cultural Ephemera" is longer and better-written than "Wikipedia Article on Some Important Thing in the Real World" is nothing new; it's been used by commentators taking potshots at Wikipedia on many occasions (often comparing articles on pop stars and Pokemon characters with ones on historical figures from past centuries). It's just doing it as an organized game that's new. *Dan T.* 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming Canadian young offenders

I know that WP:PEREN#Legal issues says not to worry about the law, but I remain concerned about naming a Young Offender contrary to Canada's Young Offenders Act, ( now replaced by the Youth Criminal Justice Act).

In Canada, Todd Cameron Smith's identity would be protected because the crimes were committed when he was a minor. He's a living person and I'm not sure it's necessary or right to identify him in Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is based in US but other people have been given greater protection for less.

Canuckle 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He's a convicted criminal, if he's been deemed notable then I don't think you'll be getting any BLP sympathy for him. Especially not based on foreign (to Wikipedia) law. --tjstrf talk 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he was convicted of a crime committed when he was a minor and regardless of whether you and I personally find him "sympathetic" Wikipeida does have an "official policy" -- WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. His notable is within Canada and trivial outside so there should be some consideration given to that. Canuckle 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. But his name is part of the public record with a news story written when he was age 20. — RJH (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you supply a source? Being part of the public record is certainly appropriate for a newspaper. However, WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a newspaper and has an official policy for news, "keeping in mind the harm our work might cause." Google News has no matches for "Todd Cameron Smith." Google.com has slightly more but they boil down to a brief, passing mention in the Taipei Times and a Church of Scientology press release. Hardly deep coverage in reliable sources. The #1 Ghit? His wikipedia article. I'm willing to buy an argument that both his acts and his name have been noted in some depth in the US so that he's somewhat well-known there. But I haven't seen that evidence yet. You can argue that the law doesn't apply in the US but the effect of that law (as designed) has been to lower his profile. The question of how much news coverage justifies publishing this sort of identity applies to other cases as well. In last month's shooting in Toronto, a suspect also had his name and photo made public for a few hours until he was arrested whereupon Canadian media took down the identifying information. As did Wikipedia: See see User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting. Wikipedia could legally identify them, citing the now-removed news reports. But is Wikipedia supposed to be a leader in identifying minors protected by a court of law? Canuckle 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of the typical US-centrism with blatant ignorance for foreign laws on Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents. The name should be removed from this discussion. --Kvasir 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we follow all laws of countries with large Wikipedian populations? If so, do you nominate yourself to cleanse Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and Falun Gong for legal consumption for our Chinese brethren? Or the article on the Muhammad cartoons for our audience in Muslim nations? --Golbez 09:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadians have mastered the legal code of every country in the world? Well I'm suitably impressed. A nation of international lawyers indeed. — RJH (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article itself cites a (still available) article from Canadian Press coverage concerning Todd Cameron Smith. I see no reason for wikipedia to practice censorship regarding publicly-available information. — RJH (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals that others have just reverted

Is it just me, or is this annoying and kind of impolite? I'll revert a vandal, go to the vandal's talk page to leave a warning, carefully compose a warning specific to that particular instance, and by the time I'm ready to save 45 seconds or 1 minute later, I'm edit conflicted because someone with Twinkle or VP or something saw my revert and jumped ahead of me.

I don't think I'll ever go to the trouble of complaining to someone if they do it to me (pretty counterproductive, since my whole complaint is that they're wasting my time), but I'd like to know that I'm morally justified when I mutter mean things about them under my breath. --barneca (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even both leaving warnings for obvious vandals anymore. If their motivation really is the need to gain attention, then a warning post seems like I'm just reward their behavior. All I do now is a very minimalist edit summary (rvv to last by _____) for book-keeping purposes. That way I'm expending less time and energy than the vandal. — RJH (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I'll go with it...

The problem with that is, WP:AIV typically won't block vandals that haven't been warned. Depending on the admin, they'll require anywhere from 1 immediate final warning, to a set of 4 gradually escalating warnings all posted the same day. Frankly, I warn vandals not so they will change into model editors (I'm much less optimistic about that than many people), but so they will (a) be scared off by a threat of being blocked, or (b) so vandals on a spreee can eventually be blocked.

Back on topic, however, assuming I'm willing to warn vandals, my original whine still stands, unaddressed... --barneca (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I might be one of the guilty ones (although I don't think so). I do believe that vandalism should be noted. I'll make a mental note to not warn unless an hour or so has elapsed from the reversion. Regards. JohnJardine 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

John, just because I do it old school style doesn't mean I type THAT slow!  :) I'm talking more like, give me 2 minutes. --barneca (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant. It takes me 15 minutes to find the templates and 15 minutes to decide which one to use:) JohnJardine 20:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardized template messages are usually sufficient to warn users. On the other hand, those warnings are a useful deterrant. There are many times that after I gave them the final warning, they stopped altogether. As long as they do not cause trouble within 24 hours, the same effect of a block as been imposed on the vandal, since he's laid low for that amount of time.--Kylohk 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide?

Are both capable of damaging the atmosphere?

in short, Yes, see carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Regards, Lynbarn 10:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Carbon monoxide reacts readily with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.--Kylohk 20:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess

I'm having some problems with TheRingess, and would like to hear from any other editors who have had problems with her. Am trying to take suitable steps.

Sardaka 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently have this matter under discussion at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I.27m_Being_Stalked. Posting this matter on the Village Pump is not appropriate. Please use the existing mediation and conflict resolution methods that have previously been explained to you. Buddhipriya 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Election Committee announces Wikimedia Election (Cross-Posted)

On behalf of the Election Committee,

Philippe 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

__________________

Dear all,

We, the election committee, hereby announce the opening of a new election for members of the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. At least three positions will be filled from this election, with the elected members serving a two year term.

It is important to note that election processes are slightly different this year than in previous years: all candidates should be certain to thoroughly read the FAQ at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en

From today, June 10th, we're accepting candidates for the Board of Trustees. If you're interested, you must make a candidate statement and list yourself on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Candidates/en

We also need the help or translators for the elections, so if you're fluent in any language other than English, and willing to help, please list yourself here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Translations

If you have any questions, please first read the FAQ, then list your questions to the talk page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/FAQ/en

The official announcement is available on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en

We are confident that this election will draw very qualified candidates, and we wish them the best of luck.

Regards,

Kizu Naoko (Aphaia) Newyorkbrad Philippe Beaudette Jon Harald Søby

Policy Shopping

I've been working on a new essay entitled Policy shopping. Of course, this is a neologism, and the intent is simply to argue that editors should propose all justifications for a particular change at one time, instead of incrementally trying policies (i.e. if this policy/guideline fails, let me try another one to effect the same change). It is still under construction, but I think at this point it is a rough inclusion of all the points I'm trying to make. I request the community's input... please give it a read and post your comments on the associated talk page. Thanks! /Blaxthos 11:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The SNAKE PROJECT

The Snake Project needs helper and users to help create anf finish the articles. For more information about the project, visite my userpage.

§→Nikro 08:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Talkpages

I left a message on a talkpage, the message was about me having to change something in the userpage and why i have to do it. but the user, i ain't gonna mention WikiDragon295's name, deleted the message and writen me up for vandelism. I had no combat against him because he deleted the reason for "Vandelism" so i looked completely guilty, luckly I got the proof of the reason, and of his deleting of it, from his talkpage history. But noone should be allowed to delete what someone places on the talkpage, and my opion, that's vandelism, I was blamed for something because the user earased my message, just to try and banned me. Something should be done so such actions can't be done.

§→Nikro 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. The pair of you, Stop! The village pump is for discussing wikipedia issues. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was vandalised

The User "Nikro" has vandalised My Userpage, and he wasn't even punished, They didn't reverse the chnge, i had to rewrite it, i say something should be done about it!!!

¥→WikiDragon295 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I've fixed your link, you linked to Mikro, not Nikro.
2. This isn't really the place for this. I've left a note on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ok 

¥→WikiDragon295 22:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the future, you can simply revert his edit by clicking the "history", the pre vandal version and edit it. Also give the vandal a warning template. A user is rarely blocked if he hasn't already got a "final warning".--Kylohk 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My brother deleted the reason from his page, he told me about deleting it.

• 1)First of all, I asked him if I can edit his page, he said "Go ahead." Then I asked him if he wanted the word "Yes" to be changed to "Neutral" or "Lost", he said "Which ever one".
• 2)I was changing a lie he made about my work on wikiipedia.
• 3)He tells to go ahead and edit it, then he deletes the reason for the changes on his talkpage, then he writes me up for vandelism, it looks like he set me up to get me banned, which he's known to do that. I say he should be banned for setting someone up for suspencen.
• 4)If it was vandelism, Wikipedia would have noted it as vandelism, but they didn't.
• 5)If he says "Go ahead", then he give me permission, thus it can't be vandelism, but what he's doing is vandelism to my charactor.

Trust me, he knewn about the reason on his talkpage, and he deleted it, and he told me. And I had permission from him to edit his page.Proove of my reason on hi's talkpage

This following is a copy from the user's talkpage history. 

• (cur) (last) 21:49, 8 June 2007 WikiDragon295 (Talk | contribs) (322 bytes)
• (cur) (last) 11:46, 8 June 2007 Nikro (Talk | contribs) (531 bytes) (Won)

§→Nikro 10:55, 9 June 2007(UTC)

The very idea of winning and losing debates here is abhorrent. Wikipedia works on consesus. I strongly suggest you remove all references to winning from your userpage altogether as it will make you look foolish to the grown ups. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass stock.xchng image deletion

I apologize if this isn't the proper place for this question, but if someone would be kind enough to direct me to the proper place to post it, then please do so.

I've noticed that a massive amount of images on commons are about to be deleted, namely because of the incompatible stock.xchng license. They'll be deleted on July 1, a date chosen to give people a good chunk of time to get permission for each individual image they need saved. However, the only way anyone becomes aware of this mass deletion is through clicking on the images' description pages.

Now, I've noticed that {{ifdc}} is designed to notify readers and editors of an article that an image in that article is to be deleted. It's a good way to spread awareness; articles have tags on them, and now images' captions do too. But now that 800+ images are about to be deleted, I was pondering if a template should be put in these captions to make people aware of these images' status, and give editors a chance to get permission to use them, instead of having them mysteriously disappear in July. Would {{ifdc}} do? Or should a new one be created? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature Shop

I have created a proposal for a task force here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uploading Newer Versions of Images that are Protected

Now, I know that this is WP:BEANS, but I have to ask:

What happens if you "upload a new version of the file" of the picture that is picture of the day. Besides getting banned and blocked. What I mean is will the server let you? It is blocked, right? I'm not going to do it or anything, but if you can, maybe we should report it to the WP:VPT guys so they can stop potential vandalism. I'll post this there too, but I don't know if it really fits there. If this is too WP:BEANSish for you, just delete this section. Thanks!! - Hairchrm 01:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not possible. The Main Page is under full cascading protection, which also protects all the transcluded images and templates appearing on the Main Page. Fully protected images cannot be overwritten by new uploads. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details. Thanks for the concern though, BanyanTree 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks via email?

I've just received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. Does anyone have any advice? Stannered 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth raising at ANI. Adrian M. H. 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved over on ANI. --Yamla 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spell check abuse

Is it possible that a company, like Google (with "did you mean ___?"), changes the spelling of words in Wikipedia articles to find out what people most likely think a word should be spelled like, because it seems like a good idea and they have so many computers, each with a different IP address, it would seem hard to catch them at it. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What? --Golbez 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that a company (like Google) can go through words that are entered frequently but don't have many search results (I'm calling that word "x"), then they go through all possible other spellings that have more search results and find them on a Wikipedia article, then they use one IP address to vandalize the article and then with a different IP address they change it back without the undo button (to make it look like an unprofessional undo), however, when changing it back they misspell the target word (which is a more common variation of "x", e.g. "cheese" has 71,600,000 search results however "chese"("x") has only 217,000 search results) to see if people will consider that variation of "x" to be the correct spelling of "x".

And the reason that I say this is because Google almost always guesses right with the "did you mean ___?" and I know that they might just have good programming (companies with worse programming could be doing this) but I heard that spam people offer "rewards" after typing in the words in a picture box that is originally from an e-mail service to create e-mail addresses to send spam from and this would be the same thing just without any rewards but a lot more people. Do you understand now? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Is it possible? Possibly. It's also possible that I'm a hyperintelligent zebra, but I'm not sure where such baseless accusations get us. So far as I know, not one single article has been vandalized in this fashion. --Golbez 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that they are careful to make it look like innocent spelling errors, and I'm not accusing Google, I'm simply saying that a company with enough computer power could do this as long as they have a motive like optimizing search spell checking. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You kind of are - you didn't say "they could be careful", you said "they are careful". And as Emmaneul said, there's far, far cheaper and faster ways to do this. And again, there is zero evidence of this happening, so it still has the same footing as me being a genius hippotigris. --Golbez 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Impossible, there are far more effective and intelligent ways to find out "alternate" spellings than this. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? --tjstrf talk 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's Hagerman?

I've noticed that Hagerman (talk · contribs) hasn't posted an edit since 16:47, 29 April 2007. His bot, HagermanBot (talk · contribs) last edited about a month later at 02:42, 25 May 2007. I don't see any kind of Wikibreak notice on his user page. Does anyone know if he's okay? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Try contacting him on e-mail, if he has it activated, that is.--Kylohk 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

last.fm radio player widget for Mozilla Firefox

Hi I created a last.fm radio player widget for Wikipedia. It runs with Firefox.

Further info, see here: User:Csörföly D/last.fm widget

File:JerusalemEmblem.jpg The Lion of Judah ^SMS "You send your big neck police friends fe come cool I up - But it no work" 2007. június 14., 00:43 (CEST)

Please make your signature shorter, and don't include an image in it. Corvus cornix 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandals that delete warnings

24.82.98.151 and, possibly, others delete their warnings after they get a warning for vandalizing, will that make it look (without going through the talk page's history) like they never vandalized, and make it that they never get caught? And, if so, what can we do about it? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note however that I was talking to 24.82.98.151 and found out that he deleted it because he thought it wasn't justified, and I must agree with him (he deleted "mmmm,mmmm" from a description on an image which caused the page to be blank, which RandomHumanoid saw to be vandalism).

Regarding the general question, it's been discussed a thousand times and there still is no real consensus. My own opinion is to leave it alone - if this person is intent on vandalizing willy nilly, they'll get blocked anyway sooner or later. Others feel that talk page warnings leave an important record of past user behavior; at most, they can be archived or crossed out. Use your judgment. YechielMan 05:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to have a log of warnings that can't be deleted only added to (I'm not sure that it's possible to only add and not delete), like a warnings page? Or, maybe, a feature that searches through the talk page's history to find all warnings, and then it creates a summary (e.g. Average .1 warnings per day, 10 warnings total, highest level: 3), or, even better, a bot that searches through known vandals' history and creates a list of people based on the same principle. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The best way to avoid a user masking their vandalism history is to use good edit summaries when warning them. This has been brought up repeatedly in the last year (at least), and the general consensus was that while vandalism warnings were not meant to be a scarlet letter (and thus are able to be removed/archived), some sort of tracking system is advisable, and the history of their talk page serves pretty well for this purpose. You may also want to look at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings which has more information than you could possibly want to read on this subject. --nae'blis 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (not signed in at present)

Maybe we should set up some FAQs? --Kim Bruning 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Some people say we all love weasel words, but a user is really surprised to see that there haven't been any templates, or any good templates at least. I dusted off {{WW}} today and added categories, documentation, etc. to bring it up to the {{fact}} standard. Only two articles so far use it. How can some of us promote use of this template. hbdragon88 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

They all use Template:Weasel, but there may be situations were the small size of {{WW}} makes it the better choice. I added a link to it at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words:See also to make others more aware of it. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that there's {{weasel-inline}}, though it's quite dreadfully long – I could never type that in. It's even longer than {{weasel}}! But thanks; I had created Category:Articles with weasel word statements, and now I see Category:Articles with weasel words. Repointed and tagged accordingly. hbdragon88 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

HELICOPTERS

Nearly everything can be explained and figured out through math and physics. However, on paper Helicopters should not be able to fly. In theory they really don't work, they are a man-made phenomenon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.248.180 (talk • contribs)

Especially the black ones.--Isotope23 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Two words immediately sprang to mind... "drivel" and "tilde".--Rambutan (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

Why are you Americans so box-minded? You should write articles about people independently of where they were born or raised. For example I saw a list of Russian Americans. Why don´t you also make a list of Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, French Americans, French Brazilians, Black Jews, Mexican English and Swiss tennis players? Those kind of lists are totally arbitrary and don´t make much sense. No wonder there´s so much segregation in the US. You could start by getting rid of some of these lists.

The lists are only a collection of links to articles, the articles are already written at the time of creation of the list, i.e. the people aren't written about because of their nationality but they're added to the list because of it, therefore it isn't a real problem. I would also like to say that the lists are useful for example if you wanted to write about a Russian American then you can look at that list to find someone to write about. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You can think of these multi-criteria categories as Wikipedia's Venn diagrams. Such as German artists or Canadian racecar drivers, to name just two. Adrian M. H. 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that few individuals who live in the United States can trace a significant portion of their ancestry to any of the land's native peoples. Pride and interest in one's own background doesn't necessarily mean denigration of other heritages. In some professions a given heritage has a significant impact on the individual's work. For example, students of literature may use this type of list to narrow down their seletion for a "compare and contrast" term paper assignment to Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man and Walter Mosley's Devil in a Blue Dress. In other situations, where prejudices traditionally limited or closed a career field to persons of a particular background, these lists can be a starting point for a different type of research. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you for sharing your opinion.

Thanks for the ignorant stereotypes. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)