Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face Options

[thekohser]

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been picked up by the mainstream media.

Traffic from England over the past 3 days:


..........City ...Visits ...Pages/Visit ...Avg. Time on Site
1. London ...41 ...1.78 ...00:03:53
2. Lambeth ...17 ...2.35 ...00:06:52
3. Teddington ...7 ...2.29 ...00:05:41
4. Brentford ...6 ...3.67 ...00:19:29
5. Kensington ...5 ...1.20 ...00:00:07
6. Nottingham ...3 ...2.67 ...00:04:34
7. Leeds ...2 ...1.50 ...00:00:10
8. Manchester ...2 ...2.00 ...00:01:14
9. Preston ...2 ...1.00 ...00:00:00
10. Southampton ...2 ...1.50 ...00:01:04

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 1st December 2011, 7:26pm

[mbz1]

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.

Did you look at the image in question? Whoever the pictured man is, he could very easily have clipped the larger chain to his right cuff and just as easily unlock it. If you wanted to upload an image of yourself in bondage to one of the world's most visited websites, I suspect that you might be willing to go to a small amount of effort. In any case, you are suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful when he uploaded that image to Commons.

So far as I can tell, it was Ash who caused the deletion of the image, based on a lack of proper information (which only he could provide). It all seems a little fishy.

No, I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful, when he uploaded that image to Commons because I do not believe that in this particular situation it matters who took the image. He could have asked his master to take this image of him, and still be a copyright holder for the image. He could have even paid for the image.

Commons is not really interested who took an image,
Commons only interested who is the copyright holder of an image.

And yes, it is definitely possible to put a camera on tripod and make it wait for a few moments before taking a picture to have enough time to place himself in the right position.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st December 2011, 9:02pm

[Kelly Martin]

No, I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful, when he uploaded that image to Commons because I do not believe that in this particular situation it matters who took the image. He could have asked his master to take this image of him, and still be a copyright holder for the image. He could have even paid for the image.

Commons is not really interested who took an image,
Commons only interested who is the copyright holder of an image.

The copyright in a photograph vests in the photographer, not the subject and not the person who asked for the photograph to be taken. This is true even if the photographer is being paid to take the picture. The copyright might have transferred later, but the law generally requires that a copyright transfer be evidenced by a written document, so merely asking his "master" to take the image is insufficient. In any case, claiming a photograph taken by someone else as "own work" is misrepresentation at best; even if one has acquired the copyright it's still not one's "own work", but someone else's work that you've paid for.

[Eppur si muove]

I don't believe he took it himself. My point is that the pictures were uploaded and released as his own work. So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

He's a thief you say?

No it could all be perfectly innocent. Suppose his partner is researching his lectures on ancient slavery and bemoans the fact that, although the likes of Plato and Phaedo were know to have been enslaved, ancient accounts of slavery are dominated by slave owner discources and lack coverage of the slave's experience of being placed in chains. Similarly Ash comments on the preponderance of discources of male domination in Wikipedia's coverage even of fantasy slavery and particularly in the availability of pictorial representations. They realise that both of these issues could be solved if they were to carry out some practical research.

Only Ash was willing to have pictures of himself uploaded. While Ash's partner was happy to take the picture and to let Ash use the pictures on Wikipedia, he was unaware that this entailed releasing them into the public domain. Ash at the time was in a phase of being rather slapdash in his Wikipedia activities and the incorrect licensing would be in line with this. When Ash is shifting to reform his activities in 2010, he realises that he has incorrectly licensed some of his partner's pictures and seeks to fix them. Hence the hog picture being withdrawn.

It is only when this thread emerges that Ash realises that he forgot to withdraw the picture that has graced this thread.

It is only an unfortunate mislabelling of the deletion that results in a "purer than pure" correction of an innocent oversight gets misconstrued as Wikimedia seeking to protect one of its own.

Or something.

[Eppur si muove]

The copyright in a photograph vests in the photographer, not the subject and not the person who asked for the photograph to be taken. This is true even if the photographer is being paid to take the picture. The copyright might have transferred later, but the law generally requires that a copyright transfer be evidenced by a written document, so merely asking his "master" to take the image is insufficient. In any case, claiming a photograph taken by someone else as "own work" is misrepresentation at best; even if one has acquired the copyright it's still not one's "own work", but someone else's work that you've paid for.

But all this occured in the days when the Ash account was known to have problems. Explaining things in this way would be rather more face-saving than the steps that actually have been taken. And this would have prevented Greg from using the picture in his article unless his publishers wanted to go the public interest route.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Thu 1st December 2011, 11:14pm

[Eppur si muove]

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been picked up by the mainstream media.

Traffic from England over the past 3 days:


..........City ...Visits ...Pages/Visit ...Avg. Time on Site
1. London ...41 ...1.78 ...00:03:53
2. Lambeth ...17 ...2.35 ...00:06:52
3. Teddington ...7 ...2.29 ...00:05:41
4. Brentford ...6 ...3.67 ...00:19:29
5. Kensington ...5 ...1.20 ...00:00:07
6. Nottingham ...3 ...2.67 ...00:04:34
7. Leeds ...2 ...1.50 ...00:00:10
8. Manchester ...2 ...2.00 ...00:01:14
9. Preston ...2 ...1.00 ...00:00:00
10. Southampton ...2 ...1.50 ...00:01:04

So fewer than 100 visits a fair number of which were probably repeats.

[Alison]

Speaking of Ash and Commons porn pics, Fae has been awfully busy at Undelete Requests, saving all the 'educational' photos, but for some reason his zeal for penis, anal sex toys and male ejaculation* photos has been curbed over the last week or so ....

I could spend a while cataloging all the dozens of pics he's voting {{support}} on, but I've a life off the internets.


(* - yes, smartypantsez, there is such thing as female ejaculation - do I have to remind anyone of the Squirtage Wiki)

[radek]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "Henryk Kupiszewski Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

It appears to be the "Premio Henryk Kupiszewski" in its home language. I get six hits. How's your Italian or French?

Perhaps it should be anglicised to the "Henry Cooper Prize" which you get for almost beating the greatest. The greatest being a book on Roman Law published in the relevant period which might be 3 or 1 years as the sources seem inconsistent.

I don't know about the prize but Kupiszewski himself seems to be real enough (or, if you don't trust Wikipedias)

[RMHED]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "Henryk Kupiszewski Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

It appears to be the "Premio Henryk Kupiszewski" in its home language. I get six hits. How's your Italian or French?

Perhaps it should be anglicised to the "Henry Cooper Prize" which you get for almost beating the greatest. The greatest being a book on Roman Law published in the relevant period which might be 3 or 1 years as the sources seem inconsistent.

I don't know about the prize but Kupiszewski himself seems to be real enough (or, if you don't trust Wikipedias)

That's in foreign and therefore doesn't count.

[thekohser]

So fewer than 100 visits a fair number of which were probably repeats.

For 39% of them, it was their first-ever visit to any of my Examiner articles, and for 83%, the visit counted was not a repeat visit within the four-day window.

I know... it's not like one of my other articles that gets picked up by StumbleUpon.com's home page and surges to 5,000 page views, but... consider that some of the readers were members of Parliament.

[Eppur si muove]

So fewer than 100 visits a fair number of which were probably repeats.

For 39% of them, it was their first-ever visit to any of my Examiner articles, and for 83%, the visit counted was not a repeat visit within the four-day window.

I know... it's not like one of my other articles that gets picked up by StumbleUpon.com's home page and surges to 5,000 page views, but... consider that some of the readers were members of Parliament.

How good are you at spotting repeats by people with dynamic IPs. I can't remember exactly how many times I visited and I'm not sure which figure I appear in. There's another Wikipedian who I know near me but I'm surprised by the total formy part of the world.

Also do you mean members of parliament or people with a parliament.uk address which includes office staff etc? Of course, they may pass the info on.

[thekohser]

How good are you at spotting repeats by people with dynamic IPs.

Not good at all.

Also do you mean members of parliament or people with a parliament.uk address which includes office staff etc? Of course, they may pass the info on.

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

[Jim]

How good are you at spotting repeats by people with dynamic IPs.

Not good at all.

Also do you mean members of parliament or people with a parliament.uk address which includes office staff etc? Of course, they may pass the info on.

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

I'd agree with your deduction, largely, on the face of it.

London's population is around 7.5 million - the UK around 62 million.
So purely by chance about 12% of your hits should be London based.

You got 5 out of 6 in that period (I think, if I understand) - so 83.3%.

It's a very small sample, so this sort of surmising is just that - but in your position I think I'd make the same assumption as you did myself about that blip.

Since we have to accept the small sample size - further support is that you got an extra ~42% to your hit total for London in those 30 minutes. If that's unique for that period compared to before and after, it's very strong evidence, I think.

Obviously this back of a beermat calculation doesn't factor in the possibility that there is more internet use in general in London than out in the sticks where a portion of those 62 million may live, and obviously, it presupposes that the mail was sent during business hours for the committee you mailed

All in all, looks like your mail did hit the mark and generated the interest you wanted, though...

edited to correct my dumb maths...

This post has been edited by Jim: Fri 2nd December 2011, 12:49pm

[Eppur si muove]

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Oh right. Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

[thekohser]

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Oh right. Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Sheesh, you guys are tough! It's just the plain old Google Analytics package, and I try not to get too personal in public about what ISPs are accessing my articles on Examiner, but if it makes you happy, on Wednesday and Thursday, there were 3 unique visitors from the ISP listed by Google Analytics as "Houses of Parliament". One used Chrome, one used Firefox, and one used Internet Explorer. Two were sourced to the page via "direct" (which means they clicked a link in an e-mail, or they had the page bookmarked somehow), and the other one was sourced to a Google search string of "has community been canceled?" Don't ask me how that string got them to my Examiner page.

Anyway, that's hard and fast proof that Parliament looked at the article. I'd say that there are certainly other MPs across London and the metro area who also looked at the article, just not from the office ISP. I think when I sent my note, it was in the early evening in England, so most who opened the e-mail in that time-frame might have been on a mobile browser or at home.

[Jim]

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Oh right. Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Sheesh, you guys are tough! It's just the plain old Google Analytics package, and I try not to get too personal in public about what ISPs are accessing my articles on Examiner, but if it makes you happy, on Wednesday and Thursday, there were 3 unique visitors from the ISP listed by Google Analytics as "Houses of Parliament". One used Chrome, one used Firefox, and one used Internet Explorer. Two were sourced to the page via "direct" (which means they clicked a link in an e-mail, or they had the page bookmarked somehow), and the other one was sourced to a Google search string of "has community been canceled?" Don't ask me how that string got them to my Examiner page.

Anyway, that's hard and fast proof that Parliament looked at the article. I'd say that there are certainly other MPs across London and the metro area who also looked at the article, just not from the office ISP. I think when I sent my note, it was in the early evening in England, so most who opened the e-mail in that time-frame might have been on a mobile browser or at home.

aww...

You misunderstand. I wasn't trying to be tough, or prying. I *want* you to be right that your message was received by the right people, and I was sharing the inane pseudo-mathematical thoughts your post inspired in my peculiar mind to let you know that I thought you were probably right.

I'm thrilled you can confirm that 3 users were confirmed as Houses of Parliament. That means lots more of them read it, or heard about it, and your efforts were not in vain. They gossip, you know (cos they're people) ...

copyedited cos my initial post was crap...

This post has been edited by Jim: Fri 2nd December 2011, 2:51pm

[Eppur si muove]

Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Sheesh, you guys are tough!

Sorry, I did not mean you had to do the donkey work. That's why I said it would miss access elsewhere.

Given the three different readers, then it makes sense to assume that a minimum of five people who were members of the committee or their personal staff read the committee. A fair number of the latter would be wannabee parliamentarians and therefore within your target group. If it was the committee whose meeting we discussed above that would be a good hit rate out of the 26 members they though they might regard it as an example of what they want to regulate. I'm off to raise your hit rate by 1 while I remind myself of how you put things.

Later: No I think the article will make its point to them fine.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Fri 2nd December 2011, 3:21pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ffs_on_User:Ash

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...page=User%3AAsh

Is anyone voting the AGK in this year's ArbCom election? This is the candidate claiming to support greater transparency. He's also censoring the WebCitation links from the user's comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464104544

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464106412

There's also this comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464108365

I don't know what else to tell you, other than that I am adamant that a user who moved account due to harassment should not have their new identity publicly paraded.

We're talking about a person who might be an enwiki sysop, who might be a trustee within the Wikimedia's UK Chapter, and who might have spoken in font of the UK Parliament. This isn't someone whose past needs covering up. We're not talking about the average user. AGK is basically saying that someone in a position as high as Fae's isn't accountable for their past activity. I have to question AGK's judgment on this subject. AGK isn't obtaining my vote in this election.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Mon 5th December 2011, 6:23pm

[thekohser]

There should be a law that when a Wikipedian uses the term "harassment", it must appear in quotation marks.

[Alison]

There should be a law that when a Wikipedian uses the term "harassment", it must appear in quotation marks.

Well, sometimes it's the real-deal, and sometimes it's not. The term has been worn smooth by so many on WP that the true meaning of the word has been lost somewhat. Harassment happens over there - it seriously does, but it generally doesn't appear all over ANI and others' talk pages. As an Oversighter on there, you get to see the real stuff ....