Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Jimbo Phenomenon _ SOPA and a strike

Posted by: HRIP7

Jimbo has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465086832&oldid=465085982 for comments on whether Wikipedia should reserve the right to go on strike to prevent the Stop Online Piracy Act from passing.

Views?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

What do you suppose Jimbo's angle is here; that the bill is a threat to plagiarists?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 10th December 2011, 9:32am) *

What do you suppose Jimbo's angle is here; that the bill is a threat to plagiarists?
No, to copyright infringers, which Commons is chock full of. It's a virtual certainty that Commons would be shut down by a SOPA complaint within weeks of the bill becoming law, and Wikipedia itself not long after that. Wikipedia has long relied on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and copyright practice generally, and SOPA eradicates those almost entirely.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:02pm) *

Wikipedia has long relied on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and copyright practice generally, and SOPA eradicates those almost entirely.


How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.
QUOTE

“is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” copyright infringement.
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/sopa-new-remedies-for-existing-liability/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Copyhype+%28Copyhype%29


Posted by: powercorrupts

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually. He's having an easy time of it in the UK at the moment, but it surely won't last. It's a relatively quiet time for the press at the moment (in terms of being tough on individuals, and in taking risks) and he could be benefiting a little. His Wikipidiots, though loyal enough, are not clever enough to support him properly when things are less rosey.

If Wikipedia opens a crack (and it will do to some degree every time he opens his mouth - and he can't seem to shut it lately) it has to be worked at before it fully closes again.

Posted by: Fusion

I'd be strongly in favor of a strike. It would show two things. Firstly, that people can survive without Wikipedia. Secondly, that if they're that frightened of SOPA, Wikipedia must be full of copyright infringement.

Would blanking the site do much good? In the short term, you could presumably use Google cache. Also, most articles show up on a mirror site (or several).


Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:20pm) *

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:27pm) *

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually...

No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE
I'd be strongly in favor of a strike.


They shouldn't be wimpy about it though. Either they're serious or they're just playing. Make the strike a permanent one!

Posted by: Ottava

Anyone else think that if Jimbo really cared about people's opinions he would put it in an area that isn't his user talk page?

Echo chamber chamber chamber chamber chamber....




By the way, anyone else get the feeling that there is a reason why the people defending all the porn pictures at Commons happen to be the ones who are most vocal to get the WMF to oppose this law? I wonder what it could be.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:45pm) *

Anyone else think that if Jimbo really cared about people's opinions he would put it in an area that isn't his user talk page?

That is a rhetorical question isn't it? It was certainly the first thing I thought. At least he's established that the yes-men still say yes.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Has humanity forgotten how to write to their representatives in Congress? Have they forgotten about their right to create petitions? Jimbo is a speaker. Why doesn't Jimbo try talking to Congress?

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:29pm) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:27pm) *

He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually...

No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how.


Haven't you noticed his disregard for governments in general? In his manner, comments and language he shows an oddly-casual kind of contept that goes beyond any particular cause or policy, or his own need for popularity. It always strikes me because it doesn't seem to be based on the kind of real anger that most people who express similar feelings clearly have as a basis for it. It's mainly to do with his oddball nature and strange ego I think.


Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sun 11th December 2011, 12:24am) *
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:29pm) *
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:27pm) *
He's showing his contempt for government again. The man's a fool, and he'll be compromised and universally exposed eventually...
No, protesting this law is a popular cause, and Jimbo wants to be popular. The Italian Wikipedia strike showed him how.
Haven't you noticed his disregard for governments in general? In his manner, comments and language he shows an oddly-casual kind of contept that goes beyond any particular cause or policy, or his own need for popularity. It always strikes me because it doesn't seem to be based on the kind of real anger that most people who express similar feelings clearly have as a basis for it. It's mainly to do with his oddball nature and strange ego I think.


No, I haven't noticed that, but I'm easily distracted so may have missed it. Mostly I notice the character flaws, like when he used to http://web.archive.org/web/20090403191520/http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out for asking important questions.

Posted by: Malik Shabazz

QUOTE(radek @ Sat 10th December 2011, 5:42pm) *

QUOTE
I'd be strongly in favor of a strike.

They shouldn't be wimpy about it though. Either they're serious or they're just playing. Make the strike a permanent one!

Bravo!

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:27pm) *

He's showing his contempt for government again.


I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was http://gawker.com/371870/page-branson-wales-and-blair-fuel-up-private-jets-for-more-green-getaways down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:05pm) *

I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was http://gawker.com/371870/page-branson-wales-and-blair-fuel-up-private-jets-for-more-green-getaways down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

Ah, but that was soooo 3 years ago.

Why isn't anyone calling for a strike against Jimmy Wales??

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:34pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:05pm) *

I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was http://gawker.com/371870/page-branson-wales-and-blair-fuel-up-private-jets-for-more-green-getaways down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.

Ah, but that was soooo 3 years ago.

Why isn't anyone calling for a strike against Jimmy Wales??

Occupy Wikipedia?

I'm in.

Posted by: mydog

(Temporarily)

See the RFC on his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike.

I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 11th December 2011, 2:49am) *

(Temporarily)

See the RFC on his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike.

I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.


I must say, I quote enjoyed that - but yeah, it's a "beat head against a wall" kind of endeavor. The wall don't listen.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 11th December 2011, 3:49am) *

(Temporarily)

See the RFC on his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike.

I think it's bad precedent for Wikipedia to get into politics. I think it makes a mockery of NPOV (not that there current articles don't already, but...). I dunno. It would sure get news, which would be interesting.


QUOTE(Jimbo Wales)
A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.

So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll.

To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike. This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and timing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=465086832


Jimbo is really stretching it by saying that the Italian Wikipedia's strike had any effect on the Italian law being struck down. I thought that pressure from journalists and free press groups was the main reason for its downfall?

Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:37am) *
Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 3:42am) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:37am) *
Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.


To look at the silver lining, the "win" for others here is that this kind of thing really does separate the wheat from the ... idiots and brown nosers. So it makes for a handy list if any of these folks try to run for ArbCom or something. I'm quite disappointed in a couple (Hans Adler). And impressed with one or two. Wehwalt ran for arbcom before didn't he? I can't remember if he dropped out or didn't make it. Anyway, he's one of the few people making sense over there.

I made a list of the dummies, but here are the good comments:

User:Eraserhead1 - "If you feel really strongly about this go and protest in your own time."
User:Townlake - "The sense of entitlement reflected in this proposal is Occupy-grade obnoxious."
User talk:Fox - "What the hell am I supporting? Are we going to wipe the servers for a week or something? If so, don't be so bloody stupid."
User:TCO - too god damn sensible for wikipedia
User:Wehwalt
User:Russavia - holy fucking christ, Russavia is very right and actually insightful about something

Posted by: Cla68

I've always thought that the most likely event resulting in Wikipedia's complete shutdown would be a copyright infringement injunction or judgement.

Anyway, Jimbo mentions a meeting at the WHITE HOUSE. So, I think he is doing this straw poll so he can announce the results at the big meeting, making it look like he is in touch with the pulse of Wikipedia's regulars and can report that they are NOT HAPPY with the proposed bill.

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 11th December 2011, 6:05am) *

QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:27pm) *

He's showing his contempt for government again.


I didn't see Jimbo show much contempt for government when he was asked to http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ in front of Joe Lieberman's committee hearing; nor did I see any contempt for government at all when Jimbo was http://gawker.com/371870/page-branson-wales-and-blair-fuel-up-private-jets-for-more-green-getaways down in the British Virgin Islands with Branson.


Not sure if they show the opposite (the Blair one at least).

Blair was out of British government and an international playboy by then (hence the company) and had contempt for government himself anyway (he ignored it - or attempted to - all the way through his career). One of my favourite Blair stories is that when he became PM people were astounded how little he actually new about the job. A lawyer by trade, he'd barely bothered to brush up on the basics, despite a lifetime coveting the job with his one-time flatmate Gordon Brown.

I never said Jimbo deoesn't covet power, or wouldn't kiss any politician's arse if it got him his way. He'd also kick it when he's got what he wanted, and generally seems to see himself as above and beyond such inherently-censorious mortals.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:27pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:20pm) *

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.


How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons.


Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 4:42am) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:37am) *
Jimbo really believes that a Wikipedia strike can bend Congress to its will? Sure, it would gain a lot of press, but I do not believe Wikipedia has the power he thinks it has. Jimbo comes off very egotistical and arrogant with this claim. There was a world before Wikipedia, and there still will be a world after Wikipedia. Good gravy, he even admits that the "straw poll is NOT a vote" and is just to see if anyone is interested. In other words, if he thinks the strike should happen, it IS going to happen. Am I reading that right?!?

What exactly is he and other Wikipedians concerned about with SOPA?

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.

I also wonder if he isn't also revving up the drama for "domestic consumption" (nothing sells like drama on WP). He got far less wikiluv in that little exchange with Cla than he would have gotten a year or two ago, and he's already pissed off most of the non en.wp communities, so he can't let his god status decline on his last remaining front.


Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 6:08am) *

I've always thought that the most likely event resulting in Wikipedia's complete shutdown would be a copyright infringement injunction or judgement.

Anyway, Jimbo mentions a meeting at the WHITE HOUSE. So, I think he is doing this straw poll so he can announce the results at the big meeting, making it look like he is in touch with the pulse of Wikipedia's regulars and can report that they are NOT HAPPY with the proposed bill.

Perhaps some of the regulators (and senators) he tries to schmooze will look a little more closely at the WMF to see why they're concerned, which couldn't be a bad thing. I don't think he has enough $$$ in the bank to effectively schmooze a DC regulator or senator, but he might manage to piss one off if he forgets to leave the rod and scepter at home.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:00am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:27pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:20pm) *

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.


How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons.

It might come down to how the agencies involved define "governance" of a website. If they decide it's actually the "community", there's certainly a large and influential contingent who take a radical view of "knowledge wanting to be free".

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE
This is my personal request for comment in order to guide my thinking and talking with politicians over the next few days. I am also speaking to the Foundation, Foundation attorneys, our paid lobbyists, fellow traveller organizations, etc. Because the Foundation has requested, reasonably due to negotiations under way and the impact that I might have on that by accidentally creating a public furore, I'm not able to say a lot at this time. Part of my job here is to represent the wishes of the community to all these parties, hence the straw poll. As I said before, nothing here is binding - if and when we would do something like this, there would be a much more formal proposal. Right now, what I'm thinking is that if there is a credible threat that this might happen, this could have a positive impact on the thinking of some legislators. Do not underestimate our power - in my opinion, they are terrified of a public uprising about this, and we are uniquely positioned to start that. Back room politics over cigars and promises, or a vigorous public debate? I know what I want, and I know what the other side wants, and they aren't the same thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

IOW:
QUOTE
I'm very important! I mean, uh, we're very important, but I really need to create the impression that I have the support of the serfs before I try to show those regulators how important I am. Uh, I mean how important we are. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 4:42am) *

If there is a strike, Jimbo is sure to be interviewed by every major news outlet, his speaking career will be rejuvenated and chicks will throw themselves at his feet. It's a win-win-win.


I'm confident that Jimbo could be interviewed without having a Wikipedia strike. Since Congress doesn't make money from Wikipedia, the only goal of the strike is to gain media attention. Unfortunately for Wales' desire to appear as a revolutionary leader of freedom, I don't believe that a strike would be necessary to gain that media attention. Why couldn't he just go speak to the media outlets about it?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th December 2011, 2:12pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 11th December 2011, 9:00am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th December 2011, 10:27pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 10th December 2011, 12:20pm) *

How so? My understanding is that it is targeted at sites whose primary purpose is to enable infringement.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, because up until now I've been under the impression that you're not stupid.


How is one going to show that wikipedia's primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement? They at least make an effort to remove infringement. In the last month, off their own bat, they speedied a number of my NC-BY licensed photos that some one had uploaded to commons.

It might come down to how the agencies involved define "governance" of a website. If they decide it's actually the "community", there's certainly a large and influential contingent who take a radical view of "knowledge wanting to be free".


I suspect that the law won't be looking into their souls, but at what they do, and how the WMF reacts to it.

Posted by: Ottava

I can tell you this - a change.org petition wont influence anyone.

And if the WMF does get a lobbyist, seeing their track record of hiring they wont get someone who can have any influence.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Poor Marek's comments (he is our 'Radek') got hatted by Jimbo as 'personal attacks'. Personally I thought they were spot on.

QUOTE

Why is this here? What relevance does it have? Can I start a RfC on *my* user talk page over shutting down Wikipedia for a few days over some pet cause of mine and if there's a couple of "support" votes, we gonna shut down? This is not the venue for this kind of discussion and even less of a venue for what has turned into a voting poll (to put it charitably). So stop freakin' voting. I know you really want to show Jimbo how much you love him but this whole endeavor goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and no matter how many people write an empty "support" on it, there's not going to be a strike.

At the end of the day, we've been told over and over again that policies such as NPOV are fundamental - and this proposal goes right against that. Also, Jimbo has always made a pretense of being "just another editor" (and for the most part has stuck to that, until now). This means that Jimbo has no more right to start this kind of a "poll" on his user talk page than I do. Now, giving Jimbo a charitable interpretation of the events it looks like he posted a comment on his talk page, which he hoped would get taken to another venue (this is AGFing the fuck out of the "Please help me publicize this widely" comment). But a whole bunch of people who think that agreeing with Jimbo is a way to earn brownie points on Wikipedia turned this into a "Poll". That's not how Wikipedia works. You want a 'strike', propose it in an appropriate venue (village pump, ANI, separate RfC page etc.). Stop wasting time here. Go write an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 07:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It was posted on AN and RfC, and you're welcome to post about it anywhere else you think it should be publicized. As for me personally, I've disagreed (in some cases strenuously) with Jimbo on more than one occasion. I couldn't care less about earning "brownie points" with him. I agree with him in this case because I believe he is correct. I believe that is true of most, if not all, of those who have agreed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe but people are "voting" here. And yes, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the support votes are due to the simple fact that Jimbo is the one who proposed it. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. People who disagree with your particular position are out to earn brownie points with Jimbo? Argumentum ad Hominem much? Maybe you need to read WP:NPA. Ëœdanjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow yourself. What do you think is happening? Are you being daft or naive? There's absolutely no reason or justification in Wikipedia policies for this kind of proposal ... strike that, Wikipedia policies explicitly prohibit this kind of thing, if it was anyone else but Jimbo trying to pull this kind of a stunt they'd be banned for disruption. Assuming that these aren't naive <1000 edits newbies voting above... yeah, motives do come into question. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanna start an RfC on your talkpage? Go ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

At best this is a blatant grab for power, naively supported by folks who can't think beyond "Jimbo said it, it must be true" or "SOPA bad, so support" (SOPA might be bad, but two wrong don't make a right). At worst it's a perfect illustration of everything that can be wrong with Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much go away and ignore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you go away and ignore it. What kind of bullying bullshit is that? Obviously this is something that would have very widespread implications across Wikipedia, and affect lots of editors myself included. So, no, I don't think I'm going to ignore it. That's a very nasty thing to say to somebody. Typical though I guess. Volunteer Marek 08:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Typical? You're the one attacking people and ranting when all this is is a poll because Jimbo wants to know what people think. You told him what you think and he'll read it. Other than that, it will not have implications. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Go away Seb, you're not welcome here and you're embarrassing yourself. More seriously, I just got to ask. If "it will not have implications" what is the purpose of the exercise in the first place? Obviously the reason people are voting here is because they believe - rightly or apparently wrongly - that it WILL have implications. Right? Volunteer Marek 08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No. At least I didn't. If they do believe that, they got it wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So apparently there's just an excessive amount of internet ether out there and you're just doing your part in preventing it from reaching some kind of critical mass and blowing up the internets as we know it by wasting bandwith with "comments that have no implications". Kudos. For me, as disagreeable as some of my comments might seem to some, I *do* post them with the hope that they do carry some implications. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


Posted by: Eppur si muove

I know that a bit of bellowing and chest-thumping appeals to Jimbo and his ilk more than actually addressing the problem that apparently makes Wikipedia vulnerable to this legislation but Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations has a backlog of cases stretching back nearly two and a half years. I can't help feeling that the Foundation's appeals on this matter would have a better chance of convincing legislators if they could demonstrate a bigger commitment to tackling this problem.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th December 2011, 10:45am) *

And if the WMF does get a lobbyist, seeing their track record of hiring they wont get someone who can have any influence.
Actually, Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=465289176 that they already have paid lobbyists, which I wasn't aware of. Is that a new development?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th December 2011, 10:13pm) *
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th December 2011, 10:45am) *
And if the WMF does get a lobbyist, seeing their track record of hiring they wont get someone who can have any influence
Actually, Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=465289176 that they already have paid lobbyists, which I wasn't aware of. Is that a new development?

that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:36pm) *


that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.



Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised.

Posted by: Emperor

Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.

It's better it happens now though, before people give up entirely on creating original content and forget how to do it.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 11th December 2011, 11:09pm) *

Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.

It's better it happens now though, before people give up entirely on creating original content and forget how to do it.


Love that.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:49pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:36pm) *


that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.
Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised.

IOW, we just got Jimmy on record this morning talking out of his ass? Nice catch! applause.gif

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 11th December 2011, 6:09pm) *

Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.

Particularly when it's the "politics" of a flaky megalomaniac.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th December 2011, 11:28pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:49pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 11th December 2011, 5:36pm) *


that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.
Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised.

IOW, we just got Jimmy on record this morning talking out of his ass? Nice catch! applause.gif


I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465385247&oldid=465381011.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE

Poor Marek's comments (he is our 'Radek') got hatted by Jimbo as 'personal attacks'. Personally I thought they were spot on.


Eh, if anything, him hatting these comments probably brought more attention to them.

He's probably using the term "lobbyist" in the "some guy that I can get to call their congressman" sense. I got some of these "lobbyists" myself. I could be wrong.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:45pm) *

He's probably using the term "lobbyist" in the "some guy that I can get to call their congressman" sense. I got some of these "lobbyists" myself. I could be wrong.

He specifically said "our paid lobbyists".

OTOH, whose lobbyists? Sue is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=465417079#SOPA_and_Wales_role.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) *

I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465385247&oldid=465381011.


Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465442568&oldid=465442282, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!

Dow Lohnes is http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_D_E.htm with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House.

Sounds to me like Jimbo remembered the name of the firm that Godwin told them they should work with, but that the WMF hasn't actually hired them yet, but Jimbo wanted to sound like the Big Man on Capitol Hill, so he started dropping phrases like "our paid lobbyists" when he really meant to say "that lobbying firm that Godwin mentioned we ought to consider working with", because "our paid lobbyists" sounds so much more mature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Dow+Lohnes about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Ponyta and Rapidash, and they never successfully lobbied a single case for their clients!

Or, it's possible that the WMF only hired Dow Lohnes in the http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C26.txt:
QUOTE
(1) General rule
No later than 45 days after a lobbyist first makes a lobbying
contact or is employed or retained to make a lobbying contact,
whichever is earlier, or on the first business day after such
45th day if the 45th day is not a business day, such lobbyist
(or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization employing
such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Posted by: carbuncle

No comment...

QUOTE
SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

QUOTE
...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Posted by: Ottava

http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=chooseFields. Jim Burger does not appear. However, Dow Lohnes does. I could not find anything "Wiki" related.

I do like that Dow Lohnes represents DeVry, though.


It appears that this "lobbyist" merely gives some advice but nothing really. I work with lobbyists and political campaigners all the time, and it appears that Wikimedia doesn't even have an amateurish involvement in the field.

That means that the WMF is dead in the water in terms of effective messaging. Lobbyists are needed to help craft language and get through the legal process for many aspects of a bill - hearings regarding committees, hearings regarding the language, hearings regarding votes, etc. This late in the process, there is no way to really change anything. And a good lobbyist needs months of preparation for an individual law. Google, in order to lobby, sent one of their top people to be an Obama campaign person. There is no real way to say that Wikimedia will have any true participation in this.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) *

I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465385247&oldid=465381011.


Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465442568&oldid=465442282, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!


Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) *

I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465385247&oldid=465381011.


Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465442568&oldid=465442282, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!


Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.


The question itself was a valid one, but we all know that Cla68 was there posing the question in an accusatory "what are you hiding?" manner. As scurrilous as Jimbo may be, don't pretend that much of the WR regulars are any better.


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:02am) *

No comment...
QUOTE
SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

QUOTE
...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)



Deliciously classic.

Posted by: cookiehead

Jimmy is assuming bad faith with his "hostile and paranoid" personal attack.

Posted by: Ottava

One of the first rules of lobbying is that you don't announce your groups position or that you are lobbying. Otherwise, you make it easier for opponents to know how you are moving and to spend funds to counter it. Even if Jimbo wanted to get something moving on this issue, he basically shot himself in the foot right at the beginning.

I have a feeling that most of Jimbo's supporters are under aged or not US citizens, so it doesn't really matter what their opinion is. Do you see the ACLU pandering on message boards? Instead, they have a strategic media blitz, have set lobby meals/events, have been involved consistently, etc. I disagree with the ACLU quite often but they are at least a model of how people are involved in the system. Even their write-in campaigns are very small, strategic, and deal with a specific issue or small aspect of a bill.

Posted by: cookiehead

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38am) *

Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.


Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuka_honey&diff=prev&oldid=465265847

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:02am) *

No comment...
QUOTE
SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

QUOTE
...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)



Deliciously classic.


Quite, but I would also colour in "AFAIK" (Sue) and "I am in constant communication with Sue" (Jimmy). Delicious.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:05pm) *

Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuka_honey&diff=prev&oldid=465265847


That http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuka_honey&diff=prev&oldid=423504406 to that article to spray paint it.

He seems to have a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horseradish&diff=prev&oldid=261609658 of intolerance of the notion that certain natural foods can have antibiotic properties.

Maybe an ex of his is selling the Manuka honey out of her home, so he's just doing his part to make her means of income more difficult.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:04pm) *

That means that the WMF is dead in the water in terms of effective messaging. Lobbyists are needed to help craft language and get through the legal process for many aspects of a bill - hearings regarding committees, hearings regarding the language, hearings regarding votes, etc. This late in the process, there is no way to really change anything. And a good lobbyist needs months of preparation for an individual law. Google, in order to lobby, sent one of their top people to be an Obama campaign person. There is no real way to say that Wikimedia will have any true participation in this.

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place. As with the Italian law, that could be enough to scupper it. Lobbying in this case probably means getting Jimbo invited to speak before some panel of politicians. I imagine a phone call to the EFF could probably have accomplished the same thing, but what do I know?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:29pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:02am) *

No comment...
QUOTE
SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

QUOTE
...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Deliciously classic.

Quite, but I would also colour in "AFAIK" (Sue) and "I am in constant communication with Sue" (Jimmy). Delicious.

Indeed, as well as "our" lawyer, maybe... is the lawyer in question still in any real sense his lawyer? Is Jimmy becoming the nerd-hanging-on? blink.gif

Posted by: cookiehead

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 1:52pm) *

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:05pm) *

Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuka_honey&diff=prev&oldid=465265847


That http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuka_honey&diff=prev&oldid=423504406 to that article to spray paint it.

He seems to have a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horseradish&diff=prev&oldid=261609658 of intolerance of the notion that certain natural foods can have antibiotic properties.

Maybe an ex of his is selling the Manuka honey out of her home, so he's just doing his part to make her means of income more difficult.


not his 1st visit, his other was to likewise tag but not improve the article, to complain about a friend using it for cancer treatment for their kid or something. So all that gnashing of teeth to passive aggressively try to get other editors to fix his gripe. It's a small non-controversial article (at least it is now). Of all the articles with promotional campaigns going on within them, this rates a 2 on a 1 to 10 scale.

It's not Mzoli's Meats, for sure.

Maybe he wants Cla68 to kiss his ring and get busy editing it for him. Jimmy does carry grudges from years ago, this much is clear. Also that he doesn't seem very intelligent. Anyone know his IQ?

Posted by: Emperor

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.

Posted by: nableezy

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:59pm) *

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.

Yes of course, because it is well established that sincerity trumps money and connections in Washington.

Posted by: cookiehead

This brings up a point I think often overlooked by the WP Elite in their disdain for "IP editors"....IP editors are actually more trustworthy stewards of the WP community..."you know where they live" so to speak....the rest of us Anonymous kooky name alias editors get to hide who we are and where we are editing from (like what company or government agency). Some anonymous editors even use more than one alias.

IP editors meanwhile are easily traceable by all WP editors. You can "geolocate" if someone is a corporate or government "lobbyist" without having to be a part of the Wiki Police. No favors required.

WP should allow editing only with a verified "real name" or otherwise post IP addresses next to each edit/alias.

But I guess that would take the fun out of what appears to be WP's #1 goal, to be a social media game.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 12th December 2011, 3:59pm) *

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.


Wikify Washington? blink.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

Meanwhile the news leaks out onto the internet. http://torrentfreak.com/wikipedia-mulls-total-blackout-to-oppose-sopa-111212/

"Yeah let's do it man!"
"Awesome"
"Censorship sucks"
"Wikipedia sucks but let's do anyway man!"

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Interesting:

CODE
    (del/undel) 10:52, 10 December 2008 Secret (renamed) (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Dow Lohnes" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: spam, the external links just kill it for me,) (view/restore)


22 edits, created May 2007 by a throwaway account.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Dow+Lohnes about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments.

Come off it Greg! You of all people know that there are loads of notable firms with no WP article, or at least they wouldn't if you hadn't created the articles! laugh.gif

Dow Lohnes seems to be a long-established (founded 1918) and substantial firm, at least as lawyers. Maybe they're not significant as lobbyists, though.

Say, while I'm writing this - why don't you explain to them they need a WP article to improve their credibility, especially if they intend to act for WMF. I'm sure they'll want you to write it. smile.gif


Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:45pm) *

Interesting:

CODE
    (del/undel) 10:52, 10 December 2008 Secret (renamed) (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Dow Lohnes" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: spam, the external links just kill it for me,) (view/restore)


22 edits, created May 2007 by a throwaway account.


With Jimbo's bashing of Bell Pottinger still fresh in our memories, this is hilarious.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 12th December 2011, 3:59pm) *

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.



It doesn't work that way. Scheduling alone and knowing where and when to get to is quite a lot to learn. Then you have to learn the key people who can get different language changed, the staff members to get items to someone's attention, etc.

A good equivalent is saying that if you are in a court that you can pick up how to defend yourself. Sure, you could. But you wont know about various precedence, have the research, etc. These are professionals that assist you in getting all of the stuff you need because there are a lot of people and a lot of agencies.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:20pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 12:21pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) *

I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465385247&oldid=465381011.


Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465442568&oldid=465442282, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!


Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.


The question itself was a valid one, but we all know that Cla68 was there posing the question in an accusatory "what are you hiding?" manner. As scurrilous as Jimbo may be, don't pretend that much of the WR regulars are any better.


Better to ask a question like that in a direct manner. I didn't use a hostile tone, Jimbo responded the way he did because I have been giving him a hard time lately. Anyway, I just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASue_Gardner&action=historysubmit&diff=465534048&oldid=465516481 Ms Gardner for more information.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE

Third, I am hopeful and optimistic that the OPEN Act is a viable alternative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#An_update_on_SOPA_and_answers_to_some_questions


Now there is fuckwittery of the Godwin kind.

See here in partuicular "How Different are the Definitions?" and "More US Control over the Internet?":
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/12/open-act-some-opening-thoughts/

Posted by: EricBarbour

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/13/jimbo_wales_anti_sopa_blackout/

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:30pm) *


QUOTE
SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)




http://news.techeye.net/internet/jimmy-wales-mistaken-for-julian-assange biggrin.gif
QUOTE
Officials were absolutely stunned when a bloke showed up at a UK airport claiming to be the CEO of Wikipedia.




Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:06pm) *

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.

You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today. laugh.gif

Posted by: thekohser

And, as usual, Seth Finkelstein is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&diff=prev&oldid=465443019 in how he calmly points out how foolish is the Wikimedia Foundation management.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:12am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:06pm) *

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.

You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today. laugh.gif


That probably accounts for the recent uptick in the particularly dimwitted "support" rationales.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 12th December 2011, 8:34pm) *

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/13/jimbo_wales_anti_sopa_blackout/


I wonder whether Jimbo will take all this media attention to mean that the poll results have become tainted. I see that there are plenty of anons and new, throwaway accounts voting in the poll. Most of these anons and new accounts are responsible for the mountain of "Firmly Support" votes at the top of the poll.

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=465654813

QUOTE
:As I've said elsewhere on the page, neither Sue nor the Board has ever suggested in any way that I need permission from them to ask a question of the community. The would frankly laugh at the notion, to be honest. It's a fantasy of people like Cla68 who has no business commenting on anything given his track record.

What track record jimmy has in mind, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cla68#Content confused.gif

Posted by: cookiehead

Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.

Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?

Because Chuck is in the right.


Posted by: radek

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 13th December 2011, 6:52am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:12am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th December 2011, 2:06pm) *

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.

You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today. laugh.gif


That probably accounts for the recent uptick in the particularly dimwitted "support" rationales.


Just to illustrate the average quality of the "support votes":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=465714551

which even allowing for hyperbole is not what I think the user meant. Unless, again, someone's being sarcastic - I make these kinds of comments when I'm trying to be funny - but I think I have lost the ability to distinguish.

And Cla, judging by the comments, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=465719537.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th December 2011, 9:51pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=465654813
QUOTE
:As I've said elsewhere on the page, neither Sue nor the Board has ever suggested in any way that I need permission from them to ask a question of the community. The would frankly laugh at the notion, to be honest. It's a fantasy of people like Cla68 who has no business commenting on anything given his track record.

What track record jimmy has in mind, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cla68#Content confused.gif


Ms Gardner has been more patient and forthcoming http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASue_Gardner&action=historysubmit&diff=465602724&oldid=465577801 to my inquiries, but I'm waiting for her to answer my http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASue_Gardner&action=historysubmit&diff=465603958&oldid=465602724. I think she can probably come up with an adequate answer as to how and why the WMF retained a paid lobbyist without any of us knowing about it until now, but I suspect that she might struggle to answer the question of why it's ok for Jimbo to pretend to be nothing more than a WP community member while at the same time acting on behalf of the WMF as self-elected spokesman and a member of the executive board.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:18pm) *

Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.

Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?

Because Chuck is in the right.


I like your Wikipedia User page, Cookie:

QUOTE
I like to go round articles putting {fact} in for minor claims of no controversy whatsoever, because I'm trying to pad my edit counts. It's important to me. [citation needed]

I like to open up articles with absolutely no sourcing, and make spacing edits to info boxes. Article content be damned.

I'm also now "on record" by some social climbing whack job who goes around looking for anti-semites where they aren't, instead of improving wikipedia articles.

Learned today that there's a hidden "site I like" qualifier in WP:RS.

I'm very popular in Canada, where block evading ninjas consider me a sexist.

This user thinks User:Cla68 is a benefit to Wikipedia


They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?!

They're going to start thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comcast&action=historysubmit&diff=464895252&oldid=462944909!

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 13th December 2011, 3:06pm) *

They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?!

Image

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:06pm) *

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Tue 13th December 2011, 5:18pm) *

Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.

Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?

Because Chuck is in the right.


I like your Wikipedia User page, Cookie:

QUOTE
I like to go round articles putting {fact} in for minor claims of no controversy whatsoever, because I'm trying to pad my edit counts. It's important to me. [citation needed]

I like to open up articles with absolutely no sourcing, and make spacing edits to info boxes. Article content be damned.

I'm also now "on record" by some social climbing whack job who goes around looking for anti-semites where they aren't, instead of improving wikipedia articles.

Learned today that there's a hidden "site I like" qualifier in WP:RS.

I'm very popular in Canada, where block evading ninjas consider me a sexist.

This user thinks User:Cla68 is a benefit to Wikipedia


They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?!

They're going to start thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comcast&action=historysubmit&diff=464895252&oldid=462944909!


Personally I like the first entry on the talk page, though it's probably more applicable to Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cookiehead#Censoring_Wikipedia

Posted by: cookiehead

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th December 2011, 6:12pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 13th December 2011, 3:06pm) *

They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?!

Image


Nope, never socked. I'm a serial editor not a parallel.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th December 2011, 6:12pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 13th December 2011, 3:06pm) *

They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?!

Image

To be fair, they haven't banned Cla either.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465731771&oldid=465731500

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465732514&oldid=465732437

The polling has ended. I feel that Wikipedia is most likely going on strike.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 13th December 2011, 8:08pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465731771&oldid=465731500

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465732514&oldid=465732437

The polling has ended. I feel that Wikipedia is most likely going on strike.

The Jimbo-worship lemming behavior wears thin after a few days. OTOH I'm completely surprised that they'd let me of all people nail the coffin. I guess we need more readers.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th December 2011, 7:47pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 13th December 2011, 8:08pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465731771&oldid=465731500

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465732514&oldid=465732437

The polling has ended. I feel that Wikipedia is most likely going on strike.

The Jimbo-worship lemming behavior wears thin after a few days. OTOH I'm completely surprised that they'd let me of all people nail the coffin. I guess we need more readers.


Eh, you're part of the system. Everyone knows it.

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:25pm) *

This brings up a point I think often overlooked by the WP Elite in their disdain for "IP editors"....IP editors are actually more trustworthy stewards of the WP community..."you know where they live" so to speak....the rest of us Anonymous kooky name alias editors get to hide who we are and where we are editing from (like what company or government agency). Some anonymous editors even use more than one alias.

IP editors meanwhile are easily traceable by all WP editors. You can "geolocate" if someone is a corporate or government "lobbyist" without having to be a part of the Wiki Police. No favors required.

WP should allow editing only with a verified "real name" or otherwise post IP addresses next to each edit/alias.

But I guess that would take the fun out of what appears to be WP's #1 goal, to be a social media game.


This.

User accounts on Wikipedia are onerous collars of discipline that are meant to subject the human being who knows the password to the account to arcane and arbitrary rules. If you follow the rules and pay enough lip-service, the "community" will come to "like" you. Alternatively, if you point out that the emperor has no clothes, if you broadcast how shaky their infrastructure is, or if you ignore their arbitrary rules, the "community" will come to "dislike" you. As a person. The person behind the user account.

The freak show that is WR comes in part from the fact that many of the ex-contributors here were hoodwinked into thinking that user accounts were an attractive feature of the website. They are, rather, the means to Party Membership into their 1984-like cult. And WR is Emmanuel Goldstein.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Funny thing is, III is correct. Plus: Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive229#Jimbo.27s_straw_poll_on_SOPA about the strike on the admin noticeboard
on Saturday, and it was roundly ignored. I suspect that, even with a favorable vote, this will go nowhere.

It is a wargame and a drug, and No One Is Permitted To Take Away Their Drug. If anyone at the WMF
actually does work up the nerve to shut down the servers, even for a few hours, the resulting
shitrain will be massive. The person who did the deed will be offered up for ritual slaughter.

Cowards......all of them, snivelling cowards.....

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 7:18am) *

Funny thing is, III is correct. Plus: Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive229#Jimbo.27s_straw_poll_on_SOPA about the strike on the admin noticeboard
on Saturday, and it was roundly ignored. I suspect that, even with a favorable vote, this will go nowhere.

It is a wargame and a drug, and No One Is Permitted To Take Away Their Drug. If anyone at the WMF
actually does work up the nerve to shut down the servers, even for a few hours, the resulting
shitrain will be massive. The person who did the deed will be offered up for ritual slaughter.

Cowards......all of them, snivelling cowards.....


It should have been proposed by someone with a little bit of je ne se qua - Jimbo just doesn't have it.

Posted by: lilburne

Godwin's replacement speaks:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/

Basically SOPA won't affect them at all, they are shilling for Google.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th December 2011, 7:36am) *

Godwin's replacement speaks:

Wowah! The WMF finally got a real lawyer. Geoff is one smart cookie.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE
SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

Bullshit. Commons contains thousands of images snatched from Flickr, Photobucket, and Picasa,
usually taken with no attempt to verify ownership or permissions. I even know which admins
are doing this, and have been doing this for years.

If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly.

Posted by: EricBarbour

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/14/0615207/wikipedia-debates-strike-over-sopa?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed. Plus the "visual editor".

Posted by: lilburne

SOPA seems to be targeted at link farms to torrents, and counterfeit goods site. I'll be surprised if WP has a huge number of outward links to such sites, but if they do then reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 3:40am) *

QUOTE
SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

Bullshit. Commons contains thousands of images snatched from Flickr, Photobucket, and Picasa,
usually taken with no attempt to verify ownership or permissions. I even know which admins
are doing this, and have been doing this for years.

If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly.



You are forgetting that the main teeth deal with 1. foreign websites and 2. ad revenue. Wikipedia has neither. Now, if the Germans managed to get their own local servers, then the law may affect them and their porny ways. smile.gif

Posted by: thekohser

Geoff says:

QUOTE
The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.” Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available.


Hey, dipwad... what do you think the WikiNazis are doing on a daily basis with the "Spam Blacklist", where they censor sites that aren't even spamming?

Oh, I see someone already made that point in the blog comments:
QUOTE
Evan Prodromou Says:
December 14th, 2011 at 07:45

I oppose SOPA and support Wikimedia and Wikipedia. But I think your argument is dangerously weak.

MediaWiki already has a domain-blacklisting extension, http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpamBlacklist . URLs with domains in the blacklist can not be added to an article. It’s in use on English Wikipedia; it might be in use on more sites. It would not require an undue amount of work to add new domains to the blacklist. The extension includes scripts to scan for URLs in existing articles when you add new ones to the blacklist.

SOPA may be bad, but I’m not sure the argument that it would be hard to comply is coherent.

Posted by: thekohser

I think we should tell Congress to http://vimeo.com/33248176.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th December 2011, 5:00pm) *

I think we should tell Congress to http://vimeo.com/33248176.


Thanks for that, I'm finding it hard to get the other side of this story. This one is also interesting

http://vimeo.com/32592166

particularly some of the moronic comments (corporates are so obviously evil, aren't they).

Lacking hard evidence, I had scrapped the section of my UKCC letter about Wikipedia being a monopoly and a lobbying organisation. I am thinking about putting it back.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 14th December 2011, 5:31pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th December 2011, 5:00pm) *

I think we should tell Congress to http://vimeo.com/33248176.


Thanks for that, I'm finding it hard to get the other side of this story. This one is also interesting

http://vimeo.com/32592166

particularly some of the moronic comments (corporates are so obviously evil, aren't they).



We sell design and manufacturing software across the world, a lot of US companies use the software to make the products and parts that everyone here will use everyday. We have a number of company forums that support customers. Daily we get an influx of spam messages posted onto the forums with links to websites advertising counterfeit goods of our customers. Messages advertising send us a genuine part and we'll give you a price on making N copies.

Design and manufacturing companies lose billions each year.


Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 8:40am) *

QUOTE
SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

Bullshit. Commons contains thousands of images snatched from Flickr, Photobucket, and Picasa,
usually taken with no attempt to verify ownership or permissions. I even know which admins
are doing this, and have been doing this for years.

If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly.


Whenever someone from corporate management, any corporate management, tries to blow sunshine up everyone's patooty with rosy, general statements like this, the way to respond is asking for specifics: Exactly what measures does the WMF take to ensure there are no copyright violations in its projects? Is the number of violations found each year measured and recorded? If so, what are the numbers per year? Is copyright violation oversight incorporated into the WMF's 5-year plan? If not, why not? How much does the WMF spend each year on copyright infringement oversight? How many personnel are assigned to the issue? Are their performance evaluations based on their performance in this area? and so on...

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th December 2011, 8:40am) *
If Geoff really was so smart, he wouldn't work for Jimbo's Folly.

Lawyers advocate for their client, whoever that client is. Advocating for a questionable client doesn't make a lawyer bad or dumb.

Geoff's blog post makes Godwin look like a child by comparison - he's a smart cookie.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 14th December 2011, 10:46pm) *


Whenever someone from corporate management, any corporate management, tries to blow sunshine up everyone's patooty with rosy, general statements like this, the way to respond is asking for specifics: Exactly what measures does the WMF take to ensure there are no copyright violations in its projects? Is the number of violations found each year measured and recorded? If so, what are the numbers per year? Is copyright violation oversight incorporated into the WMF's 5-year plan? If not, why not? How much does the WMF spend each year on copyright infringement oversight? How many personnel are assigned to the issue? Are their performance evaluations based on their performance in this area? and so on...


Don't be silly. Web 2.0 companies are almost all anti-copyright and have an absolute contempt for content creators. Copyright is just nasty gunk in the money making machine. It means that you have to have actual people dealing with infringement cases, you need lawyers, and all sorts of arrangements that get in the way of making money.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Restored: Dow Lohnes.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 14th December 2011, 6:18pm) *

Restored: Dow Lohnes.

You restored a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Dow+Lohnes? When should we expect your AN/I hearing?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th December 2011, 11:37pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 14th December 2011, 6:18pm) *

Restored: Dow Lohnes.

You restored a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Dow+Lohnes? When should we expect your AN/I hearing?


http://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22dow+lohnes%22

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=ar%3A1&tbm=nws&q=%22dow+lohnes%22

There should be enough sources to establish notability in the eyes of Wikipedians.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 15th December 2011, 8:46am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th December 2011, 11:37pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 14th December 2011, 6:18pm) *

Restored: Dow Lohnes.

You restored a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Dow+Lohnes? When should we expect your AN/I hearing?


http://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22dow+lohnes%22

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=ar%3A1&tbm=nws&q=%22dow+lohnes%22

There should be enough sources to establish notability in the eyes of Wikipedians.


These are all "passing mentions" of the firm by independent sources, or press releases by the firm. None provide detailed, independent coverage of the firm itself. It is therefore non-notable. Strong delete.

(Wow, I'm getting good at acting like an idiotic Wikipediot, aren't I?)

biggrin.gif

Posted by: carbuncle

No comment (other than to note that Wehwalt is a lawyer):

QUOTE
Trigger

I believe that we should act sooner. Currently, this proposing is advising us to wait until the bill passes through both Houses of Congress before acting. I believe that this is too risky. If the bill passes through both Houses, then Wikipedia's fate shall be left in the hand of a single individual. Let's send a strong message to Congress and its constituents first. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
While Geoff doesn't quite come out and say this (he says parts of it, but it's rather buried in his text), it appears that this statute as presently proposed has no applicability to Wikipedia. We are not a foreign site, and we are not an internet search engine. We do not in response to a query list sites elsewhere on the internet; we list our own pages. We don't even have a google option. Accordingly, if we were to strike, we would be striking in sympathy with other sites, rather than because of a direct threat. That would be a bad idea, because then we have lowered the bar for action, which will take place whenever someone can pull in off the net sufficient support (say a verdict goes the wrong way in some criminal trial, or that death penalty is really bad isn't it, or let's go with that old chestnut, social justice).--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th December 2011, 3:54pm) *

No comment (other than to note that Wehwalt is a lawyer):


Pretty much as I called it yesterday:

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th December 2011, 7:36am) *

Godwin's replacement speaks:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/

Basically SOPA won't affect them at all, they are shilling for Google.


I surmise that it is Wales' and wikipedia's debt to Google that is being called called in.

Jump rabbits, jump.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Just in: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75746065/Open-Letter-to-Washington-SOPA-and-PIPA, signed by the high nabobs of the internet, sent to Congress.

Please note that Wales is calling himself "founder of Wikipedia" again.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 15th December 2011, 2:55pm) *

Just in: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75746065/Open-Letter-to-Washington-SOPA-and-PIPA, signed by the high nabobs of the internet, sent to Congress.

Please note that Wales is calling himself "founder of Wikipedia" again.


I wonder how many of the guys on that list wish they could get with Caterina Fake (who is also on the list)? And why was Gina Bianchini absent from the list? Marc Andreessen was on it, so why not Gina?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 15th December 2011, 7:55pm) *

Just in: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75746065/Open-Letter-to-Washington-SOPA-and-PIPA, signed by the high nabobs of the internet, sent to Congress.

Please note that Wales is calling himself "founder of Wikipedia" again.


Was it a mistake to get Hurley to sign it:

QUOTE

YouTube’s posting of its copyrighted works, e-mails among the video site’s three primary founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawad Karim, demonstrate the debates the trio had over how to handle unauthorized content. The e-mails, from the first year of YouTube’s existence, detail clear concerns and veer to outright indifference among the founders and about how it should handle the issue. For the most part, Hurley is mostly worried about creating ill will among large media companies he hoped would pay “big money” to acquire YouTube.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-youtube-viacom-part-two-youtube-founders-e-mails-show-struggles-over-co/


Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 14th December 2011, 11:37pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 14th December 2011, 6:18pm) *

Restored: Dow Lohnes.

You restored a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Dow+Lohnes? When should we expect your AN/I hearing?

Dunno! Perhaps I'm just way to subtle to draw the fire of the drama queens? blink.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Anyone know why http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=466083798&oldid=466083169 doesn't seem to show up?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 15th December 2011, 7:42pm) *

Anyone know why http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=466083798&oldid=466083169 doesn't seem to show up?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=466090986&oldid=466090904

Fixed by an anon. It's the result of the diff URL you inserted, since that URL contained an equal sign. The equal sign confuses MediaWiki due to the role the equal sign plays in templates.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 14th December 2011, 4:53pm) *
Geoff's blog post makes Godwin look like a child by comparison - he's a smart cookie.
Still, being a better lawyer than Godwin isn't saying much, as Godwin was, and is, a piss poor lawyer.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE

At bottom, this is a political fight between the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Americans, companies and institutions hurt by rampant piracy versus a small minority of special interests who profit or benefit from the convenience of unfettered piracy, and a small minority of techtopians who politically oppose enforcement of property rights online as a threat to transparency, sharing, freedom of speech and democracy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/14/sopa-fixes-isolate-opponents-especially-google/


And better yet:

QUOTE

Google is the only public opponent that is an admitted criminal aider-and-abettor of piracy via rogue websites. Remember, in August, Google admitted to knowingly and repeatedly violating Federal criminal laws against the “unsafe and unlawful importation of prescription drugs” via the promotion of rogue websites for years, in a criminal non-prosecution agreement; Google also paid a near record $500m criminal forfeiture penalty.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/14/sopa-fixes-isolate-opponents-especially-google/2/



Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 17th December 2011, 4:47am) *

QUOTE

At bottom, this is a political fight between the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Americans, companies and institutions hurt by rampant piracy versus a small minority of special interests who profit or benefit from the convenience of unfettered piracy, and a small minority of techtopians who politically oppose enforcement of property rights online as a threat to transparency, sharing, freedom of speech and democracy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/14/sopa-fixes-isolate-opponents-especially-google/


And better yet:

QUOTE

Google is the only public opponent that is an admitted criminal aider-and-abettor of piracy via rogue websites. Remember, in August, Google admitted to knowingly and repeatedly violating Federal criminal laws against the “unsafe and unlawful importation of prescription drugs” via the promotion of rogue websites for years, in a criminal non-prosecution agreement; Google also paid a near record $500m criminal forfeiture penalty.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/14/sopa-fixes-isolate-opponents-especially-google/2/



Exactly, Lilburne. Which is why it is generally a safe bet that if the Wikimedia Foundation rallies around some cause in the real world, one is more likely to be choosing the more ethically high-minded path by selecting the path not followed by the WMF. I knew I supported the SOPA legislation the moment Jimbo started yammering dramatically about it.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Coordinated_SOPA_reaction_in_early_2012_RfC

Here's the proposed plan of action.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 17th December 2011, 10:07am) *



Exactly, Lilburne. Which is why it is generally a safe bet that if the Wikimedia Foundation rallies around some cause in the real world, one is more likely to be choosing the more ethically high-minded path by selecting the path not followed by the WMF. I knew I supported the SOPA legislation the moment Jimbo started yammering dramatically about it.


Kohs suffers from The Dialectics of Wikipedianism as surely as the most foaming-at-the-mouth acolyte policing Mr. Wales' talk page. But don't tell him I said so.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 19th December 2011, 7:25pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Coordinated_SOPA_reaction_in_early_2012_RfC

Here's the proposed plan of action.


QUOTE

Action (blackout): All requests are answered with a black page. The page is semi-protected Wikitext. Once the page is displayed, a cookie is set which prevents its display again. Exact wording to be decided, but it hits the following points:


Are they seriously suggesting that they are going to be adding tracking cookies for political purposes?


Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 19th December 2011, 11:52am) *

Are they seriously suggesting that they are going to be adding tracking cookies for political purposes?

That appears to be correct.

Posted by: carbuncle

So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 19th December 2011, 4:17pm) *

So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!

Knowing how popular that mess is, just denying a Googler looking for quick info, once, is all they need to do. I would not be surprised if the single blank page causes a shitstorm of publicity, 4chan threads, hackers trying to break things, etc. to "punish" Wikipedia for not being there. Every time WP goes down, http://www.netchunks.com/youtube-and-itunes-store-hacked-wikipedia-down/, the squawking starts.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:31am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 19th December 2011, 4:17pm) *

So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!

Knowing how popular that mess is, just denying a Googler looking for quick info, once, is all they need to do. I would not be surprised if the single blank page causes a shitstorm of publicity, 4chan threads, hackers trying to break things, etc. to "punish" Wikipedia for not being there. Every time WP goes down, http://www.netchunks.com/youtube-and-itunes-store-hacked-wikipedia-down/, the squawking starts.

1 hour without da 'pedia = irritable squawking

8 hours without da 'pedia = frustration and mild panic

24 hours without da 'pedia = anger, frustration and fear

72 hours without da 'pedia = sadness, mild annoyance

1 week without da 'pedia = meh! Who cares, more time for looking at porn.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:17am) *

So users of WP with US IP addresses will see a banner for up to a week and black page, once, on the day of the "blackout"? That's it? That'll show 'em not to mess with WP!

Tell them to use a Russian proxy address. laugh.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

In case you hadn't heard.......

Jimbo posted https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736 on his Twitter today.
And got http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/no7rr/jimmy_wales_i_am_proud_to_announce_that_the/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/no70i/wikipedia_will_be_leaving_godaddy/ and http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-pulls-support-for-sopa-amidst-backlash-too-late-to-sati/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter and http://www.mediaite.com/online/i-cant-haz-sopa-godaddy-com-withdraws-support-of-online-piracy-bill-after-threats-of-boycott/ of favorable publicity.
And, apparently, more WMF donations ensued.

"Huge balls"? How pathetic. Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:25pm) *

In case you hadn't heard.......

Jimbo posted https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736 on his Twitter today.
And got http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/no7rr/jimmy_wales_i_am_proud_to_announce_that_the/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/no70i/wikipedia_will_be_leaving_godaddy/ and http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-pulls-support-for-sopa-amidst-backlash-too-late-to-sati/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter and http://www.mediaite.com/online/i-cant-haz-sopa-godaddy-com-withdraws-support-of-online-piracy-bill-after-threats-of-boycott/ of favorable publicity.
And, apparently, more WMF donations ensued.

"Huge balls"? How pathetic. Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.


Is that just the domain holding service? How much capital expenditure is that for WMF to GoDaddy? Like $1,000 per annum?

Such a powerful demonstration of his political might. Whatever happened to that bid for U.S. Senate from Florida, Jimbo?

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 24th December 2011, 4:25am) *

Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.

blink.gif Including all his girlfriends?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 24th December 2011, 9:32am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 24th December 2011, 4:25am) *

Anyone who knew his REAL history would conclude he is a castrato.
blink.gif Including all his girlfriends?

Vibrators. And, artificial insemination. biggrin.gif

(Doesn't bother me to mock Jimbo in such a horrible fashion. Because today, I re-read http://web.archive.org/web/20090202042511/http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out.
Still as disgusting as ever. Disturbing that people have already forgotten that happened.)

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:25pm) *

In case you hadn't heard.......

Jimbo posted https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736 on his Twitter today.
And got http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/no7rr/jimmy_wales_i_am_proud_to_announce_that_the/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/no70i/wikipedia_will_be_leaving_godaddy/ and http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-pulls-support-for-sopa-amidst-backlash-too-late-to-sati/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter and http://www.mediaite.com/online/i-cant-haz-sopa-godaddy-com-withdraws-support-of-online-piracy-bill-after-threats-of-boycott/ of favorable publicity.
And, apparently, more WMF donations ensued.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=467562998#Consider_leaving_GoDaddy_over_SOPA

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&oldid=467521441#Proposal:_Message_to_the_Foundation_r.e._GoDaddy

Dumping GoDaddy wasn't Jimbo's idea. Here's some background.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 24th December 2011, 7:53pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&oldid=467521441#Proposal:_Message_to_the_Foundation_r.e._GoDaddy

Dumping GoDaddy wasn't Jimbo's idea. Here's some background.

I hadn't actually noticed before that Jimmy's comment (at the top of the thread) was actually made several hours after the discussion started. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who didn't look at the datestamps. dry.gif

Posted by: lilburne

Ongoing whining from the thieves on the foundation list about this:
http://gigaom.com/2012/01/04/how-spains-version-of-sopa-is-setting-the-web-on-fire/

No scabbing, no blacklegging, everybody out.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 7:21am) *

Dow Lohnes is http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_D_E.htm with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House.


Dow Lohnes is now on file for the Wikimedia Foundation with the Senate:
QUOTE
DOW LOHNES GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES LLC WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC. 316013-1005332


...and with the House:
QUOTE
http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300433882 Dow Lohnes Government Strategies LLC Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2011


Effective date of registration was November 15, 2011. James M. Burger is the lobbying firm's contact.


Posted by: mnemonic

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th December 2011, 4:21am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 11th December 2011, 8:25pm) *

I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465385247&oldid=465381011.


Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=465442568&oldid=465442282, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!

Dow Lohnes is http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_D_E.htm with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House.

Sounds to me like Jimbo remembered the name of the firm that Godwin told them they should work with, but that the WMF hasn't actually hired them yet, but Jimbo wanted to sound like the Big Man on Capitol Hill, so he started dropping phrases like "our paid lobbyists" when he really meant to say "that lobbying firm that Godwin mentioned we ought to consider working with", because "our paid lobbyists" sounds so much more mature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Dow+Lohnes about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Ponyta and Rapidash, and they never successfully lobbied a single case for their clients!

Or, it's possible that the WMF only hired Dow Lohnes in the http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C26.txt:
QUOTE
(1) General rule
No later than 45 days after a lobbyist first makes a lobbying
contact or is employed or retained to make a lobbying contact,
whichever is earlier, or on the first business day after such
45th day if the 45th day is not a business day, such lobbyist
(or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization employing
such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.



WMF's hiring of Dow Lohnes is public now, as a trivial Google Search can confirm.

http://www.dowlohnesgov.com/politico_wikimedia_looks_to_k_st_on_sopa_pipa/



Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(mnemonic @ Sat 7th January 2012, 3:47pm) *

WMF's hiring of Dow Lohnes is public now, as a trivial Google Search can confirm.

http://www.dowlohnesgov.com/politico_wikimedia_looks_to_k_st_on_sopa_pipa/

Yes, Mike... I sort of pointed that out here on Wikipedia Review, several hours before your post. My post is conveniently found directly above yours, from 10:10 am.

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative&diff=prev&oldid=470157962

I do not understand what did he mean under " turn the thing on" and "turn it off". Is it about closing wikipedia for 48 hours, and then bringing it back? If this is the case, should not have "on" and "off" be used in opposite sentences? confused.gif
BTW, is a charitable organization that exists on donations allowed to go on strike?

Posted by: thekohser

Apparently, they still http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-January/071303.html a select few intelligent people to post to the Foundation-l mailing list.

QUOTE
Bastien Guerry - bzg at altern.org
Fri Jan 13 13:27:23 UTC 2012

A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."

I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.

Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case
for GLAMs.

--
Bastien

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 8th January 2012, 3:20pm) *
BTW, is a charitable organization that exists on donations allowed to go on strike?
Why wouldn't it? Wikipedia can shut down today without any legal consequences. The only legal concern is that they'd have to ensure that any residual property held by the Foundation after it ceased in the furtherance of its charitable purpose was properly conveyed to some other charity or escheated to an appropriate governmental unit. (Well, actually, any restricted gifts would have to be refunded. But the Foundation receives fairly few restricted gifts.)

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action

It's nice to see something solid finally happening.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 13th January 2012, 2:01pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action

It's nice to see something solid finally happening.


http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&method=listNoticeDetail¬ice=enWP+SOPA+RfC

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57359072-52/wikipedia-considering-joining-sopa-blackout-protest/

The WMF has created a banner drawing attention to the "Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action" page, and the media is starting to mention and link to that page as well. I expect a flood of participants. The January 18th blackout is now almost certainly going to happen.

Posted by: Emperor

Stuff like this is a welcome warning.

Now do you see what happens?

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sat 14th January 2012, 2:38am) *

Stuff like this is a welcome warning.

Now do you see what happens?

So is your site joining the blackout? That would really have a major effect.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 14th January 2012, 4:50am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sat 14th January 2012, 2:38am) *

Stuff like this is a welcome warning.

Now do you see what happens?

So is your site joining the blackout? That would really have a major effect.


No. The internet is not a toy, to be taken away at whim through undemocratic processes.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#Interference_by_the_WMF

I don't like the amount of control the WMF has over the proposal. What really pisses me off is Prodego's response to my concerns.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 14th January 2012, 7:51pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#Interference_by_the_WMF
I don't like the amount of control the WMF has over the proposal. What really pisses me off is Prodego's response to my concerns.

It's ad-hominem day on Wikipedia again......
QUOTE
Accusations of interference by an encyclopediadramatica admin and GNAA defender. Lol. Selery (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 14th January 2012, 10:51pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#Interference_by_the_WMF

I don't like the amount of control the WMF has over the proposal. What really pisses me off is Prodego's response to my concerns.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&diff=prev&oldid=471455794

Look at the confusion Prodego created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#What_is_.22Soft_blackout.22.3F

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 14th January 2012, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 14th January 2012, 7:51pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action#Interference_by_the_WMF
I don't like the amount of control the WMF has over the proposal. What really pisses me off is Prodego's response to my concerns.

It's ad-hominem day on Wikipedia again......
QUOTE
Accusations of interference by an encyclopediadramatica admin and GNAA defender. Lol. Selery (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)



Yep, and look at who had to fix the mess Prodego created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&diff=471487866&oldid=471487772

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action&diff=471488557&oldid=471488510

This will probably not change the way Wikipedians treat me of course.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action&diff=471586558&oldid=471586255

The discussions will end after after January 16th ends. Billinghurst, NuclearWarfare, and Risker will be the closing sysops.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE
For those of you who keep track of such things, Billinghurst is from Australia, NuclearWarfare is from the US, and I am from Canada.


No one from Kansas I note, but at least one from OZ.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Prodego is a typical deletionist evil patroller. He hasn't added any "content-stuff" in a long time.
He likes to block IP addresses for no apparent reason. Log padding, I suppose.
Basement-dwelling manchild. Talkpage buttlicker too. One among many.

PS: he showed up in September 2005 and promptly started harassing and wikilawyering.
So he clearly had one or more accounts before Prodego.

A small prize to the first person who can PM to me his previous Wikipedia username,
or more info on his real identity. Not that he's important or anything, mind you.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

Acoording to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm, the number of "very active Wikipedians" last month was 3503. The number of Wikipedians with more than 5 edits is an order of magnitude larger. But it is going to be an order of magnitude fewer who are likely to have voted for what ever action is decided, exact comparisons depending on whether the closers decide to screen out new or hardly active accounts. What does this say about the (epi-)phenomenon of the "community" that Wikipedians like to pronounce about so often?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 15th January 2012, 6:04pm) *

Acoording to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm, the number of "very active Wikipedians" last month was 3503. The number of Wikipedians with more than 5 edits is an order of magnitude larger. But it is going to be an order of magnitude fewer who are likely to have voted for what ever action is decided, exact comparisons depending on whether the closers decide to screen out new or hardly active accounts. What does this say about the (epi-)phenomenon of the "community" that Wikipedians like to pronounce about so often?

You think that's bad? Why did they stop updating most of http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseWords.htm in 2009-2010?
Or http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesGt1500Bytes.htm? Or http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesGt500Bytes.htm?

Except for totals, everything is trending downwards steadily, especially participation.
And they're trying to cover it up.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 15th January 2012, 9:04pm) *

Acoording to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm, the number of "very active Wikipedians" last month was 3503. The number of Wikipedians with more than 5 edits is an order of magnitude larger.

The number of people who look up actors from obscure old TV shows on WP is probably many more orders of magnitude larger than the 5+ crowd. I doubt they're suddenly going to start calling their senators, unless they're tea party people in which case they'll probably call to support the bill because those lefty wikipedians are opposing it and therefore opposing it would be un-american.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 16th January 2012, 2:25am) *

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 15th January 2012, 9:04pm) *

Acoording to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm, the number of "very active Wikipedians" last month was 3503. The number of Wikipedians with more than 5 edits is an order of magnitude larger.

The number of people who look up actors from obscure old TV shows on WP is probably many more orders of magnitude larger than the 5+ crowd. I doubt they're suddenly going to start calling their senators, unless they're tea party people in which case they'll probably call to support the bill because those lefty wikipedians are opposing it and therefore opposing it would be un-american.


It reminds me of how trade union branches and university JCRs vote for all sort of causes without the majority of the membership being involved. The cause may sometimes be good (I'm sure that 30 years ago my JCR was voting to do things like condemn arpartheid) but it is the view of a handful of radicals and not that of the membership that are actually represented by the votes.

Posted by: thekohser

If Wikipedia decides to black itself out, I have a feeling the people who will be driven most stir-crazy are the Wikipediot overlords of the various Wikipedia fiefdoms.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Maybe not a newsflash, but it looks like Jimmy may be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=471662112#SOPA_shelved.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 16th January 2012, 7:05am) *

Maybe not a newsflash, but it looks like Jimmy may be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=471662112#SOPA_shelved.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=471680172&oldid=471679093

Here comes the lemmings.

Update:

There's the following thread as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#SOPA_is_dead.2Fshelved

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://www.dailydot.com/news/sopa-postponed/

The Daily Dot has decided to include one of my talk page comments in one of their news articles.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 16th January 2012, 5:34pm) *

http://www.dailydot.com/news/sopa-postponed/

The Daily Dot has decided to include one of my talk page comments in one of their news articles.

Good show! Dudley Do-right saves the day again!

Posted by: EricBarbour

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesday-to-protest-sopa/
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_blackout_to_protest_sopa_on_wednesday.html

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 16th January 2012, 10:52pm) *

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesday-to-protest-sopa/
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_blackout_to_protest_sopa_on_wednesday.html

By publicly attacking legislation, how can Wikipedia claim to be a neutral source of information? That's like letting the Zionist posse control articles about Palestine.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 16th January 2012, 5:43pm) *

By publicly attacking legislation, how can Wikipedia claim to be a neutral source of information? That's like letting the Zionist posse control articles about Palestine.

Feel free to point this out to the journalists who write this stuff.
Good luck getting their attention.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501366_162-57359824/wikipedia-may-black-out-wednesday-in-protest/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/wikipedia-to-black-out-wednesday-in-protest-of-anti-piracy-legislation/2012/01/16/gIQAHIPp3P_story.html

I like http://gawker.com/5876582/how-to-exploit-wikipedias-shutdown-wednesday....

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 13th January 2012, 6:32pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 8th January 2012, 3:20pm) *
BTW, is a charitable organization that exists on donations allowed to go on strike?
Why wouldn't it? Wikipedia can shut down today without any legal consequences. The only legal concern is that they'd have to ensure that any residual property held by the Foundation after it ceased in the furtherance of its charitable purpose was properly conveyed to some other charity or escheated to an appropriate governmental unit. (Well, actually, any restricted gifts would have to be refunded. But the Foundation receives fairly few restricted gifts.)


If they shut down completely, this is true. But they are not shutting down completely, rather they are dedicating their resources toward attempting to influence legislation. In other words, they are engaging in lobbying activities.

Posted by: Emperor

Prediction: this will backfire big time.

WMF can't get off their asses to design opt-in on porn, a modern text editor, or a sane dispute-resolution process, but bringing down the site in an entire country is no problem.

All those U.S. based donors are only getting 365/366 year's worth of service.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

doesn't make a big difference to me, but I don't see how this makes much of an impact. US lawmakers are not going to change what they're doing because a few big sites shut down for a day (or less). They know the opposition to the laws and they don't really care.

nice statement I guess, but the blackout itself is unlikely to do much. Perhaps it will encourage more serious measures, though.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 16th January 2012, 7:43pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 16th January 2012, 10:52pm) *

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesday-to-protest-sopa/
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_blackout_to_protest_sopa_on_wednesday.html

By publicly attacking legislation, how can Wikipedia claim to be a neutral source of information? That's like letting the Zionist posse control articles about Palestine.


They already "printed" the black banners. They can't go back now, facts be damned. Idiots.

Posted by: Emperor

The whole idea of Wikipedia was to pirate content from traditional information sources, process it just enough to look like it's not completely stolen, and put it all in one place where it's easy to use.

Now we see those traditional sources are starting to dry up, because there's no profit in it anymore.

And Wikipedia won't always be there either, as they make clear 100% by shutting down on 1/18/12.

If anything, the idea that Wikipedia won't always be there, and that these fly-by-night pirate sites managed by greedy post-pornographer slackers are unreliable and won't always be around, pushes me towards supporting some kind of measure to protect real content generators.

That's not even something I want... bureaucrats suck at that crap the only people who would prosper from these regs are the ones getting the gov't funds or helping organizations to comply with what are likely to be reams of stupid rules.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 17th January 2012, 5:31am) *

The whole idea of Wikipedia was to pirate content from traditional information sources, process it just enough to look like it's not completely stolen, and put it all in one place where it's easy to use.

Now we see those traditional sources are starting to dry up, because there's no profit in it anymore.

And Wikipedia won't always be there either, as they make clear 100% by shutting down on 1/18/12.

If anything, the idea that Wikipedia won't always be there, and that these fly-by-night pirate sites managed by greedy post-pornographer slackers are unreliable and won't always be around, pushes me towards supporting some kind of measure to protect real content generators.

That's not even something I want... bureaucrats suck at that crap the only people who would prosper from these regs are the ones getting the gov't funds or helping organizations to comply with what are likely to be reams of stupid rules.

Agreed.

What I like is that they've gone from blacking out the USA to a global blackout.

There is only one thing that can stop it now, unqualified support for the switching off of Wikipedia from Wikipedia Review. Well, the 18th is one day when we can all rest easy knowing there will be no WikiCrap spouting forth, so bring it on! Perhaps they can make it a daily protest until Government unequivocally refuses to legislate on the Internet ever.

Posted by: radek

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative&diff=prev&oldid=471834092 (hopefully not oversighted)

Posted by: Peter Damian

News of the blackout was on the front page of the London Metro this morning, with the title “Stock up on your dodgy facts and faked biographies. There’s about to be a WIKIPEDIA BLACKOUT”. They quote Max Groves saying “How am I supposed to get inaccurate information now?”, and Jimmy saying “I’m proud to be able in some small way to have a leadership role against censorship”, and that he hopes it will melt phone systems in Washington.

Shows how seriously they are taking it. smile.gif

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I have posted my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald

Posted by: EricBarbour

Good for you, Scott. You should have done this years ago, but this is a good time to make a stink.

If only you could talk some of the crazier admins into doing something similar. I fully expect that some of them will try to log in on Wednesday, find they can't, and go berserk.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-17/wikipedia-will-blackout-for-24-hours-to-protest-u-s-piracy-law.html is a classic. 282 languages? Not a word about the fact that 2/3 of those 282 Wikipedias contain less than 10,000 articles, and less than 100 regular users? And are practically or completely morbid, as most of the contributors have quit?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

And now "wikiality" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Wikipedia_blackout. Best comment:

QUOTE
Keep If it is not notable then why bother doing it - surely the whole point of it is to make an impact. Vrenator talk 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 17th January 2012, 10:40am) *

And now "wikiality" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Wikipedia_blackout. Best comment:

QUOTE
Keep If it is not notable then why bother doing it - surely the whole point of it is to make an impact. Vrenator talk 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)




Oh, that's hilarious - newsworthy in itself.

Maybe I should write an article about the media storm that will occur when they discuss the irony of that article - then someone can AFD that, and the circle will be complete


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_MacDonald:

QUOTE
Protesting the death of an encyclopedia.

The blackout of the English Wikipedia destroys for ever the concept of its political and geographical neutrality. It means rather than an open group of international contributors, uniting solely round their commitment to writing an encyclopedia, with nothing else implied, Wikipedia is now associated with a particular political position in a particular nation. While many, or most, Wikipedians may happen to hold this political position in common, it ought to have been irrelevant to editing here. Now it is not, a precedent has been set, and something important has died.

Some will say, "but SOPA is so important, and it affects us, so we must do something". But here is my problem. Do I agree with opposing SOPA? Or, do I have a different opinion that makes me wish to disassociate myself from the action that is being taken in the name of the community? Either way, my opinion on a political issue is now pertinent to my association with this community. You asked me a question that ought to have been irrelevant to editing here. That is new. That is wrong. Wikipedians came here united around five pillars - and five pillars only. I was not asked, and do not wish, to negotiate a sixth. Yes I know that, even were I to vocally support SOPA, I would still be welcome here. But that I am even asked the question changes everything. For the first time, Jimbo Wales has asked, and the community has agreed, that we no longer leave our own ideologies at the door.

In protest at this action, and mourning the day that the five pillars ceased to be the sole ideology of Wikipedia, I will not be contributing.

See also, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Yes, even a point you think is righteous.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

So the strongest action gets supported even though I think more people voted for no action or a weaker form of action. (It would need checking to see exactly how many people appeared in each column.) It also did not reach Wikipedia's normal standards for a concensus. It all reminds me of one of my most extreme encounters with shamocracy.

Way back around the time that the median Wikipedian was being born, Margaret Thatcher had won her third "landslide" election victory (42.2% of votes cast <32% of total electorate). At this point she had started to believe in her political immortality and was becoming increasingly dotty believing that she could introduce anything she wanted. She decided to change local taxation from a property tax to a poll tax.

I joined my local anti-poll tax group. We agreed that we would not be politically alligned and that no political group should distribute their literature from our stall. However, one evening we (or at least that small fraction of the group who bothered to attend weekly meetings) turned up at our meeting to see hordes of people we had never seen before. They voted for us to affiliate to the area anti-poll tax federation which in turn was affiliated to a national federation all of whose leaders belonged to the Militant Tendency, a group which was also in the news around that time for its entryist tactics attempting to take control of the Labour Party. They also elected a representative to the area federation who was not involved in doing any of the real donkey and received no votes from the regular members. He soon started trying to sell Militant from our anti-poll tax stall but his backers never appeared again at another of our meetings and we told him where to go.

The poll tax proved to be Thatcher's downfall. It took rather longer for Tommy Sheridan, the head of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation to eventually get his comeuppance and be jailed for three years for perjury. I haven't a clue what happenned to the non-entity who was our local delegate to the federation, presumably he just disappeared back under a stone somewhere.

In the current situation we have a combination of Jimbo having the same self-belief of Thatcher, Blair, Gaddhaffi and other autocrats who have been in office for too long, with vote flooding by outside activists and with the vast majority of regular Wikipedians not taking part in the vote. The action is portrayed in the news (at least the BBC which I have on) as being by "Wikipedia". In reality it is by an autocrat, a few of his hangers-on and a load of outsiders. The majority of Wikipedians have not expressed their views and no one can know whether they back the action or not.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 16th January 2012, 8:13pm) *
If they shut down completely, this is true. But they are not shutting down completely, rather they are dedicating their resources toward attempting to influence legislation. In other words, they are engaging in lobbying activities.
Which is legally permissible, and even somewhat expected, of charities. A charity may lobby for or against the passage of legislation which has some bearing toward its charitable purpose or methods.


QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 16th January 2012, 9:50pm) *
All those U.S. based donors are only getting 365/366 year's worth of service.
Donors are not entitled to any particular level or grade of service. That's why they're called "donors".


This is, what, the third or fourth time that Jimmy has disrupted Wikipedia for his own purposes? If you ever doubted that Jimmy still believes that he owns Wikipedia, doubt no more.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

There's another issue.

In their rush to do this, there's been little thought or contingency planning. En.Wikipedia will be locked, but still readable via mobile (so I'm told). Net result, any vandalism, even libellous vandalism, that is unreverted at shut-down, will necessarily remain for the 24 hour period. No one can correct it, not even OTRS.

If someone, say, puts obscenities on some bearded chap's page, it will be on every mobile phone for 24 hours.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

I wonder how many radio phone-ins there are going to be connected with this topic? As it's related to US-legislation I can't see the BBC having one, but I can imagine some in America. It will be an opportunity for anyone with something against Wikipedia to get themselves on air.

Then there are all those newspaper letter columns. It will also make whatever article Dan Murphy is preparing seem more topical if he were to get on the phone to newsdesks or to Sunday feature editors.

Jimmy may have opened the door for all sorts of publicity he does not want.

Posted by: Shalom

This story should be called a SOPA opera.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 17th January 2012, 1:39pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 16th January 2012, 8:13pm) *
If they shut down completely, this is true. But they are not shutting down completely, rather they are dedicating their resources toward attempting to influence legislation. In other words, they are engaging in lobbying activities.
Which is legally permissible, and even somewhat expected, of charities. A charity may lobby for or against the passage of legislation which has some bearing toward its charitable purpose or methods.


I wouldn't say it's expected. It is sometimes allowed, with limits, under 501(h), which Congress added in 1976 (before then anything more than insubstantial lobbying by charities was just plain prohibited). Only a small portion of charities elect 501(h) treatment, and as of the latest published 990 (for the 2009-2010 fiscal year), WMF wasn't one of them.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 17th January 2012, 9:06am) *

I have posted my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald

I chortled when KoshVorlon blanked your page with the edit summary "This will be VERY unpopular, but I'm blanking as this violates WP:POLEMIC. Sorry, Scott".

Posted by: Wikicrusher2

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Wikipedia has several problems, but this is most definitely not one of them. I supported the community's decision to do this. Jimbo Wales has done a fair bit of attention-whoring for the media, as the Sole Founder, and he may be exploiting WP's SOPA blackout for the purposes of self-promotion (as he usually does). However, the blackout was not a unilateral decision by Jimbo or the WMF Board; it was a consensus decision made by English Wikipedians, and they are in the right on this issue. There is no excuse anymore for cowardly submission to violation of our civil liberties, and while I did not participate in the Wikipedia discussion (I left a comment on the blog in support of the decision) I am glad that Wikipedians did not let a commitment to "neutrality" repress their desire to take a stand. Making sharing a crime would be totalitarian. The out-of-touch politicians who insist on pushing this BS and the greedy companies that they serve don't seem to realize that they can't control the Internet. It is unrealistic to even try. Why can't they just accept that the strict definitions of creative content as "property" that they are clinging to have shifted, and can no longer be imposed on everything?

Those who wish to sign (one) petition to defend our rights to freely share creative material on the Internet can go http://stopcensorship.org.

Google also has a petition to stop SOPA/PIPA (available http://google.com/takeaction. One of its problems is that calls to "end piracy", which insinuates that file sharing is actually a detrimental problem and needs to be banned. The freedom to share artistic works (including music files and movies) online deserves protection, both from digital restrictions management and the government; this right is integral to the survival of a free and open commons on the internet.

Regardless of this problems, I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA. Even without these mean-spirited pieces of legislation, digital rights in the US are under threat (as was proven by the ridiculous http://documents.latimes.com/justice-department-indictment-file-sharing-site-megaupload/, who should have known better than to trust the US government). But that still doesn't mean SOPA and PIPA won't make it worse if passed, they almost surely will.

If passed, these pieces of legislation would affect more than just one specific country, because so many international websites are hosted in the US, and because SOPA specifically targets foreign websites for censorship in the US.

It heartens me to know that this assault on civil liberties hasn't gone unchallenged.

Posted by: Wikifan

pretty worthless block. Just refresh the page and hit escape, easy fix. Or if you were using google chrome, all one had to do was let the page load and quickly hit the stop button. it took a good 2-3 seconds for the dark page to show up.

locking wikipedia from editing was definitely the biggest decision, not forcing readers to some lame blackness.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 17th January 2012, 6:11am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_MacDonald:

QUOTE
Protesting the death of an encyclopedia.

The blackout of the English Wikipedia destroys for ever (sic) the concept of its political and geographical neutrality. It means rather than an open group of international contributors... (blah, blah)...

In protest at this action, and mourning the day that the five pillars ceased to be the sole ideology of Wikipedia, I will not be contributing.



So far, I'm counting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scott_MacDonald since your announcement that you would not be contributing.

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 11:46pm) *

I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA.


Your right to download free Hollywood movies from Kazakhstani web servers must not be abridged!

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE

So far, I'm counting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scott_MacDonald since your announcement that you would not be contributing.



You can count! None of them really "contribute" anything to the project.


Blame Selina, I had nowhere else to play.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_legislators_who_support_SOPA_or_PIPA

Here's a discussion on a page that some consider to be informative and useful and others consider to be a hit list.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:35am) *

QUOTE

So far, I'm counting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scott_MacDonald since your announcement that you would not be contributing.



You can count! None of them really "contribute" anything to the project.


Blame Selina, I had nowhere else to play.


Duly noted. I knew that would be your come-back.

Let me know when you're ready to do some paid editing. That's the final stop in Wikipedia-shunning.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 3:50pm) *


Let me know when you're ready to do some paid editing. That's the final stop in Wikipedia-shunning.



Been there, done that - written the book!

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 8:46pm) *

However, the blackout was not a unilateral decision by Jimbo or the WMF Board; it was a consensus decision made by English Wikipedians

Prove it. Right or not, the WMF is a nonprofit, and in both the US AND in the UK, nonprofit charities
are NOT supposed to engage in "political advocacy".

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 20th January 2012, 3:25pm) *

Right or not, the WMF is a nonprofit, and in both the US AND in the UK, nonprofit charities
are NOT supposed to engage in "political advocacy".

Not engage "substantially".

Posted by: Wikicrusher2

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:26am) *

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 11:46pm) *

I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA.


Your right to download free Hollywood movies from Kazakhstani web servers must not be abridged!

Hey, nothing wrong with that smile.gif Copying is not theft.

It seems that the United States Government simply http://documents.latimes.com/justice-department-indictment-file-sharing-site-megaupload/ free Hollywood movies on servers in its country, so that rules out (at least legally) using US servers. Thankfully, if what you're saying is true about Kazakh servers, the Kazakh government isn't as mean (at least in that regard) as the US.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:26am) *

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Thu 19th January 2012, 11:46pm) *

I did sign the petition, as I agree that large corporations and certain congresspeople are trying to sabotage our rights online with nasty laws like PIPA and SOPA.


Your right to download free Hollywood movies from Kazakhstani web servers must not be abridged!

Hey, nothing wrong with that smile.gif Copying is not theft.

It seems that the United States Government simply http://documents.latimes.com/justice-department-indictment-file-sharing-site-megaupload/ free Hollywood movies on servers in its country, so that rules out (at least legally) using US servers. Thankfully, if what you're saying is true about Kazakh servers, the Kazakh government isn't as mean (at least in that regard) as the US.

The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) *
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) *
Hey, nothing wrong with that smile.gif Copying is not theft.
The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you.
Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit.

Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole.

Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort.

Posted by: Wikicrusher2

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th January 2012, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) *
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) *
Hey, nothing wrong with that smile.gif Copying is not theft.
The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you.
Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit.

Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole.

Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort.

Indeed. Likewise, "intellectual property" is a legal device (perhaps "fiction" would be applicable as well), subject to variance in definition. Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct and is often used as a legal weapon against sharing.

I don't know what I did to piss off SB Johnny, but I can assure him that I didn't download any free Hollywood movies (from Kazakh servers or otherwise). They are likely to be of shitty quality, and probably not worth watching in the first place.

Even so, punishing people for downloading them freely, as if it were Soviet samizdat in Stalinist Russia, is incredibly authoritarian IMHO.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 8:14pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th January 2012, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) *
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) *
Hey, nothing wrong with that smile.gif Copying is not theft.
The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you.
Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit.

Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole.

Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort.

Indeed. Likewise, "intellectual property" is a legal device (perhaps "fiction" would be applicable as well), subject to variance in definition. Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct and is often used as a legal weapon against sharing.

I don't know what I did to piss off SB Johnny, but I can assure him that I didn't download any free Hollywood movies (from Kazakh servers or otherwise). They are likely to be of shitty quality, and probably not worth watching in the first place.

Even so, punishing people for downloading them freely, as if it were Soviet samizdat in Stalinist Russia, is incredibly authoritarian IMHO.

You didn't piss me off, it's just that you're just a perfect example of the problem (because if people like you didn't think pirating music or films was a fine and dandy thing, there would presumably be no need for a law to encourage you to cut it out).

Patents and copyrights aren't evil, even if they are social constructs. Lots of social constructs aren't evil..

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 21st January 2012, 12:46am) *


Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation.


So how then can you be convicted of theft of government information even if all you did was copy the information. The government still having the information?
http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/8810-united-states-v-girard

Posted by: HRIP7

So what about the arrest of Kim Schmitz and the shutdown of Megaupload?

Interesting timing, this, coming one day after the Wikipedia blackout. It will probably not be in Wikipedia's interest to be seen as supporting people like Schmitz, for the sake of a vibrant Internet etc.

Posted by: Vigilant

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 1:28am) *

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 8:14pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 20th January 2012, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 20th January 2012, 7:01pm) *
QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Fri 20th January 2012, 6:43pm) *
Hey, nothing wrong with that smile.gif Copying is not theft.
The reason something like SOPA is needed is because of little shits like you.
Leave it to SBJ to make it personal. He's more like Ottava than he'd like to admit.

Copyright violation is not "theft." That's a trope promoted by involved interests and people who want to amplify their arguments with some hyperbole.

Copyright violation is copyright violation, a creature of law. Theft is a common-law violation. Copyright violation is, under common law, at worst, a tort.

Indeed. Likewise, "intellectual property" is a legal device (perhaps "fiction" would be applicable as well), subject to variance in definition. Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct and is often used as a legal weapon against sharing.

I don't know what I did to piss off SB Johnny, but I can assure him that I didn't download any free Hollywood movies (from Kazakh servers or otherwise). They are likely to be of shitty quality, and probably not worth watching in the first place.

Even so, punishing people for downloading them freely, as if it were Soviet samizdat in Stalinist Russia, is incredibly authoritarian IMHO.

You didn't piss me off, it's just that you're just a perfect example of the problem (because if people like you didn't think pirating music or films was a fine and dandy thing, there would presumably be no need for a law to encourage you to cut it out).

Patents and copyrights aren't evil, even if they are social constructs. Lots of social constructs aren't evil..

Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons.

Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.

Patents are particularly flawed in their current incarnation. They were designed around the same idea as copyrights but have turned into a mechanism to allow trivial ideas to acts as vehicles of extortion.

Both need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.

SBJ, your arguments are crap.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:01pm) *

Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.

...need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.


Two hundred years ago (in the U.S.) a copyright lasted for 14 years, and if you were still alive at the end of it, you'd get another 14-year extension. So, 28 years. Vigilant, would you say in your obviously expert opinion that if we were to return to the old 14+14 plan, we'd be fine, or would that also be the evil work of a totalitarian regime?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:01pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 1:28am) *

You didn't piss me off, it's just that you're just a perfect example of the problem (because if people like you didn't think pirating music or films was a fine and dandy thing, there would presumably be no need for a law to encourage you to cut it out).

Patents and copyrights aren't evil, even if they are social constructs. Lots of social constructs aren't evil..

Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons.

Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.

Patents are particularly flawed in their current incarnation. They were designed around the same idea as copyrights but have turned into a mechanism to allow trivial ideas to acts as vehicles of extortion.

Both need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.

SBJ, your arguments are crap.

I didn't say I'm particularly endeared to the present copyright system, I just don't think you serve your case well by defending people who really are selling/swapping/etc. pirated movies, cds, books, or whatever. I suspect most of the hot trade is not in materials that are 70+ years old.

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 20th January 2012, 10:28pm) *

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:01pm) *

Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.

...need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.


Two hundred years ago (in the U.S.) a copyright lasted for 14 years, and if you were still alive at the end of it, you'd get another 14-year extension. So, 28 years. Vigilant, would you say in your obviously expert opinion that if we were to return to the old 14+14 plan, we'd be fine, or would that also be the evil work of a totalitarian regime?

That's certainly more reasonable, though it might need a bit of adjusting because of the rather big changes in life expectancy since the early 1800s. smile.gif

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Wikicrusher2 @ Sat 21st January 2012, 1:14am) *

Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct


As opposed to any other type of property's classification as "property"?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 16th January 2012, 7:05am) *

Maybe not a newsflash, but it looks like Jimmy may be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=471662112#SOPA_shelved.



He does seem to suggest the RfCs are part of the normal legislative process.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 3:57am) *

I didn't say I'm particularly endeared to the present copyright system, I just don't think you serve your case well by defending people who really are selling/swapping/etc. pirated movies, cds, books, or whatever. I suspect most of the hot trade is not in materials that are 70+ years old.



Its not just about movies, cds, books. Scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ugg+boots+cheap

it is affecting large parts of industry. Including automotive spares, medical, watches, fashion, perfumes, and food stuffs. The company I work for creates CADCAM software that is used by many of the worlds designers and manufacturers. Our website gets spam every day from knock off manufacturers offering counterfeit products.


Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Sat 21st January 2012, 2:01am) *

Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons.


Who first envisioned this copyright, and where did s/he write about how s/he envisioned it?

"I do not know, nor can I comprehend any property more emphatically a man's own, nay, more incapable of being mistaken, than his literary works." - Justice Aston, Millar v. Taylor, 1767

I think you're relying on a revisionist history here. The debate over whether or not copyright is a property right / natural right / common law right, is at least as old as the Statute of Anne itself.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

And so the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Post-blackout_activities_and_initiatives continues. Is Jimmy going to run for office soon?

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 2:09pm) *

And so the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Post-blackout_activities_and_initiatives continues.


They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Fri 20th January 2012, 9:01pm) *

Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons.

Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.

Patents are particularly flawed in their current incarnation. They were designed around the same idea as copyrights but have turned into a mechanism to allow trivial ideas to acts as vehicles of extortion.

Both need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.

SBJ, your arguments are crap.


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 21st January 2012, 9:16am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 2:09pm) *

And so the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Post-blackout_activities_and_initiatives continues.


They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=472432471#Please_endorse_public_campaign_finance_initiative

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 21st January 2012, 9:16am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 21st January 2012, 2:09pm) *

And so the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Post-blackout_activities_and_initiatives continues.


They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?


And on the slippery slope.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 21st January 2012, 2:20pm) *

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html


I like how they claim " that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession", and then quote the Constitution where it talks about "securing for limited Times...the exclusive Right".

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 22nd January 2012, 2:25am) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 21st January 2012, 2:20pm) *

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html


I like how they claim " that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession", and then quote the Constitution where it talks about "securing for limited Times...the exclusive Right".


QUOTE

While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all ... it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land ... Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.
Thomas Jefferson


QUOTE
All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.
Benjamin Franklin


IOW all property is an artificial concession of society. So their point is?


Posted by: Doc glasgow

Indeed, although by one logic one has more claim on intelectual property than, say, to a field.

If I write a song, I wrote it, I am its creator.

Cows, sheep, goats, forests, hills, gold and re-estate I cannot make.





Posted by: lilburne

+5 that

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 22nd January 2012, 9:50am) *

IOW all property is an artificial concession of society. So their point is?

Ownership is evil. Shut up, get on the gurney, and gimme that damn kidney.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 22nd January 2012, 2:56pm) *

Indeed, although by one logic one has more claim on intelectual property than, say, to a field.

If I write a song, I wrote it, I am its creator.

Cows, sheep, goats, forests, hills, gold and re-estate I cannot make.


You can't?

Posted by: EricBarbour

So much of Wikipedia is comedy......

Seen the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Ideas" page yet?

At the top:

QUOTE
This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.


Then a little further down:
QUOTE
I have been here only a short while, but have been dumbfounded at the levels of genius here at Wikipedia. It is a melting pot of the brightest minds in the World.


And below that:
QUOTE
When I'm advocating these, I'm thinking in terms of myself as an encyclopaedia editor, not as a "maker of sausages" as the process of politics is described. "No Copyright" is an excellent position to begin from, to be able to retreat to "Repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" or "Reduction of US copyright period to 15 years." Demands need to be strident, it is part of the process of compromise, you need to have something to sell-out. This is also an excellent position to hold, while accepting limited gains such as a potential dramatic and universal extension of free use for educational, academic and not-for-profit purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


You can't make this shit up.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 22nd January 2012, 1:27pm) *

So much of Wikipedia is comedy......

Seen the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Ideas" page yet?

At the top:
QUOTE
This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.


Then a little further down:
QUOTE
I have been here only a short while, but have been dumbfounded at the levels of genius here at Wikipedia. It is a melting pot of the brightest minds in the World.


And below that:
QUOTE
When I'm advocating these, I'm thinking in terms of myself as an encyclopaedia editor, not as a "maker of sausages" as the process of politics is described. "No Copyright" is an excellent position to begin from, to be able to retreat to "Repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" or "Reduction of US copyright period to 15 years." Demands need to be strident, it is part of the process of compromise, you need to have something to sell-out. This is also an excellent position to hold, while accepting limited gains such as a potential dramatic and universal extension of free use for educational, academic and not-for-profit purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


You can't make this shit up.



Ok, honestly, I just have to ask, even though the answer may be obvious; is that page a joke or meant as a send up?

I mean Fifelfoo always talks crazy shit, I always have a hard time understanding what the hell he's saying and I always half suspect he's taking the piss. But I'm pretty sure that an "important wikipedian" like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Ideas&diff=prev&oldid=471819605.

They really ARE that insane, aren't they?

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE
It is a melting pot of the brightest minds in the World.


Quote of the day.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd January 2012, 2:34am) *

A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.

And presumably gave some sort of evidence...

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 24th January 2012, 7:22am) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd January 2012, 2:34am) *
A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.
And presumably gave some sort of evidence...
Comment was made in a https://plus.google.com/107055800049023665990/posts/WqcBBz2bH8Y. Make what you will of it.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 24th January 2012, 9:39am) *

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 24th January 2012, 7:22am) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 23rd January 2012, 2:34am) *
A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.
And presumably gave some sort of evidence...
Comment was made in a https://plus.google.com/107055800049023665990/posts/WqcBBz2bH8Y. Make what you will of it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

This guy?

Posted by: Rhindle

IIRC, Jimbo had a real hardon for this guy, Mr Forrester. He was overwhelming voted down for arbcom but Jimbo kept him anyway. If this is the guy I'm thinking of.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Tue 24th January 2012, 10:32am) *

IIRC, Jimbo had a real hardon for this guy, Mr Forrester. He was overwhelming voted down for arbcom but Jimbo kept him anyway. If this is the guy I'm thinking of.


Correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004#Results

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026675.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesF

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 24th January 2012, 10:55am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004#Results

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026675.html
Just noticing, my wont, the structural defects. Using pure Approval voting for multiwinner elections is interesting, but was the system Yes/No? If only Yes, people may simply vote for their favorites and leave it at that; the method then reduces to Plurality, in effect.

This is not a method, neither Plurality nor Approval, to produce anything like fair representation of a community. For the same reasons, supermajority election of administrators produces a highly warped representation of the community, it's quite possible for a majority position to end up unrepresented, and that result, over years, will then begin to bias participation. When people don't feel that the results represent how they voted, they stop participating.

Jimbo made an appointment because it was felt that more numbers would increase the depth of analysis. That's not necessarily true, and it became quite clear to me, in my tangles with ArbComm, that arbs were simply voting knee-jerk, often. People are going to do that, it's inevitable, but sane process will make sure that those voting are, at least, *presented* with clear evidence and argument. If they ignore it, they can then be held responsible. But three-year terms militates against responsibility. If you are going to have long terms, then the election process should be far deeper, aiming to gain the most careful and thorough participants as arbitrators. Or at least those who are truly most representative, who *collectively* represent a maximized percentage of users.

Best would be a process which creates a panel that truly represents the community, so that the votes of the panel can be, usually, how the whole community would vote if informed adequately. Asset Voting could do it (an element in Asset Voting could be the proxy method proposed experimentally as WP:PRX. That alone would not be enough. What would then be needed would be a process whereby the *community* and *staff* present organized and coherent evidence and argument for consideration by the panel. Combining the roles of investigation with decision is structurally unwise, likely to burn out the participants. "Staff" here means that there would be a class of user which does investigation and reporting. They might be given tools that, for example, allow them to read deleted posts. Each arbitrator might be able to appoint this "staff." The purpose of staff is to advise the arbs!

With an Asset-elected ArbComm, everyone who participates in the election could know whom they elected, "their arbitrator." With secret ballot, the arbs would not know who elected them, not the primary voters. They would know who transferred votes to them, that part must be done publically.

It could be done. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Tue 24th January 2012, 9:32am) *

IIRC, Jimbo had a real hardon for this guy, Mr Forrester. He was overwhelming voted down for arbcom but Jimbo kept him anyway. If this is the guy I'm thinking of.
Yes. James is also the origin (albeit with support from David Gerard) for Jimbo's notion of himself as a constitutional monarch.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Jimmy gave him an enormous hug when they met last May. I wonder if Jimmy was confusing Westminster City School, Forrester's alma mater, which is a rugged state comp, with nearby Westminster School, alma mater of the elite, including at least seven British prime ministers? How would we find out?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 24th January 2012, 2:49pm) *

Jimmy gave him an enormous hug when they met last May.


Did you get wood?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 24th January 2012, 12:00pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 24th January 2012, 2:49pm) *

Jimmy gave him an enormous hug when they met last May.
Did you get wood?

Jimbo's always got wood.

Call him Twig-Man.

Posted by: HRIP7

Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=473958866#What.27s_next that he's

QUOTE
been contacted by people in the movie industry who would like to sit down and talk to me about what kind of bill I would support. While I believe that they have been arrogant and overbearing in the past, I also think this is a good opportunity for us to move forward with some proposals that will address some of the real issues they have, AND a good opportunity for us to move forward with some proposals that will address many of the real issues that we have. Let's discuss. What's your (realistic) dream copyright reform bill? As Mick sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes..."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=473958866#The_animated_gif_file_of_a_man_mastrubating_is_in_a_public_domain._Do_we_need_it_in_public_domain.3F on masturbation videos in Commons further up on that page. A lady has founded a "Stop pornography on Wikipedia" Facebook group, and Jimbo says there will be news about the fate of the image filter later this week.

Posted by: thekohser

"While I believe that they have been arrogant and overbearing in the past..."

Jimbo sure does know how to butter 'em up, doesn't he?

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th January 2012, 8:44pm) *

"While I believe that they have been arrogant and overbearing in the past..."

Jimbo sure does know how to butter 'em up, doesn't he?


I'm gonna remember that one for next time I address Jimmy on his talk page. (Almost) everyone deserves a second chance.