Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ News Worth Discussing _ What Wikipedia Won't Tell You

Posted by: Newsfeed

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html

New York Times
Washington • The digital tsunami that swept over the Capitol last month, forcing Congress to set aside legislation to combat the online piracy of American music, movies, books and other creative works, raised questions about how the democratic process …

Posted by: thekohser

Watch for the WP biography of Cary Sherman to get sabotaged in the next few days.

Posted by: EricBarbour

a) I found this edit most amusing:

QUOTE
(cur | prev) 13:51, 22 May 2011‎ Doctorow (talk | contribs)‎ (3,829 bytes) (Removed inflammatory description of Sherman's critics, replaced with neutral language (BoycottRIAA is not a site advocating for piracy, it's a site advocating for copyright reform)) (undo)

(FYI: "Doctorow" is Cory Doctorow, sci-fi writer and blogger, and famed free-culture advocate, who loves to bitch about the RIAA.)

b) You see all the edits by one "Gunheim"? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Gunheim lately is edit articles about the RIAA's leaders, Sherman and Mitch Bainwol.....and mostly to make them more negative.

So, the article has already been "vandalized".

(BTW, he's being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gunheim#Between_Gunheim_and_TonyTheTiger by TonyTheTiger...)

And there you have it. A perfect example of Wikipedia's house bias. In action.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Oh BTW: did you know that Hilary Rosen, previous head of the RIAA, was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hilaryrosen?
Plus the BLPs of Sherman and Bainwol?

Posted by: lilburne

And did you know that dear little Cory was a bitching and a moaning last year that the Daily Mail had used his wife's photos without permission:
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/16/daily-mail-rips-off-my-wifes-photo-after-asking-permission-and-being-turned-down.html

seems that for Cory only other people's stuff should be free.


Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 7th February 2012, 11:57pm) *

And did you know that dear little Cory was a bitching and a moaning last year that the Daily Mail had used his wife's photos without permission:
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/16/daily-mail-rips-off-my-wifes-photo-after-asking-permission-and-being-turned-down.html

seems that for Cory only other people's stuff should be free.

In fairness, it was the Daily Fail yak.gif and http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1938870/photographer-accuses-daily-mail-copyright-infringement. They already have a reputation for stomping others who infringe their copyright, so I'm seeing it as his calling them on their hypocrisy.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 8th February 2012, 8:08am) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 7th February 2012, 11:57pm) *

And did you know that dear little Cory was a bitching and a moaning last year that the Daily Mail had used his wife's photos without permission:
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/16/daily-mail-rips-off-my-wifes-photo-after-asking-permission-and-being-turned-down.html

seems that for Cory only other people's stuff should be free.

In fairness, it was the Daily Fail yak.gif and http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1938870/photographer-accuses-daily-mail-copyright-infringement. They already have a reputation for stomping others who infringe their copyright, so I'm seeing it as his calling them on their hypocrisy.


What's fair got to do with it? Information needs to be free, so what if its the Daily Heil, and so what if they were refused a license in the first place? I don't recall Cory "The Hypocrite" ever saying that there ought to be some morality test applied to those that infringe copyrights.


Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 8th February 2012, 12:08am) *

In fairness, it was the Daily Fail yak.gif and http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1938870/photographer-accuses-daily-mail-copyright-infringement.

These photo squabbles really annoy me--and they should annoy anyone. All of the parties come off
looking greedy and disgusting. The photographer, the publisher, even the legal system that enables it. If
a photog was really screwed by a publisher, and he went to an attorney to file a suit, the attorney would
(of course) demand a contingency fee, plus a very large percentage of any recoveries. And who
ultimately pays? The people who bought the publication, of course.

Internet copyright wars are still in their early days. There is constant, relentless pressure on Congress,
Parliament and all other lawmaking bodies to make copyright infringement a major felony, thus making
wide swaths of the Internet illegal. I suspect we will be seeing laws passed in the near future that will
make SOPA look like a moderate thing. And if they can do that with video and audio recordings and
photographs, you can expect to see sentences and even single words protected. It will become a crime
to use a word in normal conversation. Orwell via the back door, if you like. wink.gif

Posted by: Rhindle

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 8th February 2012, 1:10pm) *

Internet copyright wars are still in their early days. There is constant, relentless pressure on Congress,
Parliament and all other lawmaking bodies to make copyright infringement a major felony, thus making
wide swaths of the Internet illegal. I suspect we will be seeing laws passed in the near future that will
make SOPA look like a moderate thing. And if they can do that with video and audio recordings and
photographs, you can expect to see sentences and even single words protected. It will become a crime
to use a word in normal conversation. Orwell via the back door, if you like. wink.gif


Well, if Monsanto can copyright food, someone will eventually copyright any words besides just mottos and catchphrases.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 8th February 2012, 4:29pm) *
Well, if Monsanto can copyright food, someone will eventually copyright any words besides just mottos and catchphrases.
I'm flomaxed©.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th February 2012, 9:32pm) *

Watch for the WP biography of Cary Sherman to get sabotaged in the next few days.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cary_Sherman&action=history

The article is active again. Speaking of "sabotage", why is "Cusop Dingle" interested in having the article deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cary_Sherman#Notability

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th February 2012, 9:32pm) *

Watch for the WP biography of Cary Sherman to get sabotaged in the next few days.

I http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/Cary_Sherman that one.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 9th February 2012, 1:03pm) *

I http://stats.grok.se/en/201202/Cary_Sherman that one.

Only because we brought it up on WR......when will those Wikidiots admit it, WR has a lot of political power over Wikipedia?

Cusop is a sock account, and one of the resident squabblers from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, a place that few people ever read or
otherwise deal with. A constant battleground between deletionists and inclusionists, all happily together
generating megabytes of useless unreadable squabbling. All Hail Wikipedia.