The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Gerard takes on the National Portrait Gallery
Peter Damian
post Thu 16th June 2011, 10:40am
Post #1


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



There’s a lovely rant from Gerard on foundation-l. Apparently the NPG has used some Wikipedia material without permission so (mindful of the legal threat the NPG made to them last year) the wiki-warriors have the pitchforks out.

QUOTE

*Surely* the NPG should be able to figure out that by doing this,
they're leaving themselves wide open to copyright suits from all the
hundreds of thousands of smart, motivated geeks who HIT THE GODDAMN
ROOF when they sent that legal threat. They've so far scraped through
on other people not being the sort of arseholes they were, but I find
it difficult to picture how they've considered that a safe policy
going forward.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/066285.html


QUOTE

Absolutely, a non-apocalyptic response is desirable.

However, they're still being blitheringly stupid and obnoxious, and
leaving themselves wide-open. However nice the individual
representatives of the NPG may be, the organisation's behaviour
demonstrates that they don't give a damn.

Would polite but firm notices from those whose personal contributions
have been appropriated by the NPG in violation of copyright help
things along?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...une/066288.html

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 16th June 2011, 12:04pm
Post #2


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This is the stuff that scot mac nicked from Grove publishing or somewhere, changed a few tenses, and swapped some quotes about. They'd be damn lucky to claim copyright on the odd comma, or two.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 16th June 2011, 2:33pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 16th June 2011, 8:04am) *

This is the stuff that scot mac nicked from Grove publishing or somewhere, changed a few tenses, and swapped some quotes about. They'd be damn lucky to claim copyright on the odd comma, or two.


How dare you make such an accusation?!

With about 20 references to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, clearly Scott didn't rearrange words from a Grove publishing resource at all!

laugh.gif



Edit: Oh, wait. Three references to The concise Grove dictionary of art. Damn, you're good, lilburne.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 16th June 2011, 2:34pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th 12 14, 12:15am