The myth of reference sources Options

[communicat]

A recent study proves what most of us here knew all along. For all of the hype about how Wikipedia is more and more reliable thanks to the reference sources that pepper its articles, when it comes right down to it, even college students are oblivious to what the references are actually pointing to when they evaluate the credibility of a Wikipedia article.

(Thankfully, as a paid editor, I can sometimes use this to my advantage... puffing out references that are barely relevant to what is claimed in the article. But if that's what it takes to make the content stick, so be it.)

(It's also a nifty trick to get vandalism to hold in place.)

You might find that the CC visual images influence text content credibility as much as or maybe even more so than the reference citations. If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity, I doubt if WP would be as seemingly credible as it is among some students.

[thekohser]

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what in the world are you talking about there?

[communicat]

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what in the world are you talking about there?

I'm saying a picture speaks a thousand words of credibility, more so than even copious references. WP probably wouldn't have come into existence were it not for its free access to countless CC visuals protected by a very liberal legal interpretation of copyright, courtesy State of Florida laws. Without those visuals (and those laws) a lot of WP articles would probably have no credibility at all, seeing as students apparently don't rely on quality of sourcing when it comes to judging credibility of an article.

This post has been edited by communicat: Tue 16th August 2011, 11:12pm

[lilburne]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

[communicat]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

Re copyright violations: WP can be sued for monetary compensation only in locations where it has assets. I doubt if WP has any assets in Netherlands, regardless of whether or not a Dutch court recognises the validity of CC licenses. Only in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers (and presumably its assets) are hosted, is Wikipedia effectively accountable to copyright laws as defined by Florida on the basis of CC licensing, which as far as I know is not recognised in the legal systems of most other countries. Naturally, nobody is his right mind would be tempted to sue for copyright violation in State of California, because CC licensing is officially endorsed there. For which reason nobody in his right mind would even contemplate suing the well-protected WP in California. Clever guy, this Jimbo.

There are many WP articles that have no text reference citations at all; they rely for their "credibility" purely on the strength of the images -- "a photo never lies", kind of thing. Meanwhile, I know of graphics oriented "editors" who're drawn to WP only because it gives them the opportunity to play around with a huge archive of "fair use" images. They're evidently happy to scrape together just any old mindless (and usually unsourced) textual content simply to fill the irritating spaces between pictures.

This post has been edited by communicat: Wed 17th August 2011, 2:17pm

[thekohser]

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what in the world are you talking about there?

I'm saying a picture speaks a thousand words of credibility, more so than even copious references. WP probably wouldn't have come into existence were it not for its free access to countless CC visuals protected by a very liberal legal interpretation of copyright, courtesy State of Florida laws. Without those visuals (and those laws) a lot of WP articles would probably have no credibility at all, seeing as students apparently don't rely on quality of sourcing when it comes to judging credibility of an article.

So, you're saying that Wikipedia would not have been protected in the 49 other states than Florida?

I think you have completely missed the reason why Wikipedia was set up in Florida -- two words, Brian Dowling.

I'm going to start dismissing a lot of what you say, "communicat", because you're just speaking your vague opinions as fact, without any basis in fact.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 17th August 2011, 1:41pm

[communicat]

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what in the world are you talking about there?

I'm saying a picture speaks a thousand words of credibility, more so than even copious references. WP probably wouldn't have come into existence were it not for its free access to countless CC visuals protected by a very liberal legal interpretation of copyright, courtesy State of Florida laws. Without those visuals (and those laws) a lot of WP articles would probably have no credibility at all, seeing as students apparently don't rely on quality of sourcing when it comes to judging credibility of an article.

So, you're saying that Wikipedia would not have been protected in the 49 other states than Florida?

I think you have completely missed the reason why Wikipedia was set up in Florida -- two words, Brian Dowling.

I'm going to start dismissing a lot of what you say, "communicat", because you're just speaking your vague opinions as fact, without any basis in fact.

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

This post has been edited by communicat: Wed 17th August 2011, 3:34pm

[lilburne]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

Re copyright violations: WP can be sued for monetary compensation only in locations where it has assets. I doubt if WP has any assets in Netherlands, regardless of whether or not a Dutch court recognises the validity of CC licenses. Only in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers (and presumably its assets) are hosted, is Wikipedia effectively accountable to copyright laws as defined by Florida on the basis of CC licensing, which as far as I know is not recognised in the legal systems of most other countries. Naturally, nobody is his right mind would be tempted to sue for copyright violation in State of California, because CC licensing is officially endorsed there. For which reason nobody in his right mind would even contemplate suing the well-protected WP in California. Clever guy, this Jimbo.

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

[thekohser]

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

You are also the same person who stated fairly clearly as "fact":

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I sensed that you were talking out of your ass, and it would appear that I was correct, as you now express "limited understanding", and "don't know", and request to be "enlightened".

I'm not sure how others feel here, but I really feel like my time is wasted when people post matters of what appear to be "fact", when in actual fact, it's nothing more than erroneous conjecture or imagination. Please don't do that.

[communicat]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

Re copyright violations: WP can be sued for monetary compensation only in locations where it has assets. I doubt if WP has any assets in Netherlands, regardless of whether or not a Dutch court recognises the validity of CC licenses. Only in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers (and presumably its assets) are hosted, is Wikipedia effectively accountable to copyright laws as defined by Florida on the basis of CC licensing, which as far as I know is not recognised in the legal systems of most other countries. Naturally, nobody is his right mind would be tempted to sue for copyright violation in State of California, because CC licensing is officially endorsed there. For which reason nobody in his right mind would even contemplate suing the well-protected WP in California. Clever guy, this Jimbo.

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

You misunderstand me, or maybe I've failed to make myself understood. Whatever. It is precisely because CC license is recognised in Florida that WMF can avoid being sued for copyright violation, because there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation" in Florida. Unless, of course, someone at OTRS and/or image monitoring crew really screws up and gets the license format completely wrong or something like that, which is quite unlikely. OTRS and/or image license monitoring crew seems to be one of the few, maybe even the only, administrative branch of WP that functions efficiently, for obvious reasons i.e to avoid opening WP to possibility of copyright litigation, even in Florida, with it's very flexible and accommodating copyright laws.

[thekohser]

...there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation" in Florida...

You're an idiot, "communicat".

[communicat]

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

You are also the same person who stated fairly clearly as "fact":

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I sensed that you were talking out of your ass, and it would appear that I was correct, as you now express "limited understanding", and "don't know", and request to be "enlightened".

I'm not sure how others feel here, but I really feel like my time is wasted when people post matters of what appear to be "fact", when in actual fact, it's nothing more than erroneous conjecture or imagination. Please don't do that.

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor. Not good for business to be seen biting the hand the feeds you, hey?

Meanwhile, yes, my small and inadvertent mistake: Florida is not the only place in the world that recognises the validity of CC lisencing. The Netherlands apparently recognises CC validity as well. Nowhere else, to the best of my present knowledge, has the validity of CC lisencing ever been legally acknowledged, not even in the rest of the US excepting Florida. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nobody's perfect.

This post has been edited by communicat: Wed 17th August 2011, 7:33pm

[lilburne]

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

You misunderstand me, or maybe I've failed to make myself understood. Whatever. It is precisely because CC license is recognised in Florida that WMF can avoid being sued for copyright violation, because there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation"

Whoops. The CC license is simply a license, it grants someone the ability to use a work, so long as they fulfil certain criteria, in particular attribution and the link to the relevant license. The question regarding CC licenses is whether the terms of the license are enforceable. Saying that the terms aren't enforceable because license is recognised, is nonsensical.

EDIT: Additionally the North California courts have found that the conditions attached to CC type licenses are a condition on the use:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200810...s-may-constitut

break the conditions and the use is copyright violation.


This post has been edited by lilburne: Wed 17th August 2011, 11:21pm

[Vigilant]

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

You are also the same person who stated fairly clearly as "fact":

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I sensed that you were talking out of your ass, and it would appear that I was correct, as you now express "limited understanding", and "don't know", and request to be "enlightened".

I'm not sure how others feel here, but I really feel like my time is wasted when people post matters of what appear to be "fact", when in actual fact, it's nothing more than erroneous conjecture or imagination. Please don't do that.

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor. Not good for business to be seen biting the hand the feeds you, hey?

Meanwhile, yes, my small and inadvertent mistake: Florida is not the only place in the world that recognises the validity of CC lisencing. The Netherlands apparently recognises CC validity as well. Nowhere else, to the best of my present knowledge, has the validity of CC lisencing ever been legally acknowledged, not even in the rest of the US excepting Florida. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nobody's perfect.

Do you work at being this wrong or is it a gift?

[thekohser]

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor.

I'm sorry to be rude, but you really have no business being here. There are some very intelligent adults here, "communicat". You're actually being quite the rude one, interrupting the intelligent folks' conversation with your misguided prattle.

[communicat]

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

You misunderstand me, or maybe I've failed to make myself understood. Whatever. It is precisely because CC license is recognised in Florida that WMF can avoid being sued for copyright violation, because there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation"

Whoops. The CC license is simply a license, it grants someone the ability to use a work, so long as they fulfil certain criteria, in particular attribution and the link to the relevant license. The question regarding CC licenses is whether the terms of the license are enforceable. Saying that the terms aren't enforceable because license is recognised, is nonsensical.

EDIT: Additionally the North California courts have found that the conditions attached to CC type licenses are a condition on the use:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200810...s-may-constitut

break the conditions and the use is copyright violation.

Interesting. But the real question is: Does WP/WMF have assets in N. California? If not, then it's not worth suing for compensation and recovery of litigation costs if the culprit is judged to have violated copyright. In other words, WP/WMF is theoretically only worth suing in Florida, where it has assets that can be seized if the judgment goes against it, and if it then fails or refuses to pay up. Given the singularly liberal and flexible CC-based copyright laws in Florida, however, the dice would in any event be heavily loaded in favour of WP/WMF. That's all I'm saying.

[communicat]

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor.

I'm sorry to be rude, but you really have no business being here. There are some very intelligent adults here, "communicat". You're actually being quite the rude one, interrupting the intelligent folks' conversation with your misguided prattle.

No doubt there are some "Very intelligent adults" here; I've only noticed one or two of them. Me "interrupting the intelligent folks' conversation"? That's rich. Considering that this topic (like a couple of others) was dormant and inactive before I happened along and breathed some life into it. No interruption there; just revival. So, long story short: I retract my statement that you're "a rude feller". Replace that with: your head is so far up your ass (and also up WP's ass, apparently) that you are unable to see the light of reason.

[communicat]

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

You are also the same person who stated fairly clearly as "fact":

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I sensed that you were talking out of your ass, and it would appear that I was correct, as you now express "limited understanding", and "don't know", and request to be "enlightened".

I'm not sure how others feel here, but I really feel like my time is wasted when people post matters of what appear to be "fact", when in actual fact, it's nothing more than erroneous conjecture or imagination. Please don't do that.

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor. Not good for business to be seen biting the hand the feeds you, hey?

Meanwhile, yes, my small and inadvertent mistake: Florida is not the only place in the world that recognises the validity of CC lisencing. The Netherlands apparently recognises CC validity as well. Nowhere else, to the best of my present knowledge, has the validity of CC lisencing ever been legally acknowledged, not even in the rest of the US excepting Florida. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nobody's perfect.

Do you work at being this wrong or is it a gift?

My apologies. I didn't realise WR was meant to be a Compendium of Fact. I thought instead (and maybe misguidedly) that WR was meant to be a forum for critical discourse through an exchange of views, experiences and opinions. I've expressed mine; you've expressed yours. I prefer mine. Get over it. If you want to censor or suppress alternative viewpoints that deviate from your own and from the mainstream norm, go work fulltime at WP. Others do.

This post has been edited by communicat: Thu 18th August 2011, 3:22pm

[Vigilant]

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

You are also the same person who stated fairly clearly as "fact":

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I sensed that you were talking out of your ass, and it would appear that I was correct, as you now express "limited understanding", and "don't know", and request to be "enlightened".

I'm not sure how others feel here, but I really feel like my time is wasted when people post matters of what appear to be "fact", when in actual fact, it's nothing more than erroneous conjecture or imagination. Please don't do that.

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor. Not good for business to be seen biting the hand the feeds you, hey?

Meanwhile, yes, my small and inadvertent mistake: Florida is not the only place in the world that recognises the validity of CC lisencing. The Netherlands apparently recognises CC validity as well. Nowhere else, to the best of my present knowledge, has the validity of CC lisencing ever been legally acknowledged, not even in the rest of the US excepting Florida. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nobody's perfect.

Do you work at being this wrong or is it a gift?

My apologies. I didn't realise WR was meant to be a Compendium of Fact. I thought instead (and maybe misguidedly) that WR was meant to be a forum for critical discourse through an exchange of views, experiences and opinions. I've expressed mine; you've expressed yours. I prefer mine. Get over it. If you want to censor or suppress alternative viewpoints that deviate from your own and from the mainstream norm, go work fulltime at WP. Others do.

No.
I haven't expressed my opinion on this topic yet. I have only stated that yours is wrong.

You, obviously, have no idea how copyright works and your continued thrashing about like a poorly constructed robot shedding pieces of badly machines parts around the living room is off putting.

Please stop.

[communicat]

I'm saying that, in my limited understanding, WP/WMF is unlikely to be sued for financial compensation in places where it does not have any assets worth seizing if it fails to pay up. Or maybe civil laws work differently in the US. I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten me? Does WP/WMF have assets anywhere other than in Florida?

You are also the same person who stated fairly clearly as "fact":

If it was not for the State of Florida where WP's servers are located, and which is the only place in the world where CC licensed images have legal validity...

I sensed that you were talking out of your ass, and it would appear that I was correct, as you now express "limited understanding", and "don't know", and request to be "enlightened".

I'm not sure how others feel here, but I really feel like my time is wasted when people post matters of what appear to be "fact", when in actual fact, it's nothing more than erroneous conjecture or imagination. Please don't do that.

What a rude feller you are in fact. But never mind; I can appreciate the annoyance here of someone who, by his/her own admission is a paid editor. Not good for business to be seen biting the hand the feeds you, hey?

Meanwhile, yes, my small and inadvertent mistake: Florida is not the only place in the world that recognises the validity of CC lisencing. The Netherlands apparently recognises CC validity as well. Nowhere else, to the best of my present knowledge, has the validity of CC lisencing ever been legally acknowledged, not even in the rest of the US excepting Florida. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nobody's perfect.

Do you work at being this wrong or is it a gift?

My apologies. I didn't realise WR was meant to be a Compendium of Fact. I thought instead (and maybe misguidedly) that WR was meant to be a forum for critical discourse through an exchange of views, experiences and opinions. I've expressed mine; you've expressed yours. I prefer mine. Get over it. If you want to censor or suppress alternative viewpoints that deviate from your own and from the mainstream norm, go work fulltime at WP. Others do.

No.
I haven't expressed my opinion on this topic yet. I have only stated that yours is wrong.

You, obviously, have no idea how copyright works and your continued thrashing about like a poorly constructed robot shedding pieces of badly machines parts around the living room is off putting.

Please stop.

Sure, I have no idea how copyright works in every one of the world's 192 countries, each with its own separate copyright laws. But I do have some idea of the fact that laws of Florida, for example, cannot be imposed legitimately on the rest of the world. Not even the American Wikipedia can pull that off.