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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

> Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI, New Wikipedia harassment incriminates more
biographco
post Sun 29th April 2007, 10:41pm
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



As you all have been following the Wikipedia slam of our company "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company". Since that time, more activity is going on which I will share with you. The activity however, has coincided with attempted malicious changes to our listings, including IMDB.com. These other websites have been informed and are very supportive.

The most recent activity in the article is the malicious Wikipedian editors attempting to "Split" the article to "New Company" vs "Old Company" but there is no way they can try and prove we are NOT the same company, intimating unless we "Show" these "Editors" our confidential paperwork that shows we are the same company. Pretty slick? Show us what you have or we will defame you.

I will give you this Wikipedia example from the article "Discussion"....

"I agree. This situation seems similar to the history of PanAm airlines. It went out of business then was revived a couple of times. We have separate articles for each incarnation: Pan American World Airways, Pan American Airways (1996-1998), Pan American Airways (1998-2004). In this instance the original company is more notable so we could leave it at the present name and the new company could be at "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (1991)". -Will Beback · † · 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, though I haven't seen any evidence that the new company is notable enough for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Splitting it into two articles won't end the squabbling by the new company that it is really the same as the old company, will it? I don't know if the new company really has enough substance for its own article. In 16 years it has released one commercial product: a DVD containing an interview with Tommy Bond and a silent Our Gang comedy in the public domain. — Walloon 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't to end squabbling, which would probably continue no matter what. The immediate problem we're facing is the use of categories. These two sets are in conflict.

Category:Companies established in 1895

Category:Defunct media companies of the United States

Category:Companies established in 1991

Category:Re-established companies

Splitting the article would allow more logical categorizattion. I think we can make a case for the notability of the new company based on several profiles they've received. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
"


First, the Little Rascals my Dad "Hosted" and there is only one 12 minute silent Rascals film included in the whole hour long DVD. The majority of it is my Dad's stories, viniettes, and talking to his older star friends.

Second - They got caught on calling our company "Defunct". Too late! Already downloaded and reported! Again, all this is funny. They can block, change and scramble all they want on Wikipedia, this does them no good now. Truth and honesty does win out, and always will. And to the others, when this hammer falls, it will change, and hopefully clean up Wikipedia, forever.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Somey
post Mon 30th April 2007, 10:21pm
Post #2


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



I will at least say that the Biograph Company website has improved dramatically since the last time I checked - all the extraneous, non-company related stuff is gone now, so that's good. But the WP article is now using pages from the "Wayback Machine" at archive.org as citation sources for stuff like the "studio lot on the moon" claim, which is no longer on the company site, so that's bad. IMO, if you have to rely on an archive.org version of something for a cite, then you're just being nasty.

There's also this:
http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us/legal.html
QUOTE
The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Inc. owns all trademarks/service marks of, and associated with the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Inc. from January 1st, 1896 to the present.

Assuming this is true, then that would tend to make the comparison to Gimbel's somewhat less apt, in so far as anyone trying to "resurrect" Gimbel's without owning such trademarks really would just be borrowing the name. I still don't think they can claim legal continuity, but is that really what they're claiming? Maybe I'm making the wrong distinction here, but I get the impression they're mostly claiming they own the IP rights that were held by the original company, assuming those haven't actually passed into the public domain. That last bit, to me, would be the crucial issue - obviously 75 years have now passed, but IP rights can be renewed, and IIRC the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act might help them somewhat in that regard. (I'd have to research that, except that I really, really don't want to...)

If they're saying "we are the same company," then you're in grey-area-land. That's almost a philosophical issue more than anything else. IOW, if Biograph is saying that the Wikipedia editors they've dealt with are biased against privately-held companies, particularly those that sell consumer products, I could probably believe that. But this doesn't change my original assessment of the situation: Biograph's civil case is just not there, at least in my opinion... I wish I were wrong... dry.gif

I'm sorry to say this, but if I were the Biograph Company, I'd probably cut my losses - maybe make a new, non-confrontational account to argue against splitting the article, assuming that's considered desirable. With any luck, the furor will die down before the WP'ers get it into their heads to add a whole section on the Wikipedia-based squabbling itself.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
biographco   Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI   Sun 29th April 2007, 10:41pm
Anonymouse   Well, one would think the burden of proof would be...   Mon 30th April 2007, 12:47am
biographco   Well, one would think the burden of proof would b...   Sun 6th May 2007, 11:55pm
wikilove   I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph ...   Mon 7th May 2007, 12:52pm
biographco   I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph...   Wed 9th May 2007, 12:23am
GlassBeadGame   I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograp...   Wed 9th May 2007, 12:58am
biographco   [quote name='biographco' post='30772' date='Tue 8...   Fri 11th May 2007, 9:19pm
Somey   Perhaps, but it does seem to have gone beyond that...   Mon 30th April 2007, 2:48am
dtobias   The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in d...   Mon 30th April 2007, 2:00pm
Joseph100   The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in ...   Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:48am
Somey   To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, ...   Wed 2nd May 2007, 3:56am
biographco   ...After all, AMBC, as it's currently constitu...   Sat 5th May 2007, 9:01pm
Cedric   Yet on our article [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w...   Sat 5th May 2007, 9:21pm
biographco   This would be the nearest explanation I can come u...   Sat 5th May 2007, 9:31pm
Somey   ...This next quote comes from the "Gaumont...   Sun 6th May 2007, 3:37am
biographco   ...This next quote comes from the "Gaumont...   Sun 6th May 2007, 4:23am
wikilove   The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in ...   Sun 6th May 2007, 11:23pm
biographco   The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in...   Sun 6th May 2007, 11:44pm
Jonny Cache   I confess that I've only sampled this groove a...   Mon 30th April 2007, 2:48pm
biographco   For our Wikipedia Review members and ANYONE here a...   Mon 30th April 2007, 9:46pm
dtobias   Those various proclamations prove nothing, given t...   Mon 30th April 2007, 9:57pm
biographco   The last posting was in reference to verifiable in...   Mon 30th April 2007, 10:08pm
JTM   Those various proclamations prove nothing, given ...   Sun 6th May 2007, 3:05am
biographco   I will at least say that the Biograph Company webs...   Tue 1st May 2007, 1:18am
dtobias   My only "agenda", by the way, is that I...   Mon 30th April 2007, 10:31pm
dtobias   So I suppose the company didn't die in the 192...   Mon 30th April 2007, 11:36pm
Uly   I think a closer parallel would be the British Eas...   Tue 1st May 2007, 9:12pm
biographco   I think a closer parallel would be the British Ea...   Sat 5th May 2007, 4:07am
Somey   Okay folks, we're going to try again with the ...   Tue 1st May 2007, 10:34pm
biographco   Anyway, if we're going to continue this thread...   Tue 1st May 2007, 11:38pm
biographco   I would also like to post a clarification on an it...   Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:16am
biographco   Somey, thank you for the input and posting. I want...   Wed 2nd May 2007, 5:16am
Toledo   Under federal trademark law, "Nonuse for two ...   Fri 16th November 2007, 6:04pm
GlassBeadGame   Under federal trademark law, "Nonuse for two...   Sat 17th November 2007, 3:02pm


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: 18th 2 18, 7:01am