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

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI, New Wikipedia harassment incriminates more
Joseph100
post Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:48am
Post #21


Senior Member like Viridae
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 4:01am
Member No.: 871



QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 8:00am) *

The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation. All they're doing is saying that the burden of proof is on him to show some sort of continuity between a company that demonstrably went out of business 70-some years ago, and one that was incorporated 60-some years later. Wikipedia has strict policies requiring claims to be backed by verifiable references; without them, any crackpot would be able to insist that their bizarre theories be inserted. But he's perfectly free not to disclose any confidential information; nobody's putting a gun against his head or breaking into his office to search it. It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.



To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, "love, peace and wikipedia" numb nut, and I have some nice land in Florida for sale, cheap, and with the gators thown in for free...

Let's be clear, there is no rule of law on Wikipedia, other than jungle law. There is no such thing as fair and just when dealing with Wikipedia - it is just a dank dark jungle full of intellectual thugs, like MR Dtobias and JIMBO's merry band band of juice drinkers, who's lies and deceit and thuggery makes Wikipedia, the laughing stock of the intellectual world.

Drink up.

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:49am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 2nd May 2007, 3:56am
Post #22


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

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



QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 1st May 2007, 7:48pm) *
To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, "love, peace and wikipedia" numb nut, and I have some nice land in Florida for sale, cheap, and with the gators thown in for free...

I thought we were going to be nice-ish...?

Technically, that isn't exactly what Dan wrote originally. This thread has been heavily modified FOR MORE LOW-END POWER!!! to allow the, uh, discussion to continue in a more, uh, constructive fashion.

Nevertheless...

I, for one, completely accept the notion that Wikipedia has to have high standards as to what constitutes verification of an assertion by a self-interested entity. I would hope for nothing less, in fact... The issue here is really the threat of undue emphasis, and potentially an effort to "punish" a principal representing the subject(s) of an article for, and I think we all have to admit this, being a "tendentious editor" and violating WP's internal definition of "conflict of interest." While that editor may have been tendentious, the company itself has not been - it's still just a company, and even if we accept that the editor represents the company, or even is the company, his behavior shouldn't be a factor, as hard as that is to accept.

Personally, I don't think they should split the article, and making some sort hard distinction between the "old company" and the "new company" really isn't all that necessary in terms of providing accurate information. Britannica's approach to the situation was the right one: Simply mention that the company has been revived, maybe include a few details about how it was revived, and leave it at that. After all, AMBC, as it's currently constituted, is in the same business, claims a fairly plausible (though admittedly not rock-solid) chain of ownership, appears to be working with the same titles, and apparently has plans to continue doing so.

But if you ask me (and I realize nobody has), the comparisons to Gaumont and Pathe aren't close enough to warrant similar treatment. Granted, both Gaumont and Pathe went bankrupt and underwent various merges and restructurings, but from what I can tell, there just weren't any decades-long periods of complete inactivity. In Gaumont's case in particular, that company has always been primarily owned by the mysterious Seydoux family, in some shape or form, and may not have been completely inactive at any time - other than maybe the middle of WWII.

Anyway, the problem with Wikipedia in a case like this (at least as I see it) is that standards of conduct fly out the window when flamewars erupt. People can turn into persecutors very quickly, particularly when dealing with what they see as unreasonable demands. What can be done about it? Maybe nothing, but they should try anyway. Remember, they're the Big Huge Massive Online Encyclopedia - they can afford to back off from counter-attack mode if the situation calls for it... right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Wed 2nd May 2007, 5:16am
Post #23


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



Somey, thank you for the input and posting. I want to interject that the "Splitting" of the article is another attempt at asserting misinformation about us. I know it sounds like I am on a soap-box here, but Mr. Tobias, and the other certain Wiki-Editors have made it extremely clear of their distain for us. Please encourage the WR readers to check the articles discussion pages and the archives. It is very clear and all right there. I also sound repeatative, but the reason is an agenda against the company. I also agree that the "Gaumont" and "Pathe" articles are not exact as to us. "Gaumont" was completley dissolved and disbanded in 1938. The trademarks and name were "Picked up" by a completely different entity. Now, I have no problem with them claiming to be 110 years old. What my concern is that both articles were not referenced hardly at all, and the "Oldest movie company" status was not only NOT questioned by Wiki-Editors, but protected by editors such as "Walloon" and "Willbeback" (Who is even an administrator), as ours was veraciously torn apart. My question is why these articles weren't referenced and questioned with the scrutiny as was done on ours? Second, why is there such a personal attack on us? I have refrained from any slurs against even the Wiki-Editors that have been troubling us. Yet from them it is a constant baradement. I can state that the company passed to us from my friend, actress Blanche Sweet, who was at Biograph in the 1900's. She wanted to help revive the company and could, and I cannot say anyomore. There is a direct link all the way down the line from 1895 to us. But I am just not going to freely distrbute confidential company information or records. I would also for arguments sake, call up Paramount Pictures and ask them to reveal their sensitive corporate information. What do you think they would tell you? All we want the persecution and the hard line agenda against us to stop. If the article looked even close to Britannica's (Which we are very happy with) then all would be fine. Sorry for the long disertation, but just wanted WR to have a greater understanding. Thank you:)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 5th May 2007, 4:07am
Post #24


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



QUOTE(Uly @ Tue 1st May 2007, 2:12pm) *

I think a closer parallel would be the British East India Company. Here's a little quote from that article:

QUOTE
In 1987, coffee merchants Tony Wild and David Hutton created a public limited company called "The East India Company" and in 1990 registered versions of the Company's coat of arms as a trademark, although the Patent Office noted 'Registration of this mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the words "The East India Company"' [4]. By December 1996, this company had a website at www.theeastindiacompany.com. It sold St Helena coffee branded with the Company name and also produced a book on the history of the Company. This company has no legal continuity with the original Company, even though it claims on its website to have been founded in 1600.


Uly, thank you for your input. This is very similar to what "Gaumont" did. On our company, no. Again, can't go into it, but it is a different situation entirely, and we have legal continuity. Thanks:)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 5th May 2007, 9:01pm
Post #25


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



QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 1st May 2007, 8:56pm) *
...After all, AMBC, as it's currently constituted, is in the same business, claims a fairly plausible (though admittedly not rock-solid) chain of ownership, appears to be working with the same titles, and apparently has plans to continue doing so.

But if you ask me (and I realize nobody has), the comparisons to Gaumont and Pathe aren't close enough to warrant similar treatment. Granted, both Gaumont and Pathe went bankrupt and underwent various merges and restructurings, but from what I can tell, there just weren't any decades-long periods of complete inactivity. In Gaumont's case in particular, that company has always been primarily owned by the mysterious Seydoux family, in some shape or form, and may not have been completely inactive at any time - other than maybe the middle of WWII.


First, thank you Somey for the input... I needed to interject a quick item here for our WR readers. This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name. Yet, in Wikipedia, there is NO contradiction on the "Gaumont" article, ..." See Wiki-Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaumont_Film_Company and it is fully accepted by Wikipedia with only ONE source that this is the same and contunuing company...

"Gaumont is a French film production company founded in 1895 by the engineer-turned-inventor, Léon Gaumont (1864-1946). It is the oldest running film company in the world." [i]See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaumont

Yet on our article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Muto...iograph_Company it is completely ripped apart with 40+ references trying to disprove (Unsuccessfully) that we are the SAME or continuation of the same company, even though we have verifiable outside sources, (One being Encyclopedia Brittanica) which have been completely ignored by the Wiki-Editors and the Wiki-Staff. Our situation is different since we are a continuation. But nevertheless on the articles and prejudice, I would like for someone to explain to me why? Thanks:)

This post has been edited by biographco: Sun 6th May 2007, 3:51am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Sat 5th May 2007, 9:21pm
Post #26


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 5th May 2007, 4:01pm) *

Yet on our article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Muto...iograph_Company it is completely ripped apart with 40+ references trying to disprove (Unsuccessfully) that we are the SAME or continuation of the same company, even though we have verifiable outside sources, (One being Encyclopedia Brittanica) which have been completely ignored by the Wiki-Editors and the Wiki-Staff. Our situation is different since we are a continuation. But nevertheless on the articles and prejudice, I would like for someone to explain to me why? Thanks:)

This would be the nearest explanation I can come up with:
FORUM Image


This post has been edited by Cedric: Sat 5th May 2007, 9:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 5th May 2007, 9:31pm
Post #27


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



QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 5th May 2007, 2:21pm) *
This would be the nearest explanation I can come up with...

THAT IS COOL!! LOVE IT!! LOL
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JTM
post Sun 6th May 2007, 3:05am
Post #28


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat 17th Mar 2007, 1:00pm
Member No.: 1,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 5:57pm) *

Those various proclamations prove nothing, given that governments at all levels are issuing tons of this sort of ceremonial stuff, often with little or no scrutiny; I've heard of complete hoaxes being "honored" in this manner, if the hoaxer manages to pull enough political strings. I'm a bit more surprised that Britannica bought your assertion that your company is a continuation of the older one; I'd think that being out of business since the 1920s is enough reason to consider any new company of the same name a totally separate thing.


Yikes, what a cynical take. I would think that having a Britannica entry with this information would make it presumptively correct. After all, Britannica pays folks to check facts before they write articles. Fabrications would be grounds for dismissal. My sense is that you are disagreeing simply to be disagreeable. If I'm not mistaken, in internet terminology this is called trolling.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 6th May 2007, 3:37am
Post #29


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

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



QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 5th May 2007, 4:01pm) *
...This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name...

And yet it's quite possible that some of the same people, particularly the owners, who ran GMG might have ended up with GFFA or SNEG, since it was only ten years. Does anyone know, actually?

It seems to me the problem is really that AMBC is both the same company and a different one simultaneously. AMBC wants to assert that the similarities are what's really important, and Wikipedia wants to counter-assert that the similarities are superficial and it's the differences that are important - even going so far as to dismiss evidenciary claims made by AMBC that would probably be accepted at face value, had they come from a company that hadn't been accused of editing the article about itself.

It's a terribly interesting problem, but the unusual nature of it actually makes it more difficult to find fault in the positions and/or actions of both parties. I realize that's a highly equivocal, and therefore wimpy-assed stance to take, but I'm not sure what other stance would make sense to me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 6th May 2007, 4:23am
Post #30


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



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th May 2007, 8:37pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 5th May 2007, 4:01pm) *
...This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name...

And yet it's quite possible that some of the same people, particularly the owners, who ran GMG might have ended up with GFFA or SNEG, since it was only ten years. Does anyone know, actually?

It seems to me the problem is really that AMBC is both the same company and a different one simultaneously. AMBC wants to assert that the similarities are what's really important, and Wikipedia wants to counter-assert that the similarities are superficial and it's the differences that are important - even going so far as to dismiss evidenciary claims made by AMBC that would probably be accepted at face value, had they come from a company that hadn't been accused of editing the article about itself.

It's a terribly interesting problem, but the unusual nature of it actually makes it more difficult to find fault in the positions and/or actions of both parties. I realize that's a highly equivocal, and therefore wimpy-assed stance to take, but I'm not sure what other stance would make sense to me.

Somey, thank you for your input and let me try to clarify this further. I did receive "Items" from a person from Biograph Company that was back all the way to 1908 with the company. I can't go into this more than that because of confidentiality. As stated before, we have direct links all the way back, not just similarities. My problem is that the Gaumont company states that its company was transferred and a new company formed. They also claim to be the "Oldest in the world", which is fine by me. My problem is that Wikipedia's article states them as the "Oldest movie company in the world", yet with us they assert we are an "Entirely new company" and only "Took the name" which is not true. Gaumont has been given the benefit of the doubt without having to "Prove" anything, and if there information is ambiguous, it's "Oh well". We, however, have been scrutinized, disected and interrogated to prove who we are. On another note, we did NOT post the original article on the company. We did a couple of times interject information, but to be honest we were unaware at the time of the strangeness of Wikipedia and thought it was legitimate. Wikipedia has made assault after assault on us for no reason. The editing has been completely biased. They have stated time and again they want us to look "Bad". "Ridiculous", etc. They have ignored all legitimimate sources. With all due respect, this negates finding or not finding fault in "Both" sides, since Wikipedia has assaulted us for no reason. My question is, what proof is needed by us that we have not provided, short of revealing our confidential company information, to prove who we are, and why are we being pressured to show even more proof? We have verified published sources, government documents, published articles, verifiable and reputable listings, references, etc. Again, what proof is needed to prove who we are that we have not provided already? Thanks:)

This post has been edited by biographco: Sun 6th May 2007, 5:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikilove
post Sun 6th May 2007, 11:23pm
Post #31


Unregistered









QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 2:00pm) *

The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation.


blink.gif

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 2:00pm) *
It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.


Proved to whom? People in that group don't analyze information for veracity. They vote on who they like, or don't like. And put in what they will. The most influential admin gets final say. That's it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 6th May 2007, 11:44pm
Post #32


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



QUOTE(wikilove @ Sun 6th May 2007, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 2:00pm) *

The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation.


blink.gif

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 2:00pm) *
It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.


Proved to whom? People in that group don't analyze information for veracity. They vote on who they like, or don't like. And put in what they will. The most influential admin gets final say. That's it.

I couldn't agree more:)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 6th May 2007, 11:55pm
Post #33


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



QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Sun 29th April 2007, 5:47pm) *

Well, one would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove you are the same company. If I open a store, and call it "Gimbel's", then you don't automatically assume that it is the same as the old one. ~~~~

All the proof is there. You can see in the article "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" that is exactly what is going on (Intended force disclosure of private/proprietary primary source documentations), and what the other editors are attempting to do. We have verifiable published sources and government references certified that we are who we are that has been ignored by Wikipedia. That pretty much says it all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikilove
post Mon 7th May 2007, 12:52pm
Post #34


Unregistered









I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph - but to be honest, I think that you can forget about due process, facts and what-not. Honestly, you are wasting wind talking about it, even here. You aren't going to be listened to over there (and the more you argue, the worse they will treat you). No one here can do anything about what's going on over there. We can sympathize, but this is standard operating procedure (typical) stuff.

Identifying problem editors would be an issue if WP were a company and they were engaged in quality control. It is not. Even if you manage to get WP to alter text (difficult to do) they would not admit any error or fault, nor would they chastise the editor(s). Ever.

Your article is reasonably benign, which is a fortunate thing, all things considered. (You've actually provoked them by talking about it over here - lots of them read this secretly).

My advice: I'd focus on other venues for raising the profile of your company or project.

And watch your page daily for vandalism.

This post has been edited by wikilove: Mon 7th May 2007, 12:58pm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Wed 9th May 2007, 12:23am
Post #35


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



QUOTE(wikilove @ Mon 7th May 2007, 5:52am) *

I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph - but to be honest, I think that you can forget about due process, facts and what-not. Honestly, you are wasting wind talking about it, even here. You aren't going to be listened to over there (and the more you argue, the worse they will treat you). No one here can do anything about what's going on over there. We can sympathize, but this is standard operating procedure (typical) stuff.

Identifying problem editors would be an issue if WP were a company and they were engaged in quality control. It is not. Even if you manage to get WP to alter text (difficult to do) they would not admit any error or fault, nor would they chastise the editor(s). Ever.

Your article is reasonably benign, which is a fortunate thing, all things considered. (You've actually provoked them by talking about it over here - lots of them read this secretly).

My advice: I'd focus on other venues for raising the profile of your company or project.

And watch your page daily for vandalism.

Wikilove, thank you for your input. Actually, I'm not posting any new things, just replying to any inquiries freinds at WR have. I do want to thank everyone here for their input and concerns, and yes it has done alot of good:) Thomas@Biograph Company
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 9th May 2007, 12:58am
Post #36


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(biographco @ Tue 8th May 2007, 6:23pm) *

QUOTE(wikilove @ Mon 7th May 2007, 5:52am) *

I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph - but to be honest, I think that you can forget about due process, facts and what-not. Honestly, you are wasting wind talking about it, even here. You aren't going to be listened to over there (and the more you argue, the worse they will treat you). No one here can do anything about what's going on over there. We can sympathize, but this is standard operating procedure (typical) stuff.

Identifying problem editors would be an issue if WP were a company and they were engaged in quality control. It is not. Even if you manage to get WP to alter text (difficult to do) they would not admit any error or fault, nor would they chastise the editor(s). Ever.

Your article is reasonably benign, which is a fortunate thing, all things considered. (You've actually provoked them by talking about it over here - lots of them read this secretly).

My advice: I'd focus on other venues for raising the profile of your company or project.

And watch your page daily for vandalism.

Wikilove, thank you for your input. Actually, I'm not posting any new things, just replying to any inquiries freinds at WR have. I do want to thank everyone here for their input and concerns, and yes it has done alot of good:) Thomas@Biograph Company


I think there is some level of outside recourse that is appropriate. This is always preferable to engaging in WP internal processes. Like my grandma said "don't gladly suffer fools". Trying to make WP responsible might mean a civil action, a media campaign, or approaching your state legislature (especially given your company's important role in the development of the film industry.) But to keep your integrity you need to establish boundaries. This is something intolerable to a cult. Let them know you were here first and you didn't ask to be dragged into their various role playing dramas.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Fri 11th May 2007, 9:19pm
Post #37


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



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 8th May 2007, 5:58pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Tue 8th May 2007, 6:23pm) *

QUOTE(wikilove @ Mon 7th May 2007, 5:52am) *

I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph - but to be honest, I think that you can forget about due process, facts and what-not. Honestly, you are wasting wind talking about it, even here. You aren't going to be listened to over there (and the more you argue, the worse they will treat you). No one here can do anything about what's going on over there. We can sympathize, but this is standard operating procedure (typical) stuff.

Identifying problem editors would be an issue if WP were a company and they were engaged in quality control. It is not. Even if you manage to get WP to alter text (difficult to do) they would not admit any error or fault, nor would they chastise the editor(s). Ever.

Your article is reasonably benign, which is a fortunate thing, all things considered. (You've actually provoked them by talking about it over here - lots of them read this secretly).

My advice: I'd focus on other venues for raising the profile of your company or project.

And watch your page daily for vandalism.

Wikilove, thank you for your input. Actually, I'm not posting any new things, just replying to any inquiries freinds at WR have. I do want to thank everyone here for their input and concerns, and yes it has done alot of good:) Thomas@Biograph Company


I think there is some level of outside recourse that is appropriate. This is always preferable to engaging in WP internal processes. Like my grandma said "don't gladly suffer fools". Trying to make WP responsible might mean a civil action, a media campaign, or approaching your state legislature (especially given your company's important role in the development of the film industry.) But to keep your integrity you need to establish boundaries. This is something intolerable to a cult. Let them know you were here first and you didn't ask to be dragged into their various role playing dramas.


Oh we did try to establish boundaries and asked not to be drug into thier "Games". Go to the discussion aqnd archive pages on our article on Wikipedia...

Thanks:)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Toledo
post Fri 16th November 2007, 6:04pm
Post #38


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat 31st Mar 2007, 5:37pm
Member No.: 1,212



Under federal trademark law, "Nonuse for two consecutive years shall be prima facie abandonment." If Biograph went out of business in the late 1920s or the late 1930s (the Wikipedia article isn't clear on that), its trademarks entered the public domain two years later. Likewise, the article says that all of the copyrights on their films had expired without renewal by the 1940s, and that the films themselves were donated to MOMA in the 1930s.

So, with the Biograph trademarks in the public domain by the 1940s, the Biograph copyrights in the public domain by the 1940s, and the film library donated to a museum — what assets were left to transfer when the new/revived Biograph was incorporated in 1991? The burden of proof would be on the company incorporated in 1991 to show that it has some legal connection to the older company, beyond re-registering some of the older company's public domain trademarks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Sat 17th November 2007, 3:02pm
Post #39


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Toledo @ Fri 16th November 2007, 1:04pm) *

Under federal trademark law, "Nonuse for two consecutive years shall be prima facie abandonment." If Biograph went out of business in the late 1920s or the late 1930s (the Wikipedia article isn't clear on that), its trademarks entered the public domain two years later. Likewise, the article says that all of the copyrights on their films had expired without renewal by the 1940s, and that the films themselves were donated to MOMA in the 1930s.

So, with the Biograph trademarks in the public domain by the 1940s, the Biograph copyrights in the public domain by the 1940s, and the film library donated to a museum — what assets were left to transfer when the new/revived Biograph was incorporated in 1991? The burden of proof would be on the company incorporated in 1991 to show that it has some legal connection to the older company, beyond re-registering some of the older company's public domain trademarks.


Burden of Proof? If I remember correctly the issue if whether there should be one or two articles on Biograph. This isn't some adversarial proceeding. Who is Wikipedia to impose any burden on a private business? It is question of backing assertions with reliable sources, not proving anything. This just demonstrates the hostility that admins and editors have taken against this company for daring to wander into your role playing game uninvited.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
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: 17th 1 18, 7:26am