Jimmy Wales gave a presentation in Spain.

At 1:12 in the video (screen capture here, for your convenience), he shows an image of a "1960's" television set.

I immediately recognized this image, because last month I used it myself in a marketing research survey, unaware that Jimbo had used it earlier in the year. Other people at the research vendor thought I was crazy, insisting that we imprint on the image the original licensing attribution terms, but there I was, insisting. So, our image said:



What does Jimbo's image say? It says:



Also, it appears Jimbo (or his speech-writer) photo-shopped the signal booster box on the set out of existence, and inverted the right-left orientation of the photo. Then, they slapped on a big "1960's" label on the photo, even though it represents a television set from 1952 or 1953.

Way to uphold the basic principles of the "free culture" movement, Jimbo. "Steal and steal alike."



P.S. Both video part I ("Um, yeah, so...") and part II ("So, uhh...") begin with an emphatic "So" from the great leader. We have seen this before.

P.P.S Could an unblocked Wikipedia editor please point out this issue with Jimmy on his Wikipedia Talk page? A gentle nudge might make him more mindful in the future, to respect attribution requirements of licenses.

Consistent with Jimmy's worldview: rules are for other people; he can do whatever he wants. Very Heinleinian.

Yes. And as pointed out before, at least "so..." is a step up from "uhh...", "ummmm..." or (even worse) the "tu-tu-tu-tu" or "ch-ch-ch" various regionalistic sounds that Americans make, in order to audibly show that they're thinking about something, or trying to remember something, and that you should wait, on the information that the line to their brain actually hasn't gone dead, even though they're not producing a thought when they should be.

Next step up from "So..." is what lawyers say, which is "Now...."

Jimbo needs lessons from Godwin, there.

As that No Longer Young Never-American Churl once sang —



Jon

I engaged today in a nice e-mail exchange with "gbaku", the kid in the photograph. He has a certain Zen quality about him. Thus, he's not inclined to present this matter to Jimbo.

Again, I ask any Wikipedian in good standing to gently remind Jimbo (on his Talk page) that he's not supposed to use other people's CC-by-SA work without properly attributing it under the terms of the license.

Who is "WikiSysop" on Wikipedia Review?

I wouldn't think of publicly compromising the privacy of our users. I'm surprised that you thought I would.

Is there a specific, documented complaint from someone?

In the example above, "gbaku" declined to raise a complaint.

Also, I have never organized a wild party to announce a "license migration" with my buddy Larry Lessig, so I hope you'll be mindful of the issues of proportionality.

Does Wikipedia Review require specific, documented complaints before complying with relevant licensing terms?

Perhaps you might like to gently remind WikiSysop (on their Talk page) that they are not supposed to use other people's CC-by-SA work without properly attributing it under the terms of the license.

I don't "require" specific, documented complaints before complying with relevant licensing terms; however, I'm sure you realize that Section 230 does not require me as an "interactive computer service" to watch and monitor for compliance by any of our 2,000+ registered editors.

I will leave a note, however.