Well, it makes a change. I mean, instead of people having to pay the RIAA etc millions everytime they get caught, instead the RIAA will pay the people millions everytime someone sets up a site. So I guess that's not all bad...
The burden is on those wanting to include information, not withhold it. Whilst sometimes a lack of information can itself lead to bias, I don't see that this is the case here. Not choosing to report something does not in general mean one is bias. (Note also that "truth" alone is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia - see also Verifiability, Notability, not to mention Biographies of living people. In this case, there were few sources for what had happened.)
So one could just as easily argue that the person adding this information was using Wikipedia for political means - since the very fact of publishing it would have had political consequences, not to mention, most importantly, risking the poor man's life.
Whilst I agree that sometimes too much is deleted, I fail to see how this supports "WP is not fair, democratic or open and it never has been".
On the contrary, the deletion happens precisely because too much is left to open democracy - there are sufficient people who do believe that such material shouldn't be on Wikipedia. And if those inconsistent editors really exist, surely that is an argument against leaving this up to pure democracy?
And the irony is that whilst you say Wikipedia is bad because of this, other people are saying Wikipedia is bad because it has "too many non-notable articles". Which is it?
You yourself show your bias against anime, so I suspect that you are no better than the inconsistent editors you criticise - you whine when your article gets deleted, but moan that there's too much stuff that you personally don't like.
Nothing like a good story to draw the Wikipedia-hate. I bet if Wikipedia published this information, and he'd died as a result, people would then be criticising Wikipedia for that!
Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's long been established that just because anyone can edit Wikipedia, doesn't mean you get to put whatever you like on there - there are all sorts of policies that trump that. In particular, Biographies of Living People would be relevant to this issue. If you want your own space to write what you like, get an actual social networking blog, like Facebook or LiveJournal.
It's very easy to sit on one's high horse and criticise them after the fact. I wonder, imagine if this story was submitted to Slashdot whilst the reporter was still at risk, and Wikipedia - and the rest of the media (why is no one accusing them of "censorship"?) - were still trying to keep quiet about it. Would Slashdot have run with the story, and be willing to risk his life? Or would they have done what everyone else was doing, and withheld it temporarily until he was safe?
If someone decides to go ahead and publish, is it OK to erase their publication?
But I don't think this is censorship - Wikipedia has every right to decide what to show on its servers. Yes, it's a bit more contentious in that it's billed as a user-generated site, and it's fair for Wikipedia editors to discuss whether this was the right move or not. However, at the end of the day, it's Wikipedia's choice what goes on there, and not comparable to censoring other people. It may have been "someone" else editing the site, but it wasn't really someone else publishing it. It was Wikipedia's servers that they were using.
Furthermore, despite the user-run nature of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it's like a blogging service where they can claim you can put what you like up, or sell it as "your" space. There are all sorts of policies about what's meant to be on Wikipedia, and what isn't (including Biographies of Living People, which would be relevant for this issue).
On another note, I don't think "Streisand Effect" (as currently tagged) is relevant - that didn't happen here, and in fact the "censorship" does seem to have been effective. The effect is only happening now, after he's no longer in danger, and after the "censorship" is removed.
By that logic, Apple copied off all the phones that came before them (including the ability to play games).
It's the same old story: Apple do something after someone else, and they're claimed to be "first" somehow; another company does something after Apple, and they've "copied".
It's a shame that Apple didn't add the "copy" feature to the Iphone, since they do it so well...
Believe it or not, phones were playing games long before Apple joined the party late. I know there's a trend here on Slashdot to redefine the word "phone" with "Iphone", but let's not push it.
There is plenty of precedent of admins and TPTB intervening in Wikipedia edits, when the issue is regarding a living person. BLP trumps pretty much everything (see "Presumption in favour of privacy"). I've seen other cases where information has been removed from Wikipedia on the request of the person it's about. That doesn't mean that anything can be removed (e.g., things that are reported widely elsewhere).
An RPG set in the Aliens universe doesn't really work, did anyone think this was a good idea? There's not a lot choices other than "die or don't die" in the Aliens movies and games so far...how deep could it really get?
Pr0n sites? You mean that these hundreds of girls being advertised who just happen to live in the same town as me aren't really looking for someone to date?:(
(Well, you learn something new everyday - I never realised my town had such a porn industry.)
Incredible - is there anything the IPHONE can't do?
(Although the question of whether it works on the Iphone will likely be "No, because that's just featurism, you don't need that feature. We'll only do it when most other phones have done it first, and then claim credit for being 'first'".)
I use Windows, Visual Studio etc, I think Linux is poor, and I can't stand Apple. I dislike the way that expressing anything in support of Windows or against Apple is often seen as taboo here.
But I don't really care about someone who chooses to use "M$". If we do, we're now the ones criticising someone for what they write. And if we're going to criticise someone, at least criticise their views, rather than their choice to use a pre-existing shorthand expression for Microsoft.
Sega Genesis? Sega Genesis? You're not telling me you need the full power of a Motorola 68000 just to get a fun game! All that matters is the plot and the game-play. All this talk of Sega Genesises makes me want to dig out my old ZX Spectrum and play some of those old text adventures.
Actually, screw that. Why not make do with one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books? Plenty of plot and game-play there - don't tell me you rely on fancy computer graphics? (Although having said that, it displeases me that so many books have illustrations these days. What a waste of ink that is!)
As a hobbyist/open source programmer, I'd love such a resource. My suspicion is that there are plenty of artists willing to make models for free. On sites like GameDev, it seems there are far more artists looking for programmers, than vice versa, and just look at the modding community to see a large amount of content being produced. The problem is that almost all of it seems to lack any clear licences - just because I find a modding site where people have uploaded content for free, doesn't mean I can be legally sure that they're okay for me to redistribute that content in a game. Even though they may well be okay with it, legally I don't have permission, and there's often no way to ask permission.
Encouraging people to properly licence their works would be a good thing.
Surely this criticism applies to Google too? If you rely on a Google for your knowledge, you get plenty of gossip, urban legends, ignorance etc, and worse you don't even know the people it's from, and whether there is any reason to trust them or not. Sure, occasionally you might happen upon a web page that gives a reliable reference, or a website that is in itself authoritative, but the same is true of friends too.
If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'.
Maybe it's just my friends, but I find the range of material I find out about from my friends far more diverse than I'd find out just by looking at mainstream adverts or shops. Music would be the classic example, but I think it applies more generally.
Consider, how much of Firefox's success (not to mention Linux, to a lesser degree) is due to people seeing it advertised or otherwise finding out about it themselves, versus it being recommended by a geek friend?
I wouldn't go that far - sure, when I'm looking to buy something new, I try to look up reviews. But it can also be helpful to ask for advice from friends too. If nothing else it helps filter out choices that might be particularly bad. And actually, I would say that you can trust your friends more - the point is, you know which of your friends might be knowledgable in that area, and which of them aren't, far more so than some random guy writing on a website (which could be anyone).
Both ways have their benefits. And before the Internet, all most people went on was looking at what was on offer in the shop, and relying on the "advice" from the shop assistant.
IIRC many countries have laws against sex when the person doesn't have the mental capacity to consent - does the US not have one?
In practice, I doubt anyone would get much chance to. I mean what, are pedophiles going to be turning up to her house, and the parents are just going to let them in?
Same with porn - I'm guessing that the parents aren't planning on releasing pornographic pictures of her, so I don't see how the issue would arise legally.
This would be an interesting issue with someone who had an adult mind, but a child body (not that it should be an issue - an adult is clearly an adult - but what with the pedo-hysteria where even fictional depictions are seen as being worse than actual child abuse...) But in this case, I don't see any issues coming up.
Are you seriously suggesting that freelegoporn.com was NOT intended to be a money-making venture?
Wait - what?
(Yes, I know that companies can offer things for free in order to make money selling extra, but I fail to see why you're pulling the "seriously?" when there is no evidence to suggest that this was a money making venture. If you know otherwise, provide your reference.)
But trademark law doesn't prevent any use of the word at all - this isn't like patent or copyright law. It only affects commercial usage. After all, I can say Lego Lego Lego here all I like, without being in violation of trademark law - it's only when I sell something called "Lego" that I risk a lawsuit.
In this case, it's unclear that there website was commercial - given the "free", I'm guessing not.
Trademark does not - or should not - allow companies to shut someone down merely for using a word. Trademark is intended for a specific purpose, and not to allow companies to own words in general.
I entirely agree - moreover, I would say the cybersquatters here are Lego. They're the ones who stole someone else's domain name. And are they now doing anything with the URL? Nope. That's squatting.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it makes a change. I mean, instead of people having to pay the RIAA etc millions everytime they get caught, instead the RIAA will pay the people millions everytime someone sets up a site. So I guess that's not all bad...
The burden is on those wanting to include information, not withhold it. Whilst sometimes a lack of information can itself lead to bias, I don't see that this is the case here. Not choosing to report something does not in general mean one is bias. (Note also that "truth" alone is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia - see also Verifiability, Notability, not to mention Biographies of living people. In this case, there were few sources for what had happened.)
So one could just as easily argue that the person adding this information was using Wikipedia for political means - since the very fact of publishing it would have had political consequences, not to mention, most importantly, risking the poor man's life.
Whilst I agree that sometimes too much is deleted, I fail to see how this supports "WP is not fair, democratic or open and it never has been".
On the contrary, the deletion happens precisely because too much is left to open democracy - there are sufficient people who do believe that such material shouldn't be on Wikipedia. And if those inconsistent editors really exist, surely that is an argument against leaving this up to pure democracy?
And the irony is that whilst you say Wikipedia is bad because of this, other people are saying Wikipedia is bad because it has "too many non-notable articles". Which is it?
You yourself show your bias against anime, so I suspect that you are no better than the inconsistent editors you criticise - you whine when your article gets deleted, but moan that there's too much stuff that you personally don't like.
Nothing like a good story to draw the Wikipedia-hate. I bet if Wikipedia published this information, and he'd died as a result, people would then be criticising Wikipedia for that!
Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's long been established that just because anyone can edit Wikipedia, doesn't mean you get to put whatever you like on there - there are all sorts of policies that trump that. In particular, Biographies of Living People would be relevant to this issue. If you want your own space to write what you like, get an actual social networking blog, like Facebook or LiveJournal.
It's very easy to sit on one's high horse and criticise them after the fact. I wonder, imagine if this story was submitted to Slashdot whilst the reporter was still at risk, and Wikipedia - and the rest of the media (why is no one accusing them of "censorship"?) - were still trying to keep quiet about it. Would Slashdot have run with the story, and be willing to risk his life? Or would they have done what everyone else was doing, and withheld it temporarily until he was safe?
If someone decides to go ahead and publish, is it OK to erase their publication?
But I don't think this is censorship - Wikipedia has every right to decide what to show on its servers. Yes, it's a bit more contentious in that it's billed as a user-generated site, and it's fair for Wikipedia editors to discuss whether this was the right move or not. However, at the end of the day, it's Wikipedia's choice what goes on there, and not comparable to censoring other people. It may have been "someone" else editing the site, but it wasn't really someone else publishing it. It was Wikipedia's servers that they were using.
Furthermore, despite the user-run nature of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it's like a blogging service where they can claim you can put what you like up, or sell it as "your" space. There are all sorts of policies about what's meant to be on Wikipedia, and what isn't (including Biographies of Living People, which would be relevant for this issue).
On another note, I don't think "Streisand Effect" (as currently tagged) is relevant - that didn't happen here, and in fact the "censorship" does seem to have been effective. The effect is only happening now, after he's no longer in danger, and after the "censorship" is removed.
By that logic, Apple copied off all the phones that came before them (including the ability to play games).
It's the same old story: Apple do something after someone else, and they're claimed to be "first" somehow; another company does something after Apple, and they've "copied".
It's a shame that Apple didn't add the "copy" feature to the Iphone, since they do it so well...
Lets build a Phone!
Fixed that for you.
Believe it or not, phones were playing games long before Apple joined the party late. I know there's a trend here on Slashdot to redefine the word "phone" with "Iphone", but let's not push it.
There is plenty of precedent of admins and TPTB intervening in Wikipedia edits, when the issue is regarding a living person. BLP trumps pretty much everything (see "Presumption in favour of privacy"). I've seen other cases where information has been removed from Wikipedia on the request of the person it's about. That doesn't mean that anything can be removed (e.g., things that are reported widely elsewhere).
An RPG set in the Aliens universe doesn't really work, did anyone think this was a good idea? There's not a lot choices other than "die or don't die" in the Aliens movies and games so far...how deep could it really get?
To be honest, that sums up most computer RPGs...
These people create no artistic works, they make nothing of artistic value
If you're going to throw ad hominems - citation needed.
Pr0n sites? You mean that these hundreds of girls being advertised who just happen to live in the same town as me aren't really looking for someone to date? :(
(Well, you learn something new everyday - I never realised my town had such a porn industry.)
Incredible - is there anything the IPHONE can't do?
(Although the question of whether it works on the Iphone will likely be "No, because that's just featurism, you don't need that feature. We'll only do it when most other phones have done it first, and then claim credit for being 'first'".)
I use Windows, Visual Studio etc, I think Linux is poor, and I can't stand Apple. I dislike the way that expressing anything in support of Windows or against Apple is often seen as taboo here.
But I don't really care about someone who chooses to use "M$". If we do, we're now the ones criticising someone for what they write. And if we're going to criticise someone, at least criticise their views, rather than their choice to use a pre-existing shorthand expression for Microsoft.
Why? Wouldn't that be a rather expensive way to get a thumb drive? That'd only be a few GB in size.
What's a floppy?
Wow, I didn't realise everyone had the same taste in music.
Sega Genesis? Sega Genesis? You're not telling me you need the full power of a Motorola 68000 just to get a fun game! All that matters is the plot and the game-play. All this talk of Sega Genesises makes me want to dig out my old ZX Spectrum and play some of those old text adventures.
Actually, screw that. Why not make do with one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books? Plenty of plot and game-play there - don't tell me you rely on fancy computer graphics? (Although having said that, it displeases me that so many books have illustrations these days. What a waste of ink that is!)
As a hobbyist/open source programmer, I'd love such a resource. My suspicion is that there are plenty of artists willing to make models for free. On sites like GameDev, it seems there are far more artists looking for programmers, than vice versa, and just look at the modding community to see a large amount of content being produced. The problem is that almost all of it seems to lack any clear licences - just because I find a modding site where people have uploaded content for free, doesn't mean I can be legally sure that they're okay for me to redistribute that content in a game. Even though they may well be okay with it, legally I don't have permission, and there's often no way to ask permission.
Encouraging people to properly licence their works would be a good thing.
Surely this criticism applies to Google too? If you rely on a Google for your knowledge, you get plenty of gossip, urban legends, ignorance etc, and worse you don't even know the people it's from, and whether there is any reason to trust them or not. Sure, occasionally you might happen upon a web page that gives a reliable reference, or a website that is in itself authoritative, but the same is true of friends too.
If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'.
Maybe it's just my friends, but I find the range of material I find out about from my friends far more diverse than I'd find out just by looking at mainstream adverts or shops. Music would be the classic example, but I think it applies more generally.
Consider, how much of Firefox's success (not to mention Linux, to a lesser degree) is due to people seeing it advertised or otherwise finding out about it themselves, versus it being recommended by a geek friend?
I wouldn't go that far - sure, when I'm looking to buy something new, I try to look up reviews. But it can also be helpful to ask for advice from friends too. If nothing else it helps filter out choices that might be particularly bad. And actually, I would say that you can trust your friends more - the point is, you know which of your friends might be knowledgable in that area, and which of them aren't, far more so than some random guy writing on a website (which could be anyone).
Both ways have their benefits. And before the Internet, all most people went on was looking at what was on offer in the shop, and relying on the "advice" from the shop assistant.
IIRC many countries have laws against sex when the person doesn't have the mental capacity to consent - does the US not have one?
In practice, I doubt anyone would get much chance to. I mean what, are pedophiles going to be turning up to her house, and the parents are just going to let them in?
Same with porn - I'm guessing that the parents aren't planning on releasing pornographic pictures of her, so I don't see how the issue would arise legally.
This would be an interesting issue with someone who had an adult mind, but a child body (not that it should be an issue - an adult is clearly an adult - but what with the pedo-hysteria where even fictional depictions are seen as being worse than actual child abuse...) But in this case, I don't see any issues coming up.
Are you seriously suggesting that freelegoporn.com was NOT intended to be a money-making venture?
Wait - what?
(Yes, I know that companies can offer things for free in order to make money selling extra, but I fail to see why you're pulling the "seriously?" when there is no evidence to suggest that this was a money making venture. If you know otherwise, provide your reference.)
But trademark law doesn't prevent any use of the word at all - this isn't like patent or copyright law. It only affects commercial usage. After all, I can say Lego Lego Lego here all I like, without being in violation of trademark law - it's only when I sell something called "Lego" that I risk a lawsuit.
In this case, it's unclear that there website was commercial - given the "free", I'm guessing not.
Trademark does not - or should not - allow companies to shut someone down merely for using a word. Trademark is intended for a specific purpose, and not to allow companies to own words in general.
I entirely agree - moreover, I would say the cybersquatters here are Lego. They're the ones who stole someone else's domain name. And are they now doing anything with the URL? Nope. That's squatting.