Nice rhetoric. But I'm being called a troll (offsite, where the few immature admins can get away with it) because I followed the process.
The supposed "trolling" claim comes in simply BECAUSE I reported an admin's possible misuse of a copyrighted photo. I don't give a damn what the photo is of.
I didn't put it on "request for immediate removal", I put it on "possible copyright infringement".
Note the key word, "POSSIBLE"?
Chill out, mav. You should not be an admin, nay, a wikipedia user if you yourself cannot handle being corrected. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?
Maybe wikipedia really is one big power struggle...
I'm not sure if the issue is resolved. There was nothing more I could say, mav has not told us the nature of the agreement between him and the photographers. There was no reason to delete it yet-- although it might be covered under fair use, I don't know.
See? All of the sudden people are jumping up to delete my entry in *possible* copyright infringement and attack me and my credibility here.
It's rather sad they have to try to silence and discredit me instead of following proper procedures: That includes silencing me, trying to make me look stupid (including my damn brother, who's not involved in this mess), and calling me a troll.
Normally, I wouldn't care, but it's obvious they are trying to suck up for the admin and don't give a damn about possible copyright infringement or the policies.
If this is how wikipedia really works, then I suggest you DO NOT donate money. They don't deserve it if they treat honest users this way.
Are you an admin or wikipedia, or what? If so, you can remove my link. However, I think you're an idiot for not letting the proper procedure take place. I couldn't give a damn if mav is an admin or not. Quit turning this into a little political-power game, and follow the damn policies.
Man, talk about conspiracy theorists. I take it you're Gene Ward Smith, the same person who insisted that science is still "undecided" on psychic powers?
I'd lock my computer as well if the one I'm currently on wasn't slow.
Why the hell would I try to discredit myself when I know many people from slashdot are also wikipedians? Don't be stupid (although it might be mighty hard for you, with your logic).
God damn, use a few brain cells. "Hur hur, I'm gonna try to discredit myself then a few minutes later claim someone else did it, hur hur!"
I've dealt enough with idiots on the internet, and I'm tired of dealing with you.
No, I'm not. It's those type of people, though, that I'm concerned about whining on wikipedia. The admin in question might be covered under fair use, I don't know. If he's not, he could very well take a picture using a digital camera....
People are trying to remove my addition to "possible copyright infringement". It's obvious they are trying to suck up to the admin and are being just all-around asses. I don't have anything personal against the admin, I just spotted a possibly copyrighted picture and took the proper procedures. No reason to be so anal about it...
My brother is some sort of anarcho-anti-knowlegde type guy, he doesn't like it when I tried to post stuff on "intellectual web sites". Maybe all the heavy metal he listens to has ruined his mind.
I find it funny that pointing out an admin's possible (mistaken) use of a photograph is trolling, and pointing out the exact same on a possible copyrighted picture of whales isn't. It doesn't matter who it is or where it is, it's still POSSIBLE copyright infringement. I never yelled and screamed at him to take it off, most of the time I was defending myself.
So it's trolling to notify an admin of possible copyright infringment? You're like a moderator on slashdot that marks any pro-linux comment up and any pro-windows comment down, no matter how truthful it is.
I would have argued against you in the past, but my own observations have shown this to be somewhat true.
You are not encouraged to engage in "edit wars", that is, you shouldn't revert things even if you know it's an outright lie. The policy seems to be to be just to let it stay and let a large number of other people fix it or to compromise. That, of course, rarely happens with the religious/pseudoscience trolls.
Wikipedia is a very good idea, however, recently I've come across some problems.
1) Edit wars: militant people will continue to insert bias and lies in some topics, and it is very hard to stop them. The system moves very slowly. I've had to deal with scientific skepticism, dealing with rather ill-informed people who think skeptics are out to destroy science.
2) The community politics: I questioned an admin's use of a personal photograph in his profile (professional photographs usually are copyrighted under the photographer, not the client), and I was threatened with being banned, accused of trolling (I was earlier warned not to call people a troll by the very same admin!), and personally attacked in chat, when I was following wikipedia policy to a T.
I think administration does need a little more bite when dealing with the problem users who insert bias into topics. Users like "Mr-Natural-Health" should be gagged on certain topics, at the very least.
Oh, and a litle more information: The first time wikipedia hit 200,000, I believe, was due to many stub articles suddenly appearing. I wonder why:)
That doesn't mean it was in bad faith, like MS claimed. The kid had an actual business running. He simply decided to make a counteroffer when they came up to him. Had they not, he would've run the site all the same. He wasn't cybersquatting
An XBOX, so the kid can buy games and funnel more money to MS.
MCSE training, to help MS grow and shield it a bit from the Linux revolution that is occuring.
Free publicity, using the word "gifts" to make them seem as if they are doing something charitable to some kid when in reality they threatened him with a lawsuit.
Yes, MS certainly got the better part of the deal, don't you agree?
It's also important to note that, if a solution is made through this (if one comes around), who will it benefit? Corporations? Everyone equally? Take a WILD guess which one I'm betting on.
It's very interesting how this might turn out. Will they be anti-P2P, or anti-RIAA (not saying the two are exclusive or anything)?
As we all pretty much accept here on Echodot, computer copyright law is really out of wack with other copyright law. Computers, being relatively new and increasing in use fast, have been treated differently than earlier, normal copyright laws, for example, you can lend someone a book, but you (as many EULAs say) you cannot have a game installed on two computers, even if the game requires a CD to play. If such a book came with an User Agreement, would courts allow it?
In any case, something must be done. We haven't seen anything really like computers before. There has been nothing so flexible that allows you to share information so easily. I think the laws should change, NOT computers.
Of course, this begs the question on HOW the laws will change. One obvious answer is to do away with the whole copyrighted works system, but is that really what we want (and need)?
In summary, the current copyright laws (not the DMCA, it is argued it conflicts with "fair use", I'm inclined to agree) just weren't designed for anything like computers and the internet.
Heh, or else I have no idea what I'm talking about and just whoring for karma.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no, I eventually stopped, and someone else added it with the discussion put all on another page. Don't lie, now.
Nice rhetoric. But I'm being called a troll (offsite, where the few immature admins can get away with it) because I followed the process.
The supposed "trolling" claim comes in simply BECAUSE I reported an admin's possible misuse of a copyrighted photo. I don't give a damn what the photo is of.
Nice to see you're a good yes-man.
I did go to the user first. He essentially told me to fuck off. (not in those words, of course, but in attitude).
I didn't put it on "request for immediate removal", I put it on "possible copyright infringement".
Note the key word, "POSSIBLE"?
Chill out, mav. You should not be an admin, nay, a wikipedia user if you yourself cannot handle being corrected. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?
Maybe wikipedia really is one big power struggle...
Apparently someone else added it back up again.
I'm not sure if the issue is resolved. There was nothing more I could say, mav has not told us the nature of the agreement between him and the photographers. There was no reason to delete it yet-- although it might be covered under fair use, I don't know.
See? All of the sudden people are jumping up to delete my entry in *possible* copyright infringement and attack me and my credibility here.
It's rather sad they have to try to silence and discredit me instead of following proper procedures: That includes silencing me, trying to make me look stupid (including my damn brother, who's not involved in this mess), and calling me a troll.
Normally, I wouldn't care, but it's obvious they are trying to suck up for the admin and don't give a damn about possible copyright infringement or the policies.
If this is how wikipedia really works, then I suggest you DO NOT donate money. They don't deserve it if they treat honest users this way.
Are you an admin or wikipedia, or what? If so, you can remove my link. However, I think you're an idiot for not letting the proper procedure take place. I couldn't give a damn if mav is an admin or not. Quit turning this into a little political-power game, and follow the damn policies.
And I find it funny that you're posting as an AC.
Man, talk about conspiracy theorists. I take it you're Gene Ward Smith, the same person who insisted that science is still "undecided" on psychic powers?
Oh, are you the same person who asked for evidence of something not existing? So much for a "Ph.D" in philosopher of science.
I'd lock my computer as well if the one I'm currently on wasn't slow.
Why the hell would I try to discredit myself when I know many people from slashdot are also wikipedians? Don't be stupid (although it might be mighty hard for you, with your logic).
God damn, use a few brain cells. "Hur hur, I'm gonna try to discredit myself then a few minutes later claim someone else did it, hur hur!"
I've dealt enough with idiots on the internet, and I'm tired of dealing with you.
No, I'm not. It's those type of people, though, that I'm concerned about whining on wikipedia. The admin in question might be covered under fair use, I don't know. If he's not, he could very well take a picture using a digital camera....
People are trying to remove my addition to "possible copyright infringement". It's obvious they are trying to suck up to the admin and are being just all-around asses. I don't have anything personal against the admin, I just spotted a possibly copyrighted picture and took the proper procedures. No reason to be so anal about it...
I'm not joking. Do you know what "browser windows" are, and do you understand what "leaving the room" could possibly entail?
Don't tell me you've never left an IM client on and found out someone else in the room played around under your screen name.
Perhaps you should read the other posts in this thread? My brother thought it would be cute to discredit me while I was out of the room.
From the point of view of a militant copyright holder, does it even matter what the picture is of or where it is located?
My brother is some sort of anarcho-anti-knowlegde type guy, he doesn't like it when I tried to post stuff on "intellectual web sites". Maybe all the heavy metal he listens to has ruined his mind.
I find it funny that pointing out an admin's possible (mistaken) use of a photograph is trolling, and pointing out the exact same on a possible copyrighted picture of whales isn't. It doesn't matter who it is or where it is, it's still POSSIBLE copyright infringement. I never yelled and screamed at him to take it off, most of the time I was defending myself.
Lamer.
So it's trolling to notify an admin of possible copyright infringment? You're like a moderator on slashdot that marks any pro-linux comment up and any pro-windows comment down, no matter how truthful it is.
I didn't post that, my brother did. I was taking a bath.
Next time, I'm logging out.
I did it to piss him off.
I would have argued against you in the past, but my own observations have shown this to be somewhat true.
You are not encouraged to engage in "edit wars", that is, you shouldn't revert things even if you know it's an outright lie. The policy seems to be to be just to let it stay and let a large number of other people fix it or to compromise. That, of course, rarely happens with the religious/pseudoscience trolls.
Wikipedia is a very good idea, however, recently I've come across some problems.
:)
1) Edit wars: militant people will continue to insert bias and lies in some topics, and it is very hard to stop them. The system moves very slowly. I've had to deal with scientific skepticism, dealing with rather ill-informed people who think skeptics are out to destroy science.
2) The community politics: I questioned an admin's use of a personal photograph in his profile (professional photographs usually are copyrighted under the photographer, not the client), and I was threatened with being banned, accused of trolling (I was earlier warned not to call people a troll by the very same admin!), and personally attacked in chat, when I was following wikipedia policy to a T.
I think administration does need a little more bite when dealing with the problem users who insert bias into topics. Users like "Mr-Natural-Health" should be gagged on certain topics, at the very least.
Oh, and a litle more information: The first time wikipedia hit 200,000, I believe, was due to many stub articles suddenly appearing. I wonder why
Untrue, it extends parts of existings laws-- the FBI can search your house without a warrant if terrorism is suspected, among other things.
That doesn't mean it was in bad faith, like MS claimed. The kid had an actual business running. He simply decided to make a counteroffer when they came up to him. Had they not, he would've run the site all the same. He wasn't cybersquatting
An XBOX, so the kid can buy games and funnel more money to MS.
MCSE training, to help MS grow and shield it a bit from the Linux revolution that is occuring.
Free publicity, using the word "gifts" to make them seem as if they are doing something charitable to some kid when in reality they threatened him with a lawsuit.
Yes, MS certainly got the better part of the deal, don't you agree?
It's also important to note that, if a solution is made through this (if one comes around), who will it benefit? Corporations? Everyone equally? Take a WILD guess which one I'm betting on.
It's very interesting how this might turn out. Will they be anti-P2P, or anti-RIAA (not saying the two are exclusive or anything)?
:)
As we all pretty much accept here on Echodot, computer copyright law is really out of wack with other copyright law. Computers, being relatively new and increasing in use fast, have been treated differently than earlier, normal copyright laws, for example, you can lend someone a book, but you (as many EULAs say) you cannot have a game installed on two computers, even if the game requires a CD to play. If such a book came with an User Agreement, would courts allow it?
In any case, something must be done. We haven't seen anything really like computers before. There has been nothing so flexible that allows you to share information so easily. I think the laws should change, NOT computers.
Of course, this begs the question on HOW the laws will change. One obvious answer is to do away with the whole copyrighted works system, but is that really what we want (and need)?
In summary, the current copyright laws (not the DMCA, it is argued it conflicts with "fair use", I'm inclined to agree) just weren't designed for anything like computers and the internet.
Heh, or else I have no idea what I'm talking about and just whoring for karma.