Talk:Aaron Swartz

Quinn Norton on the investigation

Another source worth a read:

• Quinn Norton (3 March 2013). "Life Inside the Aaron Swartz Investigation". The Atlantic.

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as we're noting sources, while Quinn Norton's article is certainly important and contains a lot of first-hand information that cannot be available elsewhere, I think by far the best summary of the whole situation is Larissa MacFarquhar's New Yorker article from next week (which coincidently came out online the day after Norton's article): American Chronicles: Requiem for a Dream; Aaron Swartz was brilliant and beloved. But the people who knew him best saw a darker side. By Larissa MacFarquhar. jhawkinson (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Best investigative reporting, at least.  Six pages of exclusive interviews with family and friends. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hack vs crack

An editor has substituted "crack" for "hack" in the section now called "Attacks and cracks". The edit summaries assert that there's a definitional issue and "crack" is the accurate term. I don't know if that's true, as a matter of accurate usage. But I am pretty sure it's not a definitional difference most readers will understand.

To this particular 50-something year old reader, it obscures more than it explains. Plus, it gives me visions of computer attacks mounted by Jeff Foxworthy or Larry the Cable Guy. Would others please weigh in? David in DC (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It could read "gained access to", as in: "Two days after Swartz’s death, members of Anonymous gained access to ("cracked") two websites on the MIT domain..." Bus stop (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like gained access to because it's synonymous with accessed, which is what anyone who looks at a website normally does. Perhaps "gained" is meant to imply that the level of access was unusually high (such that they could deface the pages) or that they had to go to extraordinary lengths (to access more than usual), but that's not resolving the issue of making things clear to the reader. Perhaps avoid saying members of Anonymous did X altogether, and use passive voice (discouraged as it may be) to say that the sites were defaced and that it was apparently the work of members of Anonymous, or some such. —mjb (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

“crack. vb. Slang. … 4. To hack (a computer, network, server, or database) with the intention of causing damage or disruption.”

“hack, vb. To surreptitiously break into the computer, network, servers, or database of another person or organization. Cf. crack. — hacker, n.”

Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).  Reverting slang. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Move and Delete the section Does this belong here, or in the wikipedia coverage of Anonymous_(group)? What we have, after all, are various activities, not necessarily related to each other, which someone claims have something to do with the Aaron Swartz. When they first occurred, it seemed like this might be a movement or a meme, but now these seem to be unrelated actions that are connected to Swartz loosely, if they are connected at all, and that might not be connected to each other. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose deleting grafs 1–3 or moving to Anonymous_(group).  Hack page said “R.I.P Aaron Swartz; …; Down with Anonymous.”

Agree that none of us has found an RS that says the hacks are connected to each other.  The Aush0k–TibitXimer document says “Down With Anonymous”; that hack at least seems to relate to Anonymous’s hack.  None of us has found any RS that says they might have nothing to do with Swartz.  We have found RSs that say they do. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC) --04:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Swartz didn't hack anything. He didn't authorize the hacks. He didn't perform them. He literally had nothing to do with them. They're just marginally notable or non-notable events that happened to use the subject's name to get attention. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Our wording is clear: "Two days after Swartz’s death, members of Anonymous hacked two websites on the MIT domain, replacing them with tributes to Swartz…" There is no implication that Swartz authorized the referred-to activity and I don't think we know that the events "use[d] the subject's name to get attention." Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"But what do the events have to do with Swartz? If someone stands athwart the road of history, shouting "Swartz", does that merit inclusion in the article? We don't catalog everything that someone says about Obama on his page, or everything someone says about Madonna on her page. Why does a hoax phone call merit inclusion here? This seems clear recentism and WP:UNDUE. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the material about the hoax call does seem to have some elements of WP:UNDUE.

But the passage of interest (graf 4), which now runs to 104 words, could probably be edited down to 50 with no controversy whatsoever.  Should I give it a try? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Friends, I think the "Hacks and attacks" subsection is at least as important a part of the "Aftermath" section as all the Congresscrap. And I think the "Aftermath" section is a crucial part of Aaron Swartz's biography. If his life and death have a lasting effect standing athwart world history, it could well be for the activism they inspired and the changes that come to 21st century prosecutory culture because of them. The subsection should stay and all wiki-notable hacks and attacks should be catalogued there.

Moving to Anonymous would be crazy. Half of the incidents cannot be reliably sourced to Anonymous. That's sorta the point. Swartz's activist legacy, and the hacktivism that followed his death extend far beyond Anonymous. That's the whole point of the afterword he wrote to Cary Doctorow's novel.

Trimming is ok, but not much. Each notable incident in the ongoing campaign seems described about as succinctly they can be without inscrutability. WP:CRYSTAL says this issue may need revisiting as/if the incidents continue, but for now I'd counsel against much trimming.

Finally, I'd like to get back to the narrow question I posed at the start: Can we get back to a more colloquially understandable "Hacks" as a better word here than what may be the more hypertechnically correct, but obscurantist "Cracks" appears to have been resolved by Dervorguilla's revision of his original revision to my revision of the original heading. Thanks.

Now, would somebody please acknowledge my Jeff Foxworthy/Larry the Cable Guy joke? I hate it when my jokes get ignored. David in DC (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

“Hacks and hoaxes” ... “Attacks and hacks” ... “Attacks, hacks, and hoaxes” ... Great subheads all.  Any preferences?

On Foxworthy/Guy: Anything that requires the reader to click two links & think is just too much work... --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Restoring David in DC’s inclusion of the term “Hacks” in the subsection head. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Should the whole Hacks and attacks subhed be deleted, trimmed, moved, or allowed to remain, in roughly its current version

New thread for bigger issues raised in prior discussion of Hack v. Crack David in DC (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

These are symbolic reactions and they shed light on the significance of Swartz' life, at least from a public point of view, and I don't think they should be trimmed back. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Support David in DC’s and Bus stop’s points about keeping the material.  The incident is indeed significant.  I’m revising the text to hopefully make clearer just why it’s significant.  (Revert as needed!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here’s the general convention for setting out the relative authoritativeness of the material in the various elements of a newspaper article:  If the story doesn’t support the headline or the caption, the story dominates.

In the particular case of the Kao article, compare the subheadline (“Tip said gunman was after Reif in retaliation for Swartz death”) and photo caption (“The tip said that the gunman was going after L. Rafael Reif in retaliation for Aaron Swartz’s death”) with the actual story (“Police radio traffic suggested … that he [the gunman] was going after MIT President L. Rafael Reif … in retaliation for the death of Aaron Swartz”).

If the tip had indeed said that the gunman was going after Reif, wouldn’t the newswriter most likely have mentioned this rather newsworthy fact?  And the authorities have famously asserted there is “no indication that the hoax was related to Swartz.”

(Alternatively, The Tech’s anonymous headline/caption writer could be the actual tipster himself.  Should I inquire?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Some fearless – and peerless – editing by David in DC.

The UKDMail and UKDailyMail refs aren’t working, though, so I’m substituting a source (the Herald) that was cited by the AP as the original secondary source, along with the e-mail that was cited by both sources.

I’m also rewording the text (as usual) and adding a pithy quote from the Herald.  Revert as needed! --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Prison time in plea negotiations

We've been pretty careful to avoid getting into speculation about how much prison time Swartz was likely to receive, if convicted. We only state, in summary:

• The DOJ publicly said Swartz faced up to 35 years if convicted on all 13 counts.
• Professor Kerr opined that Swartz wasn't likely to get the maximum.
• According to Swartz's attorney, the DOJ offered to recommend 6 months in exchange for a guilty plea on all 13 counts.

This is pretty good, and I hope we can continue to avoid supporting any particular theory of how much prison time he "actually" risked. However, we didn't say what recommendation was on the table if Swartz disputed any of the charges. So today, I added the following, in summary:

• According to Swartz's attorney, the DOJ "threatened" to recommend 7 years if Swartz didn't plead guilty on all 13 counts.
• Swartz's attorney complained to the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility that the difference between 6 months and 7 years far exceeds the difference encouraged by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

I hope it's OK. —mjb (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest also noting that if he pled, he'd suffer the fairly onerous penalties that stem from of having a felony criminal record, likely for the rest of his life. This is mentioned in some of the longer articles, so it's not original research. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

e.g. from the New Yorker article -

“ He wanted to make the world better from inside the system, and they don't let felons work in the White House," Quinn Norton says. "He said those exact words to me. My dad didn't last very long with his felony conviction. It's like being a fucking leper, and for somebody who wanted to move in the circles of American political power it was the end of all those dreams. ... ”

-- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, and I think it and other statements in the New Yorker and Slate pieces might be useful, but mainly just because they could help balance our portrayal of Aaron as mainly a "hacktivist", when in fact his views on how to effect change were both evolving and multifaceted, if not conflicted.

As for what he was facing, in the lead, we do already say what kinds of things, aside from incarceration, would follow a conviction. Quoting the DOJ press release: "...a fine of more than $1 million, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release," each term linked appropriately.

It's my opinion, based partly on how Kevin Mitnick was treated post-release—10 years of supervision, at first—that the conditions of supervised release would be far more onerous than whatever restrictions Aaron would run in to later in life as a felon. During supervised release, it's likely he would've been forbidden from using network technology in all but the most passive of ways; the court certainly wouldn't have tolerated any more activism, disruption, or anything that garners notoriety but was not pre-approved... which may well have spelled the end of any tech industry entrepreneurial aspirations as well. There certainly wouldn't be any book or movie deals during that time. And he'd have to second-guess every public statement, no matter how benign, even technical posts to developer forums. Might as well chop off a pianist's hands.

However, even if we can find some "reliable sources" to cite, and no matter how plausible our predictions may be, I don't know if this Wikipedia article is the best place to speculate in this regard. Life as a felon would entail some restrictions...therefore what? Some people think maybe that's why he killed himself? Some people think maybe the government was out to destroy him? It's plausible, perhaps true, but not really necessary support for anything we are saying in the article. So I don't think we can justify using Quinn Norton's quote in that way. —mjb (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the encyclopedia issue is presenting a reasonable description of what he was facing. Actually, I believe "therefore ... people think maybe that's why he killed himself" is in a way exactly the point. That is, I've seen an extensive misapprehension about the case in terms of people not understanding the ramifications of the plea deal. They mistakenly seem to think that if he pled and got even six months (which would not be hard time), then afterwards, everything would be over, and he could put it all behind him. Then, having assumed he turned down the six months for what appears to them unjustified reasons, they use that as the basis for deeming him unreasonable, and proceed to categorize his suicide as further proof of that unreasonableness. However, they are wrong, since the key assumption in that chain of reasoning about six months is mistaken. It's potential six months in prison, and then a life-long felony record, which can be quite destructive (and plus release conditions as you point out). Thus the downside wasn't "trial/x sentence" vs "plea/6 months", but "trial/x sentence" vs "plea/6 months prison/release limits/lifetime felony burden". That's a very tough choice, and the article should make it clear. Again, this isn't original research, as it's mentioned in some of the various longer magazine pieces about the case. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Seth Finkelstein. The overwhelming evidence is that the subject faced grave legal consequences that could very possibly have ended his already-distinguished career in software and as a political activist. This is clearly the position of the subject's lawyers, and doubtless reflects the advice they gave the subject. Nearly every journalist and scholar concurs that the risk was very substantial. Quinn Norton's quote is germane.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept that the risk was real and substantial, or at least the fact that Aaron (as reported by Quinn) and other sources agree on that point. But it is still broaching WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL; we can't just say "as a felon, he would've had a hard life ahead of him." We might say that various sources feel this way, and Aaron himself is said to have believed it. But why do we need to say it? It can't just be to counter external commentary by unsympathetic disbelievers. They'll just be tempted to "balance" it by adding or giving greater weight to their favorite pundits' analyses that risk was minimal.

Rather than invite such a shit-storm, I feel it's more productive to use Quinn's quote, etc., in the context of balancing the implicit portrayal of Aaron as being primarily or exclusively a "hacktivist". We'd say the same things, really. It just wouldn't be expressed in support of a declaration of a probable outcome of a conviction in the MIT/JSTOR case. Rather, it'd be in support of a declaration along the lines of [people close to Aaron say] "he also wanted to effect change from within the system." We can say he lamented the difficulties that he and others believed a felony conviction would impose, but we wouldn't be saying that his hopelessness around this one topic was the reason he killed himself, and we wouldn't be saying that it was a certainty that life as a felon would have hindered him. —mjb (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any more substantiation to the claim that MIT intervened to prevent a plea deal excluding prison time, as indicated in '‘Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. “JSTOR signed off on it,” he said, “but MIT would not.”[84]’'? The source is very weak, containing nothing more than that one line verbatim, which is purported to be a claim made by one interested party's lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8B2D:7E0:6C7B:6601:85EE:C84E (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum: I was able to speak with some people with close knowledge of the situation and it sounds like the claim is indeed a gross distortion, although it may be true that the person Marty Weinberg made such a claim. Don't know what the proper Wikipedian way is to approach such a quoted dubious claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8B2D:7E0:6C7B:6601:85EE:C84E (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass Lawyers Weekly is a pretty good source. Talking to your pal in the prosecutor's office is Original Research. If the claim is contradicted in the abelson report, then we'll have something to discuss. Oh -- and hi again Carth, I presume?! MarkBernstein (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Who the hell is Carth and what does MLW have to do with is? The source cited is a Boston Globe column, which has this as a random one-liner. Do you have another source for the quote with more background information? In any case, if party X is quoted in some source Y as making a claim A, that's not necessarily evidence of A. It's evidence that X claimed A. Selective use of quotations like that makes for unbalanced POV and general lack of rigor. In this case, indeed, I happen to know out of band that the claim is basically wrong. I'm suggesting someone who understands Wikipedia better might know the right way to handle what amounts to selective hearsay. (My guess would be that the quote simply shouldn't be included, unless topical quotations from other sides of the dispute can be found so that they can be contrasted. I am neither a journalist nor a wikipedian so I was hoping to catch the interest of someone who had a better clue and could make the appropriate argument.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8B2D:7E0:EDA9:6AEB:B8C6:B9E9 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Silvergate quote is from MLW, with additional followup at ?CNET. Your line of argument and claim to secret sources in the prosecutors offices is reminiscent of a former Wikipedian, for whom you might have been mistaken. But the source for the Silvergate quote is appropriate; your friend might think he was mistaken, but your friend wasn't the subject's attorney and Silvergate's source was. Your friend may be your friend, but MLW is a reliable published source. (We've also been discussing a Quinn Norton quotation, but presumably that's not what you're discussing.) MarkBernstein (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, it sounds like we're talking about completely different things, then! I was referring only to the one-line Marty Weinberg quote from the Kevin Cullen column in the Boston Globe. Perhaps I shouldn'tve tacked on my comment to the bottom of an existing section? I thought it was an appropriate place topically, but I don't really understand how these discussions work, so maybe that was dumb! Anyway, summarized to one line, I think my objection is, claims (or implications) of fact should not be supported solely on the basis of quotations from one side's lawyer, without contrasting statements from the other parties or outside corroboration -- in reference to the one-line MW quote. I happen to know more detail, but that obviously cannot be used in the argument because it's not yet published anywhere (to my knowledge). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8B2D:7E0:EDA9:6AEB:B8C6:B9E9 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources and WP:NOR

User:David in DC recently restored a secondary source (the Daily Mail), noting (The link works fine. The Ruiz press relese is a primary source. Primary sources should only be used to back up a secondary source. Cannot be sole source for a fact. WP:NOR. Also, "18 minutes" and "Sprint Internet Relay service" are from Daily Mail.).

I would be advise some caution here. WP:NOR is very misleadingly written in my opinion (I do not claim WP:IGNORE; just that it's sloppy). But it should not be the case that we prefer to use a secondary source to a primary source to establish a fact that is clear in the primary source. WP:NOR's prohibition is based on a concern of misinterpreting a primary source and erroneously synthesizing information from it. It is also written in the context where a primary source and a secondary source can be seperated in time by years (or even decades or centuries), with the clear benefit of hindsight and actual scholarship. Those are not situations we have here. Instead our secondary sources are quickly written news articles (often on short deadlines from reporters highly disconnected in place and reputation), and they lack the imprimatur of the kinds of secondary sources that WP:NOR presumes. In fact, in many cases the secondary sources may represent less scholarship, work, and care than the primary sources.

What WP:NOR actually says is this:

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. (underline is my emphasis).

A quotation from an email regarding a developing recent article (which the whole Swartz affair is) is a good example of where the primary source is best. The secondary source only adds the possibility of error and the certainty of less faith in the chain of evidence and custody.

In this particular case, I'm not so sure the MIT News Office press release really qualifies as a primary source, anyhow. It is essentially a news article quoting the entirety of Ruiz's email (without headers), just as the Daily Mail might be. Except that the Daily Mail is unlikely to have received the email directly (I assert this as informed speculation); they probably got their quote from one of the many other sources who quoted the email in entirety, possibly including the press release, or this [blog post from The MIT Tech], or some copies that appeared on pastebin.com at the time, etc., etc. (They offer no information on the chain-of-custody, implicit or explicit. Neither do the MIT sources, but they have implicit chain-of-custody.)

So anyhow, I would disagree. Yes, the Ruiz press release can definitely be the "sole source for a fact."

Also, tangentially, I suspect it is a mistake to characterize the communication as an "18-minute message." We know that it was a "running message"; assuming 18 minutes is the correct length (is it?), it's probably better characterized as an "18-minute conversation" or communication; otherwise it implies the hoax source was talking/typing for 18 minutes straight. With respect to the Sprint sourcing, citing the Daily Mail citing the Boston Herald is just silly. Again, a tertiary source does not give us a benefit over a secondary source for a raw fact (a fact n+1 -times removed from the source is not better than n times removed. Lowering n is desirable). In point of fact there are fairly few "primary" sources for that fact here: direct interviews with the Cambridge Police (they didn't give many), the Cambridge Police's press conference that Saturday (they did not disclose the Sprint source, and declined to comment when asked), the Cambridge Police's press release the following Tuesday 2/26 (which did cite Sprint), and communications between the police officers during the event (often with fog of war problems). I would suggest their press release is the best source here. Though, unlike the news media -based secondary sources, it is probably not a URL that can be expected to be stable for more than a few years, so that is a strike against it. jhawkinson (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I ought to mention that I did ask David in DC to “fearlessly” revert any of the edits I made.  I’m seeing this as like an expository writing assignment, where you can often get better results if you go back and forth a few times. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

Concur re expository writing assignment simile.

Content to see my latest edits fearlessly revised per Jhawkinson and Dervorguilla above.

Consensus achieved? David in DC (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

While I don't think I'm technically in violation, I think its best for appearances if I don't actually make edits to this article that relate to portions that might be derived from information sourced from me elsewhere. So I'll let others do that, if they agree. Consider the above "getting it off my chest" perhaps in advance of a long comment on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research, perhaps. jhawkinson (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct on consensus; and A for alliteration.  I’m inspired to restore part of David in DC’s wording in the subsection head:  Attacks and hacks -> Hacks and hoaxes.  (See esp. today’s news about March 20 report of an e-mail hoax.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 02:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Today's news / discovery motion

Well, the world is full of irony. The day after the above rant about primary sources, there are additional developments in the Swartz case that appear to be only covered by primary sources right now :). Specifically, Swartz's attorneys filed this afternoon (US/Eastern) a motion to modify the protective order, http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.109.0.pdf. That is, it would permit disclosure of much of the materials that the Government has provided to the defense as part of the discovery process. It also has several attachments, linked from the RECAP docket page.

In summary (hello, synthesis), the defense would like to disclose the documents provided during discovery, and the Government quibbles with the defense on several particular points, regarding redaction of some kinds of information.

And, in more inside baseball terms, docket #110 is an appearance filed by Jack Pirozzola, the First Assistant United States Attorney, who is Carmen Ortiz's number 2 person. It appears that Pirozzola has been handling the details of the case personally in the negotiation over lifting the protective order covering discovery. Have at it, folks! jhawkinson (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, while this is relevant for reporters and similar ilk, mention of it can wait a few days until the deadline-pressured click-seekers, err, I mean, Reliable Sources, produce a garbled mishmash that's acceptable to cite according to Wikipedia's rules. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote fix

Correcting hatnote & compressing...

For the English actor, see Aaron Swartz (actor). For the American actor, see Aaron Schwartz. For the Canadian actor, see Aaron Schwartz (Canadian actor).  –>

For other people with similar names, see Aaron Swartz (actor), Aaron Schwartz, or Aaron Schwartz (actor-lawyer).

136 characters –> 87 characters.

WP:HN says:  “The hatnote should not overload the user with extraneous information and the content should be imparted quickly….  ‘Less is more.’”  --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Prosecutory rationale and response: Wu quote

The passage in question (ellipses added):

… Law Professor Tim Wu wrote, “The prosecutors forgot that … their job is … to use the awesome power of criminal law to protect the public from actual harm.”

Reason for keeping:

_ Columbia Law School professor offers expert opinion in The New Yorker; clearly belongs

Some reasons for deleting:

_ Wu, a well-known expert in copyright law, doesn’t claim to be an expert in criminal law.  (“Wu’s academic specialties are copyright and telecommunications policy.”)

_ The opinion was offered in The New Yorker News Desk (a blog), not The New Yorker (a periodical).

_ Wu knew Swartz personally and studied law under the professor who became Swartz’s lawyer.

A better quote?

… Law professor Tim Wu wrote, “Just last year the Ninth Circuit ... threw out a similar prosecution...  [It] refused to read the law in a way that would make a criminal of ‘everyone who uses a computer in violation of computer use restrictions — which may well include everyone who uses a computer.’”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 06:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is likely and desirable for any journalist to know his subject. Dividing the New Yorker’s online and print editions is a pointless errand (and does not reflect well on Wikipedia). Again, we're seeing an effort to water down and obscure what's been written about the subject, replacing it with general commentary about law. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

“Dividing the New Yorker’s online and print editions is a pointless errand.” — Maybe, but WP doesn’t seem to think that a blog posting in The New Yorker News Desk should be treated as if it were a magazine article in The New Yorker (online edition or print edition or both). WP:CITET --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

----

Section head:  2.2.4  Prosecutory rationale and response

  Prosecutory.  “Of [or] relating to … prosecution.”

  Prosecutorial.  “Of [or] relating to … a prosecutor or prosecution.”

  Prosecutorial.  “[Of or relating to a] prosecutor.”  Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).

This is a section about the prosecution — not the prosecutor.

You’re an encyclopedia reader seeking information about the response to the prosecutory rationale.  Which response or responses are you likely to find more helpful?

A. “The prosecutors forgot that their job isn’t to try and win at all costs.”

B. “Just last year the Ninth Circuit threw out a similar prosecution.”

C. Both.

D. Neither.

  --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 02:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

both, of course. Simple answers to simple questions. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You’re seeking information about the response to the prosecutory rationale — meaning, the response to the prosecution.  The correct answer is B.  C is also correct.  (A and D are not.)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 02:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

and why is "Volokh Conspiracy" a dandy source, while the New Yorker Online is a disparaged blog? Other than that one says nice things about the prosecutors, and the other doesn't? (Obviously, the online components of the New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc are reliable published sources and not the target of the WP guideline) MarkBernstein (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly support MarkBernstein’s proposition that there’s no reason to believe that The Volokh Conspiracy, a self-published blog, is as reliable a source as The New Yorker, a periodical.  The Volokh Conspiracy site doesn’t even give the publisher’s name (Eugene Volokh).

Support in part MarkBernstein’s point that at least some blogs published on the New Yorker site are more reliable than the blog published on Volokh’s site.

MarkBernstein’s motion to admit Wu’s blog entry is accordingly GRANTED.

User Dervorguilla now moves that User MarkBernstein grant her own request to admit Wu ¶ 6 as an authoritative legal opinion by a federal appeals court implying that the prosecutors in Boston had no case:

Colombia Law School professor Tim Wu wrote, “Just last year the Ninth Circuit ... threw out a similar prosecution...  [It] refused to read the law in a way that would make a criminal of ‘everyone who uses a computer in violation of computer use restrictions — which may well include everyone who uses a computer.’”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add this, but not to substitute it for the current quote. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Improvement?

“The prosecutors forgot that, as public officials, their job isn’t to try and win at all costs but to use the awesome power of criminal law to protect the public from actual harm.” ->

“The prosecutors forgot that … their job [is] … to use the awesome power of criminal law to protect the public from actual harm.”

33 words -> 22

1 logic error -> 0

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed one of the three quotes from Volokh Conspiracy (all by Kerr), in accord with MarkBernstein’s point above.  -“On January 20, Kerr proposed a revision of the CFAA, including the elimination of penalties for merely exceeding authorized access.”  (If any of Kerr’s language is being incorporated into a bill, the quote ought to be restored, of course.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

PACER edit (removing 'merciless')

More reasons for the change from: “Was the merciless JSTOR prosecution the revenge of embarrassed bureaucrats?” to: “Was the … JSTOR prosecution the revenge of embarrassed bureaucrats?”

In context, the two sentences are logical identities.  Out of context, the first sentence is ambiguous.  There’s a problem with the prosody.  Some readers may stress the wrong words:

“The merciless JSTOR prosecution” implies that there was a second merciless prosecution (on behalf of some other plaintiff).

“The merciless JSTOR prosecution” implies that JSTOR itself was merciless.

“The merciless JSTOR prosecution implies that there was one prosecution, that it was on behalf of JSTOR, and that the prosecution was merciless.  As we know, this is the way the author meant it to be read.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 05:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Now you're improving the prose of the cited authorities? You might not have called the prosecution "merciless." It might embarrass you that it is called merciless here. But the author did choose to call it merciless, and the term should remain.MarkBernstein (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem.  I’d thought that I was improving the prose (as well as removing rhetorical language).  Maybe not, though.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WP's treatment of quotations

WP:QUOTE (emphasis added)

2 General guidelines

The quotation should be representative of the whole source document….

Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it … should be avoided.

Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false.

4 Overusing quotations, WP:QUOTEFARM

Long quotations … remove attention from other information.…  A summary or paraphrase … is often better where the original wording could be improved.

Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing or by working smaller portions … into the article text.

4.1 Examples of overuse of quotations, WP:LONGQUOTE

_ Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style….

_ Quoteboxes should generally be avoided; … they draw special attention to the opinion of one source….

_ Longer quotations may … be hidden in the reference as a [ref quote] to facilitate verification … without sacrificing readability.

5 Copyrighted material and fair use

The quotation must … aid understanding of the subject [of the article].

---

Replying to MarkBernstein’s request (Undid numerous deletions… Too entangled to resolve one by one. Discuss individually and less boldly on talk page. please):

   Short reasons for each individual major deletion are found in each summary.  In many cases, an authoritative reason is found above.  If not, please restore the individual deletion.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 03:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

More on unexplained deletions:

   Rephrasing of a short text.  “ft followed by … the new version of what was changed … fully informs about the edit.” (WP:Edit summary legend).  A rephrasing doesn’t need to be explained.

   When a deletion is unexplained, it could be a signal that the editor is going to be rephrasing or reorganizing sometime later.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

... Luckily, any prospective edit war can be avoided here just by permitting other editors to make individual restores of any individual edit (or individual subset of entangled edits) that they don’t agree with.  I myself don’t intend to do any more reverting or restoring for a while.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Support restore by MarkBernstein of Salon item about mural added by HectorMoffet (In the press).  --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)  Strongly support MarkBernstein’s awesome removal of longstanding but dilutive 19-word passage in lede (-‘and later worked … was also a contributing editor….’) --22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In light of the 40 or 50 edits here, please define the meaning of "a while" in the following half-sentence: "I myself don’t intend to do any more reverting or restoring for a while." David in DC (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Three days plus...  While. 1.d. A relatively short period of time; a brief time.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the irony inherent in linking to a definition in a dictionary whose content lies behind a paywall intentional? David in DC (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Meow...  (Implying that $29.95/yr is mere pocket change for some of us...)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BOLD creation of United States v. Aaron Swartz

This subpage was suggested some time ago when the article was still in great flux. Now that things have settled down, the sub-article seems useful. Please improve it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

One user has suggested that the young United States v. Aaron Swartz article be move moved out of article space until it's more complete. Does anyone else have opinions one way or the other on that? I'm willing to do whatever the group of editors here think is the best way for WP to cover all this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well now we have two giant bodies of overlapping content. If we're going to have a separate article about the case, and we're going to use the {{main|United States v. Aaron Swartz}} template in this article, then all of this article's content (in that section) should be moved to the new page. All we should be left with here is a terse, 1- or 2- paragraph summary that is phrased in such a way that it isn't going to be changed or expanded every week. —mjb (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that. I think the split-away article will be good, one day. But I think it needs a whole lotta work and should be userfied somewhere where we can build it up collaboaratively. David in DC (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Accord.  The case was filed but never argued.  No trial, no decision, no judicial opinion.  If no one ever cites the case, it has no legal relevance and will need much work to become independently useful. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)  04:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)  04:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile we could start ‘stealing’ the most pertinent data from the United States v. Swartz article and copying it to Aaron Swartz.  As related material in Aaron Swartz becomes less pertinent, we could likewise move it to the (temporarily) userfied United States v. Swartz.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(Addressing mjb’s analysis)  These grafs contain material that’s directly about Aaron Swartz, Swartz’s estate, Swartz’s immediate family members, or Commw. v. Swartz:  JSTOR ¶¶ 1–2; Arrest and state charges ¶¶ 1–2; Federal indictment and prosecution ¶¶ 2–3, 5; Plea negotiations ¶¶ 2, 4, 7; Family response and criticism ¶¶ 1–3; Legal proceedings ¶¶ 1, 4.   These grafs contain no material directly about Aaron Swartz, Swartz’s estate, Swartz’s immediate family members, or Commw. v. Swartz, but some material directly about U.S. v. Swartz:  Federal indictment and prosecution ¶¶ 1–2, 4, 6–7; Plea negotiations ¶¶ 1, 3–6; Prosecutory rationale and response ¶¶ 1–5; Legal proceedings ¶¶ 2–3, 5–6.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)