User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Black macaque monkey reads its Wikipedia article and copies it?

Possibly, as suggested here. However, as suggested here in the "reliable" media, Wikipedia never said that the monkey owned the copyright on the image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed on the decision-making ability of those at Commons who decided this man, who owned the camera, developed the film, and yes- OWNED THE PICTURES, asked them to remove it and they refused on shaky ground. How many of you involved in the discussion are actually lawyers? I'm sincerely saddened by this and would now never post any photo to Flickr or Commons or anywhere on the internet without copyright protection. I hope this man does sue and win. Someone asks for a photo of theirs to be removed, why discuss, just remove it. What reasoning that the photo absolutely must be on Wikipedia?! I'm curious how Jimbo would have !voted in the discussion and his opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, because cases like that, where someone asserts they own the copyright of a photo/scan where they do not are extremely common, and honouring bogus copyright claims would obliterate our supply of public domain materials. Historic art owned by museums/galleries and so on is a very common case for this sort of thing, but also people who own a physical photo with expired copyright - stock image companies and the like especially. While the case is a little unusual in the specifics, the general pattern is common. As the photo itself is notable, it's tough to argue we shouldn't have a copy - nevermind that it's very dodgy for a free project to honour invalid copyright claims. WilyD 17:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. There are enough cases where copyright is abused, that it is entirely reasonable for us to be aggressive in defending the public domain in cases where copyright does not apply. It's unfortunate when someone like David Slater ends up at a disadvantage as a result, but consistently defending the limitations of copyright is not nearly as morally dubious as some might like to depict it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that copyright does apply in this case under pretty much every legal definition, Wikipedia simply decided that they would ignore it. Ironic for a so-called "free" encyclopedia, isn't it? Not to mention arrogant. Like Camelbinky, I'd really like to think that he'd sue - but I'd quite understand if he didn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office decided it wasn't copyrighted, so we could go by that even if we didn't think the photographer was taking liberties with the notion of copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep whistling in the dark. The Commons decision was ill-considered, unethical, and immature — taken up a notch by the arrogant buffoonery that happened at Wikimania in London. Lawyers are doing their thing, I understand, and we shall see... Carrite (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick note

The project is slowly dying. Enjoy.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The project isn't a living organism, therefore it can't die. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing, for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two. It is therefore considered more rhetorically powerful than a simile. While a simile compares two items, a metaphor directly equates them, and so does not apply any distancing words of comparison, such as "like" or "as." Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile. Bosstopher (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• ........in further news, WMF has already surpassed its aggressive fundraising target for the entire fiscal year (which ends in June 2015), core volunteer count remains stable, and we're now over the 4.7 million article mark... Dead, indeed. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)\

Maybe he is talking about The Project or The Project. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't argue whether "the project" is or isn't dying. I'll just say that I spend a fair amount of time in the Wikipedia archives, going back to 2004-2005 and there have always been people declaring that the dream is dead. Maybe it's best to give up what you think Wikipedia should be and work with what it is and plan for what it could be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proof that you can't please everyone

I would hate to be in the middle ot this mess. Mysoginism runs rampant in the UK. Nyth63 16:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at VPT

Jimbo, your input and that of others would be welcome at this discussion about Wikipedia's potential implementation of HTTPS for all readers. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)