User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

The animated gif file of a man mastrubating is in a public domain. Do we need it in public domain?

Discussion winding down
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had to write to you because of the conversation on wikimedia-commons irc this Tuesday. You can read it. The people involved consented for the conversation to be made public. I am natbrown. Natkabrown (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I was working on this page of my wiki http://wikitranslate.org/wiki/Russian_verbs_of_motion I had to find different images for Russian verbs of motion, so I was searching for "roll over" etc. That's how I found the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Collapsing for readability [10:31]natbrown has joined #wikimedia-commons [10:33] <natbrown> Hi, I found some very unpleasant photos http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masturbation_techniques_-_Circumcision_experience_%28Beschneidungs-Erfahrung%29.jpg [10:33] <natbrown> There is a video attached as well [10:33] <Funfood> What is your problem with these files? [10:34] <natbrown> There is a whole category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation [10:34] <Funfood> there it belongs to, yes [10:34] <natbrown> I am a woman. I find this very offencive. I don't want to see it. [10:35] <Funfood> you don't need to open them, neither the files or the category [10:35] <natbrown> Should this be in Wikipedia? Aren't there enough sites dedicated to these techniques? [10:35] <Nickname1> you'll get over it [10:36] <Funfood> commons is not wikipedia, but there are, of course a lot of discussions about those files [10:36] <natbrown> I found them by searching for "roll over [10:36] <Funfood> I for my part don't think that human body parts are disgusting somehow [10:37] <Funfood> but your opinion may vary [10:37] <natbrown> Very often I work with my granddaughter by my site. She is 8 now. Would you like your daughter or your mother to see those files? [10:38] <Funfood> If they appear by accident on the screen, it is a good time to explain children something about the internet [10:38] <Funfood> and my mother has surely seen a penis before ;) [10:39] <natbrown> It is pornography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography [10:39] <natbrown> There should be no pornography on Wikimedia. It isn't educational. [10:40] <Funfood> pornography [10:40] <AsimovBot> [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/pornography [10:40] <Funfood> the first lines are the important ones ;) [10:41] <natbrown> There is a page there about child pornography as well. Thank God no pictures! [10:41] <Funfood> they would be deleted at once and the uploaders will have a hard time afterwards [10:41] <natbrown> The children are exploited all around the world. [10:45] <Funfood> nudity [10:45] <AsimovBot> [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/nudity [10:47] <natbrown> I was shocked to discover those files. I thought that Wikimedia had no videos of mustrubation. What can I do? [10:48] <natbrown> They are very offencive to any woman. I feel like someone has been mustubating in front of me. [10:49] <Funfood> you can do what everybody can do: start a deletion request fpr the file. But you can be shure it will be rejected. [10:50] <natbrown> I can't believe that you all have no those feelings. Are you all frigthen that if you lose those files peple wouldn't know where to find them? [10:50] <Funfood> Sexual content does not mean it is bad [10:51] == Snowolf_ [snowolf@wikimedia/Snowolf] has joined #wikimedia-commons [10:53] <natbrown> I will start a page on a facebook "Stop pornography on Wikipedia". The fact that it's only on wikimedia has no relevance. All files from wikimedia can be added with one click to Wikipedia. Lots of people donated to Wikipedia. Did they all know that there are such files there? [10:54] <Nickname1> okay have fun [10:54] <Funfood> by creating this facebook page you can be sure that more people will come to commons just to see these files :) [10:55] <natbrown> Do you really think that this is what the world need? [10:57] <Funfood> I think that the world needs less censorship and more open minded people [11:01] <Snowolf> natbrown: Wikipedia is not censored. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer for the English Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, as an example. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CENSORSHIP#Censorship for some idea of what is and isn't within the scope of Wikimedia Commons [11:01] <natbrown> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7SIDz3M5Y They say that Wikipedia is doing what they can to delete phorn. The video that is attached is porn. [11:04] <natbrown> If I meet some man that I don't know they don't do those things in front of me. Why they should do it online? Why you should provide a space for it? Is it where the donations are going? [11:07] <Funfood> so why just don't delete the whole internet? There's porn in it (I heard) [11:07] <Snowolf> Oh the Young Turks; that is from over a year ago, and child pornography is taken seriously. But otherwise the projects are not censored. [11:08] <Funfood> the file you linked has definitively educational content, even if it is sexual content [11:10] <natbrown> Funfood: are you admin? For how many years are you on mediawiki? [11:10] <Snowolf> Different things may be offensive to different people, in different countries. There is no worldwide sensitivity on things, and even if there was, who would have ot make the call. It just doesn't work that way, Wikimedia strives not to be censored as much as possible. [11:10] <Funfood> no, I am no admin and I am here for just some months [11:11] <natbrown> Are there any admins here? [11:11] <Funfood> but I don't know how this should influence my opinion [11:11] <Snowolf> There are some people to which the existence of images depicting Prophet Muhammad is offensive, as you're probably aware; to others, sexually explicit images are a problem. [11:13] <Snowolf> In the end, you end up making everybody unhappy. Now I am sorry that an image like that bothered you, each one of us has a different sensitivity, and there may be/is content on Wikimedia projects I might find objectionable too [11:14] <Snowolf> But we don't censor things. Could things be improved? Always. Is it easy? No, striving a balance between removing images of no education value (because Wikimedia Commons is not a free host for images akin to imageshack and the like) and censorship of useful images is not easy, but it is important to err on the side of caution. [11:15] <Funfood> well said [11:15] <Snowolf> Some user more involved than me in the Commons project could give you a better answer in any case, just trying to offer my perspective and understanding of it. [11:17] <natbrown> If you have been on this irc for some time, they you should know the feelings of other users of this channel. Does everyone think so? [11:18] <Snowolf> natbrown: I have been on irc for some years yes, but other users could tell you better than me the consensus onwiki, which is where it really matters. IRC is but a small spectrum of the opinions onwiki discussion can offer. I don't think it is ever the case that everybody thinks one way, once enough persons are involved [11:19] <Snowolf> This case is no different [11:19] <natbrown> Where do I find them? [11:19] <Snowolf> nadar: I will try and look for the discussion that happened [11:20] <natbrown> Thanks. [11:20] <Snowolf> natbrown: I believe the most recent proposal on this matter was the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum [11:21] <Snowolf> the results of it are on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en [11:21] <Snowolf> This was a Wikimedia-wide proposal [11:21] <Snowolf> But this was just a filter to hide such content from view [11:21] <Funfood> oh the link I gave was wrong, i meant this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity [11:23] <Snowolf> natbrown: that page Funfood just linked details how Wikimedia Commons deals with nudity and sexually explicit images and offers links to both policies and two proposed guidelines that failed, where you can find the discussion [11:31] <natbrown> I know of the schools that allow children to go to Wikipedia, I don't think that they know of those files. They are very damaging to the kids. They don't need to see it. [11:33] <Funfood> in which way damaging? [11:37] <Nickname1> because the human body is sinful and if they see pictures of it they'll go to hell [11:38] <Funfood> Ah, heard of this concept [11:46] <natbrown> Is there anyone there who thinks the same as me? [11:47] <natbrown> Am I the only one who is horrified? [12:00] <natbrown> OK, it looks there is no one to answer :( I have opened the page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745?sk=wall there is a photo of my granddaughter there. I am doing it for her. [12:01] <natbrown> I will copy and paste this conversation, so people know why I have opened the group. [12:02] <natbrown> !admin@commons [12:03] <Snowolf> You cannot copypaste this conversation without the permission of all involved [12:03] <Snowolf> Otherwise you would be in violation of copyright. [12:03] <Snowolf> Personally, I have no issues with what I said being reproduced. [12:04] <natbrown> I don't care, I feel like my soul is being torn apart. Do you know the feeling? [12:05] <natbrown> I do it and those who want can object it. I will answer them for what I have done. [12:07] <natbrown> I will delete ip addresses to keep people privacy. [12:08] <Snowolf> You are free to reproduce all that I've said, however you really shouldn't reproduce what other have said without their permission. It is automatically copyrighted in a good chunk of countries, including the United States [12:10] <Snowolf> In any case, you are now aware of the issue. Please try to keep in mind that each of us has a point of view, and sometimes we should take a step back and try to see everybody else's [12:10] <nickname2> it's not really a copyright issue [12:10] <Snowolf> Sensibilities are really different in different parts of the world [12:10] <nickname2> but rather a privacy issue [12:10] <nickname2> even if the channel is public, the channels logs are not ought to be public [12:11] <Snowolf> nickname2: that's another matter, which stems from freenode and channel rules [12:11] <Snowolf> In any case, I feel I've tried to explain what I could :) [12:14] <natbrown> Can you refer me to the policy that I can't make this conversation public? [12:17] <natbrown> Funfood: Are you against of what being said to be reproduces publicly? [12:18] <natbrown> Snowolf: Do you want me to change your nickname? [12:19] <Snowolf> natbrown: as I stated before, I have no issues with what I said being reproduced at all. [12:19] <natbrown> Shall I leave you name as Snowolf: [12:20] <Snowolf> Sure :) [12:20] <Snowolf> http://blog.freenode.net/2007/12/blogging-about-logging/ this is some detail on the issues of releasing logs, but in any case I would just ask Funfood about it [12:21] <natbrown> I can change it. I only want to explain the issue to other people. I don't need to have name. Fundood is not answering. [12:26] <natbrown> Snowolf: Thank you for allowing to publish the conversation. [12:27] <Funfood> I have no problems if you let my opinions there [12:31] <natbrown> Funfood: Thanks. I have to open the page on Facebook since I can't find anyone who supports my opinion here. I think that the matter is very important for general public. I have opened the group http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745 I have invited Sue Gardner to join it. Can you join it? I don't know what else can I do. I know that you are a charity. A charity in the UK must be for public benefit http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/default.aspx I don't know too much about the USA. I fail to see any public benefit in public masturbation. It hurts. Please do something about it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Natbrown (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 January 2012 Have a look at this as well http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100228142216AAwVb6u The best answer to this question: "Does any one know how to complain to wikipedia? I am very disappointed by their service, who would i email/write to?" is: Did your child see some naughty image you wish they hadn't? Just add Wikipedia to the list of blocked sites on your net filter and have a talk with your child. Is it what you want people to do? 60% voted for this answer. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC) A more expanded answer would be better than just linking to a page. Kinda rude just doing that. SilverserenC 19:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC) What the heck is rude about that? That page explains the issue so no point re-inventing the wheel here. – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC) It's rude for a newbie to complain before reading the policies. --151.75.115.136 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Additionally Natbrown, funny that you were looking for Russian words for "motion". Tatu have a song called "Простые движения", which translates as "Simple Motions". There's even a music video for it. Take a look; it's got simulated masturbation, although by looking how good she seems to be feeling, perhaps it is real, but it certainly doesn't seem to be hurting her. Not at all. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Youtube is not a charity, they can do whatever they want. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Sir or Ma'am, information on sexual topics in included in Wikipedia in an educational manner, as they indeed educational (and often academic) topics. In order to discuss these topics, often an illustration is needed for clarification. The illustrations chosen are those deemed to be educationally descriptive. So, yes, there are images of nudity and sexuality on Wikipedia, in the proper areas. If your daughter searches for those topics, then she will find them, but they will be described in an educational, informative manner. It would be far better for her to learn about these topics, if she has to, from Wikipedia, than from performing a Google search on such words. If the main issue is that an innocuous word search on Commons led to sexual images, then that is something that needs to be fixed in their category system and something we can do. But if your issue is that sexual issues are discussed at all, i'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that, as these are topics that are encyclopedically covered, pornography included. SilverserenC 19:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC) There is luck of other sites on internet that can "educate" on the matter; I believe that Wikipedia must be different. Parents should have right to choose to educate a child on the matter themselves first. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I don't think that it can be fixes in the "category system", they should be on a separate site, you may call it "Sexual Education Wikipedia", but it should be separate. I think that I have been harmed by the immages. I am over 50! What about a small child, a young girl or boy? I write for them, they can't write yet :) Some people who are very hurt can't write English at all, I can write in bad English, so I write for them ;) Natkabrown (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC) "they will be described in an educational, informative manner": Patently untrue, SilverSeren. Unless you classify descriptions like "Hairy pussy", "Vagina Pussy" and "POV sex picture from behind with tip of finger inside her arse, nice and wet FEELS GREAT!" (cache) as "educational, informative". --JN466 05:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC) It should also be noted that we don't have a masturbation video in Commons. We have dozens and dozens and dozens, spread out over several different categories, including http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation_(animated) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_male_masturbation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_ejaculation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_sexuality and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation That's along with 1,000+ still images of penises (all Caucasian, and not counting the 1000s of mobile phone camera images of penises that have been deleted). The question whether this material serves primarily educational or primarily exhibitionistic / titillating purposes seems to be as old as Commons. For those interested, there is a category for nudity and sexuality-related deletion request in Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests --JN466 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I think that I these images shouldn't be in a different database. It's adult content. What should a school teacher do if a child in school will find such an image? What if this child is 8-9 years old and his parents had no chance to speak to him about the matter? We should give a chance to the parents to speak to the child first. Don't take this chance from the parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) We already know that Commons has a preponderance of such material. But I hope you are not suggesting, as Natkabrown is, that we should remove all sexual-related material altogether from it? I think a better method would be to remove all sexual images that are not currently being used in an article on one of the language Wikipedias. The upload of an image in Commons, in general in my opinion, should be predicated on using it somewhere, whether it being in an article or an article gallery or something to that effect. There's no use for Commons if unused images just sit there, especially when you're talking about sexual images. SilverserenC 19:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The Commons community generally takes the view that Commons serves public-domain media to the entire world, and not just to other Wikimedia projects. Even if this were not so, any unused image may become used tomorrow in one of the projects. If you are looking for an image in Commons to illustrate an article, it happens quite often that the best image you find is one that is presently unused; if all unused images were deleted, it would be a real loss. --JN466 06:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Then what exactly do you mean in terms of sexual images? SilverserenC 06:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Personally, I believe we keep sexual material that is unlikely to be of any educational use. Some of it is truly embarrassing – stuff like this (permalink). Secondly, there should be a filter. If I am searching Commons for "drinking", the first search result should not be a photograph of a porn performer drinking her urine. If I search Commons for images of a toothbrush, my third search result should not be one of a toothbrush used for masturbating. --JN466 08:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC) This media is necessary to illustrate directly related topics, such as masturbation, and in that sense serves to benefit the public. If you do not want to learn about these topics, do not read those articles. If you want to read just the textual part of the articles, you may disable images in your browser. See Help:Options to not see an image. (Edit: after noting above that this image was stumbled upon during a search for relevant media, I will only note that any comprehensive, full-text search of Commons will naturally turn up sexual images unexpectedly, since ordinary terms are needed to describe them. The same is true of Google Images and any other media search resource - I have run across porn on Google Images searching for things as innocent as "clowns" or "Homer Simpson". Filtering to remove these images would be error-prone and damage the quality and comprehensiveness of the search.) Dcoetzee 19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Seconded. Education about sexual topics is education, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) But guys, simply avoiding sexual topics, or using a simple software plug-in to block images, or maybe monitoring one's child's internet activity, instead of insisting that no one else can use educational resources on the matter would require not being a prude. That's just an unreasonable demand. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) OMG! I just found NUDITY on the internet! How revolting! I had better spend the next several hours browsing this awful content for, uh, research purposes! Resolute 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I agree about Goolge and other sites. They can host whatever they want. They are not a charity, so they don't have to work for public benefit. I wonder if UK Charity Commission will agree with you all about the matter. They clearly state on their site that we have to inform them of "serious harm to beneficiaries and, in particular, vulnerable beneficiaries". http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/About_us/Complaining/issues_we_want_to_know_about.aspx I believe that it what is happening here. My obligation is to inform them and let them think about it. Natkabrown (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Time could be better spent informing yourself about what Wikipedia is and what it isn't... --151.75.115.136 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Google does a pretty good job of filtering out adult material (unless you specifically indicate that you want adult search results as well). People searching Commons have no way of doing that. If you search Google for images of a jumping ball, this is what you get. If you search Commons, the top search result is yet another masturbatory image. Are you really telling me that if users have the ability to filter such images out, to say "No thank you" to images of masturbation, that this damages the quality and comprehensiveness of the search? --JN466 10:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I know that the ordinary teachers in the schools are not so computer literate. Many schools allow children to use Wikipedia at school. Facebook is banned. Youtube is banned. Shall Wikipedia be banned as well? When teachers work with the kids they have a lot to think about. They have to think more about kid’s welfare and not to be frightened that some images from Wikipedia would hurt the kids. I didn’t know that Wikipedia hosts such images, neither my husband did. He was as appalled about it as me, if not to say more. He couldn’t look at them; he can’t even speak about it. My case is that a lot of people even don’t know about it. So some teachers at schools think that Wikipedia is safe. As I can see now it’s not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia, as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, inherently cannot be "safe" in the sense you use it. Anybody can put surprising, unpleasant, or taboo information or media into any article. That said, most kids seem be harmed a lot less by contact with a wide variety of ideas than their parents (or even unrelated moralists) want to assume. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Commons should have a search filter that makes it so that you have to check a sexual box to allow sexual images through. That seems self evident to me. Search filters are easy to set up too. SilverserenC 19:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Actually this isn't such an easy thing and an overly simplistic solution puts us at the start of a slippery slope. Different people will have very different ideas as to where to draw the boundary between what should be in such a filter and what shouldn't. So if we are going to do such a thing we need a complex system that allows for the fact that what offends mainstream public morality in Jeddah, London, and the US Bible Belt is going to differ. There are ways in which we could introduce such an image filter, but there are also ways that we have rightly ruled out. In particular we need to avoid systems that use our existing category system or that put the onus of tagging for "offensiveness" on the uploaders or other volunteers. If we were a site focussed on one particular culture we could endorse that culture's values and require all uploaders to mark any of their future uploads as "offensive" or otherwise (though we'd have a 12 million sized backlog of existing images, and we'd be scuppering our GLAM program). But we are a global site with an explicitly global remit, and that rules out any simple solution based on one culture's morality. Yes when I upload images I could respond to a tick box that asked me if I found an image offensive, or even one that asked me if I thought an image might be considered offensive by most people in the country I live in. But I couldn't be expected to know what would be offensive to cultures that I'm unfamiliar with, and while there are some concerns that I might share or regard as reasonable, there might be others that I would reject. So if we introduce a filter we need a complex solution that works for many different cultures, but doesn't require any of our volunteers to understand all those global cultures. For example a proposal I drafted at meta:Controversial content/Brainstorming/personal private filters ϢereSpielChequers 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I said a search filter, not an image filter. And one geared specifically toward sexual images. I think you'd be able to tell if asked when uploading, "Is this image showcasing sexual acts", and give a positive or negative answer to that question. SilverserenC 02:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC) But that would not, indeed, put the issue to rest. What about simple nudity? And why only sex? I find File:TrangBang.jpg and File:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg and File:Dead man and child from the My Lai massacre.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 192-208, KZ Mauthausen, Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene.jpg at least as damaging for children as File:Wiki-cowgirl.png. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The same issues about our existing category system apply in an image filter and a search filter. But if we had an image filter that wasn't based on our categories it would apply when you were searching. ϢereSpielChequers 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Image filter Jimbo, what is the current status on the image filter? I recall Sue saying that selection and implementation of one of the proposals in Meta would begin this month. Can you provide us with an update, or should I post to Foundation-l? --JN466 09:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for listening ;) Natkabrown (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I think they're still trying to deal with the fact that communities (German Wikipedia) and a number of users in other communities, including here, are opposed to the image filter as proposed. Not to mention that that poll thing they did was biased and the results are, thus, completely useless. SilverserenC 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The image filter is on the agenda for this week's board meeting so rather than speak about it now, it'd be best if I speak about it after I've gotten the latest updates in San Francisco.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you, I am happy about the fact that you are going to have a board meeting about it. I wish you to have a very good meeting. Someone has rightly pointed out that I am a "rude newbie and I complain before reading the policies". If that is the case, then your policies don't reflect what general public expects from Wikipedia. I may not know what all your policies are about, I might not know all the English words you use to discribe your laws, but the image shows it all, you don't need to know so much words to understand it. I was personally hurt by Wikipedia's images. I didn't expect Wikipedia to have these kind of images. I was working on a lesson for a Russian students and was confronted by an "educational" video of a man masturbating. As you are surely aware children are able to use computers at a very early age, is this the type of "educational" material that Wikipedia wants them to be confronted by? Wikipedia is a charity and is supposed to work for public benefit. I think that those images can make serious harm to your most vulnerable beneficiaries i.e. children and this is without question a very serious matter. I don't believe that these images are in any way for the public benefit and to say they educational is extraordinary. It could be argued that a porn site is educational but is that what Wikipedia hopes to become? I expected Wikipedia to have more integrity. I will wait for the outcome of your meeting and if the outcome is not satisfactory, I feel it my duty to contact both http://www.irs.gov and http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ about the matter. Natkabrown (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Just to reiterate, since you keep repeating this: Wikipedia is not a charity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I think he is referring to Wikimedia UK's legal status: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status  – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC) The way this whole thread was handled shows poor judgement; just screaming "censorship!" isn't going to win us any friends. There are regular people out there in the world who just use their common sense and common decency. Maybe we should listen to them every now and then instead of stubbornly insisting on some jerk-off video just so someone can be proud of presenting their cock to the world. And the fact that a dick is slightly bouncing when it's yanked out and slapped onto the edge of a table isn't groundbreaking educational news either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC) "Your policies don't reflect what general public expects from Wikipedia" is not what most German Wikipedia users think of. From the discussion of the image filter last year on Meta-Wiki, they show great discontent of any kind of founder-run filtering engine, threatening to leave Wikipedia once it had been implemented. You have to realize that there are always people with different expectation or standard than yours and they're not necessarily the "minority". Not to mention that Wikipedia is a global project, it serves users/readers from different cultures. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah... that's always the utterly dumb and brainless "argument" that has been brought forth in this whole saga. "Different cultures." Ridiculous. Name one human culture on this planet where it is regular common practice to be jerking off in public for everyone to see without any restrictions. Just one. Name it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I have posted it on the Village pump (policy) on the advice of Sameboat - 同舟 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

After SOPA, Muhammed article's picture is a giant picture of text, and an arbitration case to decide to remove *all* pictures?

RE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images (via Talk:Muhammad#Image_poll)

... After SOPA really this looks insanely hypocritical...

An enyclopaedia should be about facts and an objective view of the materials available, not hiding things away depending on whose pressure/lobbyist group is larger...

'WP:NOTCENSORED - "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

You either are, or you aren't... If you're going to hide this stuff then it's going to be other "blasphemous" material next...

Why not go the whole way and just start letting people opt out from links and articles that could offend them, per Websense let people live in an maginary world of their own creation: Filter bubbles in internet search engines, BBC News Online

• sigh* I thought you cared about this stuff. --Mss. Selina Kyle (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the situation at Muhammad has nothing at all to do with SOPA. For instance, the usage of calligraphy as the lead image instead of a depiction has been the situation on the article for at least two years, if not longer. Also, the arbitration case has nothing to do with keeping or removing the images. Such a decision is well beyond Arbcom's remit. The case is about the behaviour of some editors during such debates. Keeping or removing the depictions will be a community decision, and personally, I think it decidedly unlikely that they will be removed. However, please do consider leaving your opinions on that image poll discussion, though perhaps with less hysterics than displayed here. Regards, Resolute 03:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"It's always been done that way" is not a good reason for anything. What if you were to do the same to pictures of Jesus, it's exactly the same thing as if it were replaced by big stencilled letters - to say that it's ok because it's in arabic is similar to people who get tattoos in kanji script they don't understand the meaning of (and people in Japan who get silly tattoos in english!)

Yes, I feel strongly on censorship (and put it bluntly rather than a page full of flowery language that a lot of people just end up skimming over or not reading, because I felt it important) but it's a bit insulting to call that "hysterics". --Mss. Selina Kyle (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"What if you were to do the same to pictures of Jesus"? As far as I'm aware, there is little within the Christian tradition that suggests that depictions of Christ are in any way objectionable - your comparison is meaningless. As for the rest of your post, are you suggesting that Muslims cannot read Arabic? It seems to me that your post has nothing much to do with 'censorship' at all, and instead you are using the SOPA question to give vent on another issue entirely. If you wish to do this, I suggest you do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I suggest you start at Aniconism in Christianity, and increase your awareness. There has been a long, and often violent, tradition of opposition to depictions of Christ within Christianity. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is either true or not, religions no more deserve special treatment than political groups or any other strongly held beliefs - No one has a right for their view of the world to be put over anyone else, if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia then it needs to look at things from a neutral, scientific point of view e.g. illustrating what facts are known as best as possible, not whoever's version is less likely to offend on anything :( --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• 

  Photo of horse, as example of inappropriate image for article "Cat dentistry".

  To User:Mss. Selina Kyle: Yes, Jimbo has discussed the issues of pictures in Islamic topics. The key concerns have been about showing images which are most relevant to the topic rather than about censoring "blasphemous" images (not really a concern here). In fact, it seemed as though some users purposely put unusual images into articles to appear offensive to many readers. It would be like starting an article about "Jesus of Nazareth" with a cartoon of Jesus dancing the Lindy Hop or some other unusual, inappropriate image. If you consider the displays in the Islamic Museum in Cairo, Egypt (core of the Arab World), there have not been many portraits of anyone in there. As an analogy, I have shown the photo (at right) of a horse as being an inappropriate image for an article on "Cat dentistry" (it would be better to have a picture of a cat's head, at least). That is why unusual images have been removed from articles about Islamic topics. English Wikipedia has tried to present articles with the typical commonplace treatment, such as with WP:COMMONNAME about article titles. However, several users have misunderstood that as being a "form of censorship" but other articles do allow such images (see article: "Images of Mohammed"). -Wikid77 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That image is both inappropriate and rude considering the seriousness of the issue. My point is that to you it may look like pretty patterns but the fact is the picture is censored and replaced with a giant name in text... I'm sorry but your argument is fundamentally flawed on the basis that WP is in the business of deciding what is or is not offensive - the Wikimedia Foundation and Mr Wales has always been pretty clear on that: wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content which is why I'm saddened to see exceptions being made. If this, then why not Xenu...? The first paragraph of text in that article is forbidden knowledge to most Scientologists as such that if it's known that they viewed the page they would get outcast.

I was expecting this issue to probably not get much reply possibly because of the the potential threat of harm to anyone involved, but I thought someone should say something, it's not right to give anyone special treatment and especially when if it's through fear of violence. The lack of anonymity is probably where WMF is less safely balanced to be open about issues than Wikileaks I guess, I'm not sure if there is any real solution but saying something about issues is better than silence --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, many people have already replied in prior discussions, and the consensus seemed fairly clear wrt the "principle of least astonishment". Images of Muhammed have been extremely rare, or considered taboo, in Islam for many years, and it would be bizarre for Wikipedia to plaster rare images into an article just because someone did not like the very common images of the calligraphy for Muhammed's name. However, some painted images are shown in the tangent article "Depictions of Muhammad". Please read that article for more explanations, and then other editors would be better prepared to answer any further questions. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We presently have 6 images of Muhammad in the article Muhammad. Following the conclusion of the current arbitration case, there will probably be some sort of community process to look at whether this is appropriate, or should be revised. --JN466 08:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's next

I've been contacted by people in the movie industry who would like to sit down and talk to me about what kind of bill I would support. While I believe that they have been arrogant and overbearing in the past, I also think this is a good opportunity for us to move forward with some proposals that will address some of the real issues they have, AND a good opportunity for us to move forward with some proposals that will address many of the real issues that we have. Let's discuss. What's your (realistic) dream copyright reform bill? As Mick sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes..."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have great respect for you and trust you to do the right thing. That being said, I think that it would be wise for you to continue trying to disabuse the Hollywood moguls of the notion that you are an all-powerful CEO, and that if they convince you, they have won over Wikipedia. As the most prominent spokesperson, you did a good job of that during the blackout. Take a group of editors to the meeting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but I don't think anyone is going to try to convince me of anything anyway.  :-) What I want to do in this discussion (which is progressing nicely for the most part) is to be able to talk with a higher degree of confidence about what things people think are important. As I will say below, I don't really have any choice about saying something, so I think a big part of doing my job well is to have well-articulated and balanced basic positions in mind when I am asked.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, bring some WMF lawyers with you, since it's law that's being written. First Light (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we'd be drafting any law - I am personally certainly unqualified to do so, but I do think we have an opportunity to make it clear that some things that haven't been on the agenda, should be on the agenda.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I think having a WMF lawyer there might help clear up any confusion about how to protect Wikipedia and still protect the copyrights of the movie and music industry. The devil is going to be in the details, i.e., the written law. I didn't mean that a lawyer should be there to intimidate, but more to educate (though I did say it too flippantly above). First Light (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like a provision allowing orphaned works to be brought into the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A reduction in the copyright term length. Life + 70 years is way, way too long. Something on the order of 15 years is optimal says an academic paper on the subject. Repeal of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (and similar provisions in global laws) - DRM is bad for consumers - see Cory Doctorow's speech at 28c3 on the "Coming War on General Purpose Computing". Strict liability for those falsely submitting takedown requests. Above all else we need evidence-based policy. No more legislation based on unpublished studies. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A reduction to 70 years would be a start. One of the reasons progress in regulating copyright on the Internet has been so slow is that the US has dragged its feet for so long in terms of harmonising with the Berne convention. And the blame for that lies squarely with the US entertainment industry.

Realistically, I don't think they'll be giving any quid-pro-quo, though.

I think it is more realistic to ask for enforcement led by an agency rather than going directly through the courts (this is a feature of the OPEN proposal), with the agency being also strongly geared towards the protection of websites showing reasonable diligence. This means preserving the concept of safe harbour, whilst recognising that clear abuse of it may be actionable in the future.

If you are not already, you should be talking to EFF, Creative Commons, Internet Archive and so on and ensuring that everybody is on the same page. Wikipedia should not speak unilaterally. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Realistically, I don't think they'll be giving any quid-pro-quo, though." - Then what is the point in having talks with them? Surely they cannot expect that the term lengths and enforcement measures relating to the copying monopoly can only go one way? If the talks are only about how to mitigate the cultural and technological damages of their self-interest then reformists and other interested parties should not legitimise their actions. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA/PIPA and copyright terms are separate matters. What this meeting is about is how do the entertainment guys get what they want without posing a threat to the Internet guys. If Jimmy goes in there saying "I'm OK with you threatening our existence a little bit if we can get ten years shaved off copyright terms in return" then he's just going to look a little foolish. --FormerIP (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking purely of what I think may be achievable, I think a reduction in the term of copyright is very achievable, particularly if it only applies to new creations, i.e. let them have the ridiculous extensions to their existing works. Speaking in terms of Net present value it turns out that the dollar value today of years 70-95 (for example) is nearly zero under almost any sensible assumptions. It's easy for them to give it up, and it's a step in the right direction for us.

And of course, if you know me, you know I would never say anything like "I'm OK with you threatening our existence a little bit".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, and your point above that this may represent an opportunity to mention things that haven't been part of the public discussion so far is a fair one. BUT if we're only talking about works created in the future, 70-95 years will not apply. The only room for downwards negotiation is less than 70. This would mean the US leaving the Berne Convention, which I think is a lot to ask for.--FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my point, of course we [i.e. not the MPAA & supporters] should object to all moves to curtail our rights. My point is that the entire system is already stacked against the "consumer" in a huge way (not to mention the fact that the line between consumer and creator is almost non-existent now). Any reform of the copying monopoly must come with changes favouring the public domain and consumer rights. To do otherwise will be to bend ourselves over the barrel with a bottle of lube in our hands while whispering "be gentle" to the likes of the MPAA. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A regulatory system that gave artists a reasonable incentive to continue to produce new content, whilst not enabling big corporations to stifle innovation, creativity and indeed the conservation and propagation of our cultural heritage. That isn't going to be an easy match because the interests of performers, owners of intellectual property, and the wider public don't always align. There's also the practical issue that legislation designed to prevent people filesharing someone's movie or musical recording doesn't work well when extended to a couple of paragraphs of text. That said a dialogue is a good idea. I doubt that the Hollywood studios who want to protect their films from being pirated really wanted a law that would have enabled vandals to take down Wikipedia by copying a paragraph of text from an offline copyrighted source and then reporting the site as containing copy-violations. But don't get to chummy with them - our interests lie in openness and there are some whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of that.

This is a bit of a pet issue of mine, but at the very least my dream copyright reform bill would close the loophole on sound recordings (currently all sound recordings not released into the public domain, even those published before 1923, are still under copyright. The earliest that copyrighted sound recordings may enter the public domain is 2067!). Repealing the Sonny Bono act wouldn't hurt either. Reducing the copyright time period by a few more years (decades?) would be ideal, but that isn't at all likely. ThemFromSpace 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think a reduction in term of copyright isn't impossible - as long as there is some grandfathering of works currently under excessively long terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The period of copyright should be a fixed quantity that does not depend in any way on the duration of the author's life, or anything else that is variable or that isn't printed in the book itself. James500 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a really interesting idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider e.g. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Richard_Norris_Wolfenden.jpg, where people (though perhaps based on a grudge) are seriously arguing for the deletion of a photo from 1905 because they're not sure who shot it and when he died. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of scale (by size or number of page views), 501(c) organizations / S&P 500 or similar status, number of challenged items should be considered for timeliness requirements and penalties of response. As should having a deliberate process for identifying individuals with ability to remove content, pending a deliberate review. Regular editors do this, too: removal, explanation, restoration, and justification. Note that identifying and resolving this issue were both internal and took just over 5 days. Short term removal was absolutely the best immediate response, and if I remember, my comparisons took a couple of hours. But 3.8 million articles and ~100 edits/minute? Dru of Id (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that, as someone who was opposed to the initial blackout, I'm opposed to Wikipedia digging into the political game any deeper than it already is. One instance of political bias is, while not ethically proper in my opinion, it's permissible as a simple brain belch, a loss of common intelligence to push a political ideal on behalf of certain people. I have a major issue with Wikipedia trying to lose more face by becoming more politically involved. Inviting, but improper. Within hours of a 'law' that had anything whatsoever to do with this encyclo going public, either some of our own people would begin to edit pages about certain people saying "____ Representative voted opposing the new bill proposed, that was partially written by Jimmy Wales, founder (co-founder?) of Wikipedia" or a member of the outside media would directly tie us to someone who voted for or against the bill.

Moreover, where does it end? I'm by no means impartial, as I don't think it's truly possible to be impartial unless you simply don't use your mind whilst writing. What bugs me is, after this second foray into politics, then what? Backing certain politicians? Partys? Agendas?

I'm opposed to the SOPA and PIPA crapolA that everyone else here opposes, but in the same vein, once you lose credibility, you will never win it all back, regardless of what you do. If White Star Line was still operating under the old name, you think any of their competition could ignore sticking a few "And WE have captains who OBEY ice warnings!" ads? I was opposed to the bass ackwards way the initial blackout was carried out, I was opposed to Wikipedia involving itself in politics in any form, and I am opposed to Wikipedia becoming more involved. (Sorry Jimbo, but to a lot of people, you ARE Wikipedia, and it does what you tell it to. Whether you can or can't isn't the question. As the face of the project, you really don't need to be dragging it through whatever mud you like the looks of. Wikipedia has, for the time being, a lot going for it. Once it, and more directly, you begin to dig into politics, it stands to lose a lot of credibility. An encyclopedia without credibility is just one site clogging up Google every time you search for something.)

I realize and recognize that my statement doesn't matter, because a 'committee' will vote on it regardless. And, those who follow you directly and bow in your shadow will mindlessly follow, as they did with the blackout. My own suspicion says, the whole group could be totally opposed to something, if you came along and said you liked it, there would be a LOT of "Well, on second thought, Jimbo has a point and I change my vote". For better or worse, where you go, a whole lot of this group would follow because of admiration. I can't say I'm one of them, but I don't follow blindly. Actually, I've never known me to follow at all unless I liked where the group I was with was going. Nothing personal against you, you just draw a lot of pull from many people. It happens.) As I see it, Wikipedia has no place in politics, and therefore shouldn't try to create a place. Copyrights are so screwy that it's sickening, but at the same time, speed limit laws are screwy too, and I don't think it's Wikipedias business to be messing with either.

I'll catch trouble for this, but this is partially why I've hated seeing you make any type of definitive statement; people will follow you even if the idea isn't all that great. Even if it undermine what I feel is what this place is about. I've only been an 'editor' for a few days, but I've been a faithful reader for a few years. Bring on the hate mail. ;) Skweeky (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Up above I promised to explain why I think I don't have a choice to stay out of it. I am going to be asked my views by the press at every available opportunity for the next several months. ACTA is going to come to a head in June when the European Parliament votes on it. (That's the current schedule, as I understand it.) So I think it's valuable for me to have some extensive talks with the community so that I can get a sense of some middle-of-the-road (for our community) proposals that are also potentially achievable. What I mean by middle-of-the-road is stuff that almost everyone would say "Yeah, that's OK" to, even if some of us would want a lot more than that, or some of us would want a lot less than that. In no circumstance other than a real mandate backed by a strong vote would I attempt to speak "for the community" - but I have a responsibility to the community to both emphasize that I am speaking for myself at all times, and to put forward ideas that the community broadly agrees with.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Skweeky, you have every right to hold those opinions and also to express them in appropriate venues. By the way, welcome to active Wikipedia editing after reading for a few years, and my welcome is sincere. However, it seems to me that you are not addressing Jimbo's question that started this thread. We are not talking about the blackout, but rather about what kind of copyright enforcement bill would be acceptable to the Wikipedia community going forward. Your thoughts on that specific matter would be appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I made my stance clear, and apologize for my lack of clarity. I'm not in favor of any sort of bill being put forth by anyone on behalf of the 'interests' of this site. I agree wholeheartedly that the laws stink, but I disagree that it is the business of a so-called impartial and unbiased source to be trying to change them. The creation of bills is, in my opinion, the job of politicians, not encyclopedia operators. This, as well as the blackout, are both political, and therefore, I'd rather see wikipedia and WMF left out of it. Leave the politicians to the politics, as they do that best. Leave the chronicling of knowledge to Wikipedia, as we do that best. By the same token, I'm not a big fan of politicians coming here and editing pages relative to politics without reliable source. I'm a fence-building kind of person, and I like people to stay on their own side of the fence. Skweeky (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

All I can really say is that I disagree with you. I think our chosen task of writing a free encyclopedia in no way precludes us from entering the public debate to explain why certain legal conditions are necessary for our work and others are useful for our work, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disabling copyright protection is a grossly ill-considered position. Protection of intellectual property rights was a long struggle (see the Mark Twain quote I earlier posted on this page on [1]) (yes - it may go too far in some cases - but the baby-bathwater anaology still holds true), and for Wikipedia to be seen in any way as an opponent of them is against the core foundations of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying here. I haven't seen anyone here in favor of removing all copyright protection. And I don't think that Wikipedia being seen as advocating for a less draconian position on, for example, de minimis filesharing than the MPAA would like is in any way "against the core foundations of Wikipedia". --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally would support the killing of ACTA, which would restore peace on the internet once more and a retreat to the old copyright laws of the internet. – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Create a wiki for this law, the structure of which could perhaps be used as a prototype for working on various other laws. It's a new direction, but worth exploring. Start by providing the full wording for existing law(s), SOPA and PIPA, along with discussions of the pros and cons of each. Include Lawrence Lessig's proposals along with other major proposals and alternatives. Then facilitate discussion on the purpose of copyright law, what helps and what hurts innovation, how and when legal restrictions and regulations are useful, etc. This should NOT be limited to discussions of x number of years of y type of protection (the existing structure, simply arguing over the number), but should include other ideas such as strong protection for a short period of time, followed by lesser protection for another period of time. Whatever. The important thing is to focus on the intended goal, and bring forth and fully discuss some new ideas. Living in a globalized society, copyright laws need to be global as well. Wikipedians are global, so they should be able to represent various points of view on this. Good luck. 76.192.40.75 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I might do that. It'd be interesting to see if a very broad effort - reaching beyond just Wikipedians and into a lot of other communities - could generate a reasonable consensus on what should be done, one that lots of people could point to as something that the Internet community generally supports. I don't know if that's possible, but I think it probably is. One concern I have here is that the "next steps" are going to involve "Silicon Valley versus Hollywood" compromises, with all of us who aren't either being left out of the equation. In general, I think our interests are more closely aligned with, say, Google's than with the MPAA. But they aren't perfectly aligned, and stuff that we care a lot about (orphan works) aren't really much of a concern to Google. Google is mainly interested in not having to pre-moderate everything; we share that concern as a community, because that would seriously break how we do our work. But we care about a lot of other stuff too.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely true, we do care about a lot of other stuff too. Put everyone together, and we probably care about everything. Direct democracy isn't my choice of a solution to this issue, but open democracy, going beyond simple transparency, could be really helpful and important. A second prototype might be the U.S. income tax for individuals, as Congress seems to be incapable of reforming it. In that case, start with existing law and Simpson-Bowles. Wikicracy rules. After a fashion. ;-) 75.60.18.197 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues that would interest them: Thank you for asking our opinions. As you know, there are many issues to consider. So, here are some reminders:

• Wikipedia editors would like to show movie posters or other fair-use images, at low-resolution, but not detailed enough to enable people to create film-momento merchandise.
• Perhaps create limited publicity photos unlikely to promote unauthorized merchandising, such as not showing film props or gadgets in posters which might be copied.
• Any person can contact Wikipedia editors, anonymously without a login, to report potential copyvio infringement at wiki-noticeboards, and editors tend to respond quickly to those messages, to remove unauthorized content.
• English Wikipedia already has a blacklist of websites which are known to contain false or unauthorized information, and editors cannot insert web hyperlinks to those blacklisted websites.
• Wikipedia has been running bots, in the automated software, which warns editors when their text seems to contain wording which is identical, or paraphrased, from copyrighted webpages. Note that even half-reworded text is still reported as potential infringement.
• Wikipedia has many procedures to uphold copyright laws, including the blanking of entire pages if any portion is suspected of containing excessive copyrighted text or lyrics.
• Wikipedia respects copyrights of authors, and encourages use of attribution-required licenses if an author or photographer wishes to be indentified for their photographic work or paintings.
• Wikipedia has articles in over 280 languages; hence, many of those other-language Wikipedias are maintained by people outside the typical regions of the multi-national corporations.
• Wikipedia policies require neutral balance, so articles about films or TV shows do not dwell on negative reviews from critics, but rather present a balance noting the positive published reviews.
• Emphasize that Wikipedia is about "free or fair-use information". Rather than just talking about what is copyrighted also ask them to consider what is free or fair-use, as within the big picture to address.

Those are some of the many issues to continue discussing. Some of the issues might seem naive, but who knows what other people imagine is being done inside Wikipedia. Do they even know that bots have warned editors, within minutes, that some text is reworded similar to copyrighted webpages? -Wikid77 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I know you know this, I just want hammer it into your mind more forcefully: When going into these "discussions," it is imperative to leave "AGF", "DONTBITE", and whatever nice rules we have here at home. No matter what they're gonna tell you and no matter how much they'll smile at you, their mind is focused exclusively on money and how much of it they can make, regardless of consequences, morals, or costs to others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• It would probably not be inappropriate to mention that the Justice Department already seems to have enough tools to take down websites like Megaupload and even cause a ripple effect in the practices of similar websites. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• How Russian people can help? I saw suggestion to contribute here. Thank you! - 2.94.173.97 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

• I think we need to read different legal acts, which were signed by the U.S. and the Russian Federation. In this case exists possibility, that copyright law of Russia will play important role in this issue (interactivity, for example, and not only). Our law more soft than law of U.S., you can be sure. Get invitation and use this, not bad thing, including. - 2.94.173.97 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

• I think that the crucial step forward is to initiate a different mechanism to reward authors besides copyright. But it has to be under the control of individual taxpayers, not politicians or elites. Some steps:

• Figure out - impartially - how much (if at all) piracy is hurting various content creation industries.
• Instead of enacting one harsh law after another, create a new tax proportional to the income tax to provide compensation to the authors. The amount can start off small, but what is crucial is that individual taxpayers have the right to choose what they want to support. In theory taxpayers could designate recipients directly (a very small maximum amount going to each); in practice they would more likely select independent funding organizations which choose worthy recipients. The funding must not simply be proportional to receipts, however, because the point is to give the taxpayer a way to choose who gets funding which is separate from the mechanical efficiency of copy protection, etc. In exchange for paying the tax, taxpayers (regardless of income level) would not face any new draconian measures and would have more and more right to do things which essentially mean that they're pirating content, without facing legal risk. In some short time frame, the new mechanism would take over for copyright entirely, and people would pay the entire amount to the content creators that they currently do, and would have the right to unmetered access to all content whatsoever.
• Another way to phase out copyright, which might be done at the same time, is to buy out sectors for the national interest. For example, biomedical journals are extremely expensive for university libraries, and only the very best research institutions have access to most of them. But most of the funding going to them comes off public grants anyway! If we could just work out a fair price based on past income, we ought to be able to eminent-domain the whole sector, throwing in a bit of a bonus to smooth things over, then let every single library, even in your local community college, have access to every biomedical journal ever written.
• I've glossed over the international complications of much of this; it is clear that many of these things would start off as a sort of "domestic license", but I think other countries would want the same thing. Wnt (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Shorter copyright terms, ideally an automatic 14-year copyright with the option to renew (possibly renewing repeatedly). Some years ago, somebody produced a graph of Commons' content by decade of upload. Between the 1400s and the 1910s, the amount of content rose on an exponential curve. Between the 1920s and 1990s, it fell: except for the 1940s (US military photos of WWII), each decade had less content on Commons than the preceding one. Since 1923 is the cutoff for US copyrights, it's pretty clear what happened: copyright law has left us with a century of culture missing from our collection. --Carnildo (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Still focusing on their concerns: The major concern is likely to be thwarting downloads of copyrighted films, music, or photos of merchandise which could be copied. Some related issues are:

• For a website to be blocked, there needs to be a full investigation of alleged copyright infringement, rather than just a single complaint which claims the information has been pirated. The user should not be held accountable for the short-duration display of copyrighted materials, but Wikipedia has blocked users who repeatedly try to post copyrighted text, images or sound files.
• Already, Wikipedia discourages all copying of other website images or videos unless those are marked as free or fair-use, such as crime-scene photos in Italy being fair-use. The restriction even includes U.S. Federal Government websites because many photos on federal websites are directly licensed and not the public-domain work of federal employees.
• Already, Wikipedia discourages all copying of text, except for short, quoted passages, unless the page specifically allows free or fair-use copying.
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, for years, have discouraged uploads of copyrighted images or videos.
• Wikipedia is not a form of the "old Napster" (as far as I know), and people do not come here to freely share pirated films or music sound files.
• Screenshots are limited to a few images per article. In the past, some recent films had perhaps 10 screenshots, clearly labeled as copyrighted with fair-use licenses, to support the Plot section, but that has been trimmed to perhaps 2 small, low-resolution screenshots for the Plot.
• There have been people attempting to embed linkspam inside article pages, to link to music/video-pirate websites, but those links have been removed quickly, and many websites have been blocked.
• Wikipedia has a policy against linking to websites which omit copyright notices. Even for music lyrics, if a webpage does not show a song's copyright terms, then no links to that webpage are permitted, even if a US-based website.

Perhaps the key issue to emphasize is that Wikipedia requires a few minutes or hours to pull copyrighted text or images, and it is not feasible to instantly block web hyperlinks to every website which might offer copyrighted materials without proper notices displayed. In some cases, copyrighted materials have been image-scanned or typed from printed books or magazines, and those cases take longer to detect and remove. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with outing and harassment on external websites

Jimbo, I think I'm right in saying that you've been a strong advocate of protecting our community members against privacy violations and harassment. A case came to my attention recently of a Wikipedian who posted the real name, home address and phone number of another Wikipedian who had that same day received a real-world threat relating to his role on the Commons. The issue is currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal.

If this privacy violation had happened on Wikipedia I'm sure it would have resulted in an immediate block. However, it happened on an external website (one dedicated to discussing Wikipedia - you can guess which it is). I have seen the suggestion from time to time that we can't do anything about off-wiki conduct by Wikipedians (despite what WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment says). That might be true if their conduct has nothing to do with Wikipedia but in this particular case there was a clear attempt to influence things happening here and on Commons, by using tactics forbidden on Wikipedia. As a general rule, would you say that it shouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedians to sidestep prohibitions on certain activities on-wiki by moving off-wiki to do them there? From my perspective, I take the view that if Wikipedians have issues with each other about their on-wiki activities they should try to resolve them on-wiki, rather than seeking to use off-wiki forums to evade Wikipedia's bans on harassment, outing, canvassing etc. I'd be interested to know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Try objecting at external websites: If something seems improper at another website, such as publishing personal phone numbers, then contact personnel there, quickly, to help resolve the matter. It is very difficult to prove that some anonymous pseudonym on another website is the same person as a username on Wikipedia, even if they claim they are posting on that other website. When a personal phone number is compromised, by anyone, it is the responsibility of the owner to take evasive action, if that means leaving the phone off-the-hook during prank calls, telling friends to call an alternative phone, enabling caller ID, or tape-recording phone calls to gain evidence of harrassment. Collecting the proper evidence is the best means to let authorities handle the situation. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I was just about to leave a message on your talk page reminding you that I'm waiting for you to strike your misleading, false, and inflammatory statements on ANI, and provide that apology that you promised me. I'll leave it here instead. Please try to get to it soon. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman does not owe you an apology. You used an email which you received from Fae to garnish personal information (including home address and phone number) which you then duly dumped onto Wikipedia Review, and which then led to onwiki homophobic harassment of Fae. If anything, Prioryman deserves some respect for following this up, and as stated at ANI you deserve to be booted out of the community, because you don't get it; that harassment of editors is NOT ok. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I do understand that harassment of editors is not ok. The question is really about what constitutes harassment. I am accused of harassment surprisingly often, thanks to the narrative created in part by Fæ when they were User:Ash and vociferously supporting the now banned User:Benjiboi. RFC/Us are part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I am accusing of harassing User:Fæ because I have re-opened one that they skipped out of while pretending to leave Wikipedia. I have attempted to show that the same problems persist with the new account. A surprisingly large number of editors seem to agree that Fæ's RfA was misleading. I don't think Jimbo is interested in having us debate the issues here, but so far as Prioryman goes, they have made inflammatory, false, and misleading statements by embroidering on your fantasy of homophobic persecution at Wikipedia Review. They have done so not innocently, but in an effort to have me banned from the project. I think asking for false statements to be struck is reasonable under the circumstances, don't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy, I'd like you to weigh in here as well. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a total mess to me. I see several people on both sides who should be given barn stars for patience, and several people on both sides who should find a new hobby and leave us alone. I leave it to others to figure out which are which. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Leave us alone" sounds as if you're referring to outsiders. Aren't we all, including Wikipedians who contribute to the Wikipedia Review, a part of the "us"? Due to how you berated Cla68 and the WR in December, I believe that you're asking WR users to "find a new hobby and leave us alone." You see WR users as outsiders who don't fit in or belong. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: If you honestly believe that members of "both sides" deserve barn stars, then I suggest that you start handing those barn stars out personally, so we can all judge your actions and decide for ourselves about whether you're truly referring to members of "both sides". It would be nice if your statement were backed up by something more tangible than words alone (i.e. those barn stars). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you have failed to prove anything to me and to others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It was never his responsibility to "prove" his opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Michael, I do see a wide range of behaviour by people on each side of the debate and feel that some are constructive and helping their cause and some are making fools of themselves. I also think that the issue would largely disappear if Fae resigned from WMUK. The fact that someone with the editing history of User:Ash is a trustee director of a charity that promotes Wikipedia for use in schools is going to rebound on WMUK and WMF sooner or later. Indeed, Dan Murphy, Middle East Correspondent of Christian Science Monitor, has made no secret that he is writing an article that will cover Fae/Ash.

I for one do not want to associate myself with WMUK while it has a trustee who regards a list of gay bath house regulars as "encyclopedic" and a picture of alleged prostitues as "educational". Fae defended the latter picture on Commons when he was a trustee of WMUK and even after other Commonists pointed out that its use contravened German legislation on privacy and image-rights and Commons policy which incorporated that legislation.

Two months after he defended the picture, which was included in the Wikipedia article on the Reeperbahn, Fae was testifying to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, saying that as an adminn on Wikipedia he defended individuals' privacy and doing his best to give the committee the impression that there are no privacy issues on Wikipedia.

The fact that trustees of WMUK are piling in to support Fae rather than looking at what is best for the reputation of Wikimedia, reflects badly on that organisation. Are you prepared to let this continue? --Peter cohen (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to explain one thing to you. The latter image that you are talking about, is the reason I opposed Fae for RfA on Commons. Looking at the discussion for that photo, it does look quite bad. I took the time to explain to Fae why it is I opposed, and he did not know until I actually discussed it with him, that Reeperbahn is an area which is not only known for its nightlife, but is also known for its prostitution. The photo as it was named was "Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn"; during the DR on Commons, Fae renamed the file to "People in the street of Reeperbahn" and removed all references to prostitution from the image page. Not knowing that the area is known for prostitution, and renaming the file as he did, Fae was acting in good faith in the discussion, and if I didn't know the real-life prostitution angle, I could have possibly come to the same conclusion as he. However, after discussing this with him, Fae realised that there was an issue with COM:IDENT, and that even though these people were in an open place, there is still some privacy and respect that we should extend to other people, especially when they are identifiable, and he expressed if he had of known this at the time of the DR, he would have supported its deletion.

Also Peter, I am disheartened that you are using Fae's role in WMUK as a focus point of attacks. Fae's opinions on that Commons deletion had nothing to do with his role in WMUK, but was merely his editorial opinion based upon the facts as he knew them at the time. I see no-one in the discussion bothered to explain to all editors (not only Fae) what the issue was with this street. But attempting to link this to Fae's role in WMUK is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I would perhaps suggest to stop listening to the likes of you-know-who and stop taking everything they say as being gospel. Becuase they are plain wrong, and so are you in your assessment above. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say this is really quite unbelievable. We have a situation where a Wikipedian seeking to advance an on-wiki political dispute has posted the home address and phone number of another Wikipedian, who was and is still facing real-world harassment. This is undisputed. This action put the victim in real personal danger, and it was strictly prohibited by Wikipedia's harassment policy. That is also undisputed. And yet we have people on AN/I blaming the victim (!) and actually defending the perpetrator's actions as somehow justified, even though we've never accepted any justification for egregious privacy violations. Have we really reached a point where (some of) the Wikipedia community is so obsessed with scoring political points that they are willing to condone any intrusion into a person's off-wiki life? If so, why do we even have a harassment policy in the first place, if nobody is willing to enforce it? I note that any admin would have had a cast-iron case for indefinitely blocking the perpetrator, which would be well supported by policy and precedent, yet no action whatsoever has been taken against him. Can it be that the perpetrator and his thuggish supporters on Wikipedia Review have intimidated the entire admin community? Prioryman (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We have no control over what our editors do at other websites. Wikipedia Review is what it is...MONGO 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But it can and should have on-wiki consequences, see Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Key points from that policy page:

• "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia."
• "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy."
• "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
• "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."

This is categorical. The policy allows for no plea of justification. This particular privacy invasion was premeditated and deliberate, requiring the perpetrator to search for the personal information, which had never been disclosed to him or published in any context involving Wikipedia or Wikimedia. The only thing to discuss in such cases is what sanction should be applied. Yet in this case we have had a string of people either trying to justify the privacy invasion or blaming the victim for inadvertently allowing his personal information to be included in an off-wiki database. If views like those win the day, then the harassment policy is dead in the water because there is nothing that can be done to sanction blatant and egregious privacy invasions. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, if it is such a "black and white" case, why do you feel the need to invent evidence against me? Even here you are deliberately conflating public and private information and on-wiki and off-wiki activities. I have asked you to strike your false and misleading comments, but thus far you have not. I have noted the specific falsehoods here, if you would like to refresh your memory. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You have already admitted the key facts: you posted another Wikipedian's personal information, which he did not volunteer to you, you did so with premeditation by specifically trying to find it, and you knew that your victim was being harassed off-wiki at the time. You have not attempted to explain why the plain letter of the policy, which states that actions like yours are harassment, unjustifiable and grounds for an immediate block, should not apply to you. I'm sure the many editors who have called for you to be banned would appreciate knowing why you think you're exempt from the rules. Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Is copying verbatim an extensive part of an article abstract likely to be a copyright violation? [2] The section copied is over seventy words long. Is it proper for an editor to revert edits designed to avoid a coopyvio in favor of the full exact quote proper in your opinion? BTW, the exact excuse given is

"I did not copy the entire abstract. The entire abstract is 168 words"

but would anyone think that only copying 40% of an abstract (all in consecustive words) is proper? I give this as an example since we have a discussion above on this talk page about copyright and Wikipedia, and copyright in general. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some relevant information has been lost here. The quote was made in the form A 2012 study found that "blah blah blah" (ref). That's the correct way to quote directly. The length was on the margins of fair use, but the length limit for fair use has never actually been defined with any precision by US courts. Looie496 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

40% has always been found to exceed fair use. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Looie496 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect just raised this issue at ANI AN [3], and there hasn't been much chance for people to respond there. Not sure if forking this is a good idea. But briefly: Discover Magazine's blurb about this quoted the entire 168-word abstract, so it's probably legal. And relevant policy gives only the figure that 400 words can be too high in "an extreme case". Wnt (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant "work" in this case is the full paper, not the abstract. Compare "is copying the whole book title a copyright violation?" Properly quoting two sentences from a research paper is routine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it perfectly appropriate to quote, with attribution, 40% of the abstract of an academic paper. I'd go a lot higher than that, actually, to say that it is appropriate to quote, with attribution, the entire abstract. That's what an abstract is for, really. Note well what I am saying - the original complaint here said "copying" but quoting is not "copying". It's very different to simply assert word for word what someone else asserted, even with a footnote, because that misleads the reader into thinking that we wrote it ourselves - wrong. But to quote someone at length is often the right thing to do. Notice too, that we are talking about the abstract of the paper, not the full paper. So the 40% number is pretty meaningless. I'm unaware of any court cases ever which found that quoting the abstract, even in full, of an academic paper was copyright violation. And I can't imagine any circumstance in which a publisher would have any reason to sue to try to reach a different conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but "copying" is copying. What you probably intended to say by that is that copying in quotes and with attribution is not plagiarism (ever). However, that does not necessarily make it free of copyright issues, which are a different ball game. Whether quoting is appropriate fair use is something that depends on context and governing IP laws. Having said that, I agree with you that it isn't a copyright violation in the context in which it was done here. Editors should recall that indexing and abstracting services routinely quote 100% of abstracts of all papers they index. I don't recall PubMed (or similar services) ever getting sued over that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you might want to run this by an attorney before offering an opinion here that is apt to be repeated under the principle of JIMBOSAYSSO. I'd personally be enormously leery of directly quoting a 40% portion of a published work, be it an abstract or an article. I really can't think of an appropriate place to put a huge block quote of an abstract into play, for that matter. Carrite (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the "published work" is the paper, not the abstract, and the "huge block quote" consists of two sentences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

then you should edit the WP article thereon which states: Abstracts are protected under copyright law just as any other form of written speech is protected., [4] The copyright to each abstract written specifically for AEH, and to the Abstract Library as a whole, is held by EH.Net, [5] Abstracts contain text and images that are copyrighted by EULAR, [6] Copyright © 2012 by Association for Psychological Science (um -- that is the copyright notice for the abstract we were just told is not copyright because only the "paper" is the "published work"!) So we have abstracts in general being regarded as copyright, and the specific abstract noted legally as being copyright. I suggest that where the abstract is coopyright that copying 40% is, indeed, a violation of copyright. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You've TOTALLY DEMOLISHED the strawman argument that Abstracts have no copyright. Congratulations! Hipocrite (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No no no no! Your doing it wrong. It only counts in bold face. Only bold face makes you right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A statement was made which appeared errant. Using stress as provided in Wikimarkup is useful to make sufficiently clear the facts about copyright notices being quite clearly present, and that abstracts are routinely considered to be copyrighted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That and User:MastCell's points 5 & 6 . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• 40% of 168 words is 67.2 words. That's a medium length sentence. I think quoting even two, three or four sentences is fine. Collect, please drop it; you are wrong, so far wrong that continuing to argue would be a form of WP:POINT. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh? Then explain why all the cites I find say that the abstracts are "copyright" and that the cite specifically used asserts "copyright" if "copyright" is a meaningless concept? Especially since such parts as "N =" are included, which has no actual value to Wikipedia readers? Sorry J - I think the POINT is from those who think that violating copyright is a means of asserting that Wikipedia has naught to fear from ACTA etc. Which I think might be a very risky POINT to make. ACTA is quite real. Cheers. `Collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

To be clear, I'm not disputing the copyright on the abstract; I say only that 70 words is well within Fair Use. The "N = 15,874" is perhaps the most meaningful part of the quote, because it's what makes the rest believable. I interpret Jimbo's statement to mean that this is not WP:Plagiarism, which is the only complaint plausibly laid against the copying of short stretches of text like this. The meaning of the copyright is that you can't follow a Fair Use abstract with a Fair Use introductory paragraph, etc. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Source for that assertion which appears diametrically opposed to the cites I gave above? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not diametrically opposed. Are you aware of the fact that "fair use" only makes sense with respect to works under copyright? There is no "fair use" of things which are in the public domain - it's simply "use". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Awareness

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

```Buster Seven Talk 08:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)