Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.212.226.91 (talk) at 18:55, 26 June 2012 (→‎The ruling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


(Manual archive list)

Should Wikinews pay volunteers and/or professionals?

Would Wikinews be more successful if it paid reporters and tried to hire professionals? Would it be more successful if it were divided into continental bureaus? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that would be the exact opposite point of what Wikinews is meant to be. It is meant to conglomerate news sources and report on current already reported on news. Just like Wikipedia works off of already published information. In a sense, you could say Wikinews is meant to be the encyclopedia of current news reporting. SilverserenC 20:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but how is that opposite and not orthogonal to my questions? Would you prefer reading an encyclopedia of current news reporting which pays its workers, or one strictly based on volunteer work? Because as well as the volunteer model outperforms for the general encyclopedia, it seems to be doing that much below average for news organizations. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not correct. News summary is just one of the two things that Wikinews does. Another is original reporting. See n:Wikinews:Introduction#What Wikinews articles are and n:Wikinews:Content guide for the on-wiki explanation. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was going to say this myself. Original reporting is occurring at Wikinews. Unlike mainstream media, sources and notes are transparently provided to the reader, which is very cool in my view. The problem with "paid volunteerism" is the opportunity cost. Namely, you can expect the number of people willing to volunteer without remuneration would sharply decrease. This is why the WMF won't fund needed work unless it believes, and volunteers will believe that the work could not be done without that funding. How do we make Wikinews more successful? I personally believe the best approach would be to work with universities running Journalism courses. If students all over the world can get course credit (and valuable experience!) writing Wikinews articles over the course of a full year, we might see Wikinews become a huge success. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to use a sliding scale to solve that problem? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Jimbo has an opinion on this. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think he has expressed very clearly in the past that he is against paid editing in general. Wikinews is not supposed to rival professional news organizations but to summarise their news in a wikiformat.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not opposed to paid editors. I am opposed to paid advocates. There is a huge difference. I do not think it would be workable or a good use of donor money to pay Wikinews editors at the present time, but this is not due to any sort of abstract opposition to people being paid!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if we only paid the neediest volunteers with a good track record, and one professional in each geographic region? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there is any evidence that is needed. Studies in specific areas have shown wikipedia to be up to a decent standard: Reliability of Wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to have overlooked the word Wikinews being liberally sprinkled over this section. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a (very) recent experience with WikiNews; I think it is an expiring project anyway. Participation is low; for example it took two days for one article to appear - that's not very "new" :) Add in that there is, on average, one or two new articles per day (at the moment mostly about Australian sport - due to one prolific contributor) and under 200 edits in total per day (around 3-4 daily editors - perhaps 25 regulars in totas). Sadly, I think it lacks critical mass. --Errant (chat!) 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I have long held that what might be best *for Wikinews* is for it to be spun off into a separate organization. One of the problems is that the Foundation - for very good reasons - has never had the ability to devote real resources and talent to helping it along. Therefore, it was allowed to languish. A few earnest contributors with mistaken ideas about community management finished it off.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have long felt that Wikinews, at least the US version, can't compete with the 24 hour news cycle that already exists. The limited number of editors cannot compete with the number of editors on a conventional news site. In fact, information on the Pinta Island tortoise exists on Wikipedia, but not Wikinews. There is no article on Ashton Eaton on Wikinews, in fact there isn't even an article on the election of Mohamed Morsi. The n:Newsroom is currently fairly bare, but when I did a stint of Wikinews work last year, I can remember it being filled with unreviewed requests. Many of which were never published because they were finally declined for being outdated. My only idea is to possibly modify Wikinews so that instead of documenting recent events, it becomes a source for past events. Where an article on Wikipedia may fail WP:NOTNEWS, it could be contained on WikiNews. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is; we do have a huge number of people who, when a big news story emerges, arrive here in droves to cover it. Which isn't really the point of Wikipedia. If we could find an effective way to channel that enthusiasm into WikiNews it would take off, I am sure. This benefits Wikipedia as well because our coverage of high profile events is traditionally poor until some time after the fact - we often fail in being a venue of record and become a news outlet. Ideally there would be a moratorium on recording events on Wikipedia and WikiNews would become the place to collaborate on current events, eventually building to encyclopaedic content. --Errant (chat!) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps a standard outcome - a common outcome, even - for articles that fail WP:NOTNEWS could be to transwiki them to WikiNews? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except, all of the things Ryan pointed out above are significantly outside of NOTNEWS and are extremely relevant for WIkipedia to cover, so that wouldn't really help much. The stuff that fails NOTNEWS is generally minor general interest news, which wouldn't be all that helpful to Wikinews. SilverserenC 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing paid staff and volunteers

Fire departments often have both volunteer and professional staff. How do they decide who to pay? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about fire departments, but I can relate my (minimal) experience from years ago with the Red Cross in San Diego. I attended a class to train new volunteers, but I never ended up volunteering.
San Diego Red Cross is one of the bigger chapters of the Red Cross and so they are able to do something that not every chapter is able to do: they respond to single-family and apartment building house fires. They show up with food, blankets, rides to a shelter, for families who are displaced by a fire. They have emergency response trucks with supplies for this purpose. These trucks are generally operated by volunteers. Obviously, these volunteers are on-call day and night.
But some of the people operating trucks are paid. There are some interesting aspects to this.
First, the paid staff are not "the bosses" of the volunteers. It can often be the other way around. Who is in charge of what is determined by experience.
Second, the paid staff do exactly the same work as the volunteers.
Third, the paid staff are required to show up for their shift of work, whereas volunteers can pick and choose when to work. (You are expected to sign up for some shifts, and if you signed up for a shift, even as a volunteer, you will lose a lot of trust and possibly lose your position if you just don't show up.)
In general, in their context, the point of the paid staff is to provide a barebones infrastructure, a certainty that some things will get done, even if all the volunteers have chosen to take off on a particular night. As you might expect, volunteers tend to take off around holidays or when the weather is particularly good or bad, etc., whereas staff provide consistency over time.
I've always thought that an interesting model. If we are thinking in the context of Wikinews, it might be that paid staff would take on themselves to write articles (under the direction of an editor) when no volunteer has stepped up to do it. Volunteers will tend to want to write about some things more than others, whereas readers will expect broad coverage. With experience, it could become obvious what kinds of things the paid staff could do that volunteers wouldn't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

advocacy re Richard O'Dwyer

As someone who strenuously opposed the political advocacy pursued by the Wikimedia Foundation early this year (I note that today the Guardian called it plainly saying that in January "With other senior editors, Wales set aside for the first time Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality...") I commend your decision to take action on the O'Dwyer case as Wikipedia founder and respected opinion leader as opposed to (additionally) trying to light a fire under the editing community. Leading people from all walks of life as opposed to leading "Wikipedia's people" will of course mean that many Wikipedians will also follow but they will be the most motivated and interested in getting involved and those who aren't so motivated need not be concerned (this time).--Brian Dell (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; spectacular. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree that the extradition treaty is unfair and needs to be changed on the British side but I'm hopeful we can avoid dragging the encyclopedia into it this time. I also liked the Guardian's characterization. Although Jimbo called on spirits from the vasty deep on SOPA to vote for the lockout (i.e. IPs who have not edited the site before or since), this time I don't think they will come if he calls them.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't perpetuate this myth that the SOPA vote was carried by IPs. Go do the analysis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, true, newly-established accounts did play their part. I wonder what the result would have been if the page had been semi-protected? Remember also, there is such a thing as the bandwagon effect which would not have taken place under such circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you admit what you wrote above was misleading?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. I do not see accounts registered by partisans as something which boosts your cause. That being said, I personally agree with your personal stance on the O'Dwyer case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading because you imply that regular users voted against the SOPA action, and it only carried due to anon ips or newly-established accounts. Go do the analysis!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said the bandwagon effect is also an issue. That means people don't like to vote against the flow of the stream, even if such stream is a few hundred one-off users. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go edit an article. I recommend it. Highly.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Positing that a form of groupthink took place as a result of manipulation by IPs and new accounts seems an extreme claim to make considering you bring no evidence (and exceptional claims require exceptional evidence). As a result there is no basis for insinuations or incivility (there is never a basis for incivility). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bandwagon effect. Thank you for your advice however, and I have struck part of my comment that I did not feel, on consideration, was necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would find the claim that the entry of hundreds of IPs, who came because of off-wiki solicitation, had no effect on the vote of members of the community, as extraordinary if not more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the way you might think. I've noticed the Wikipedians are resistant and sometimes slightly hostile to campaigns by "outsiders". --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such as which campaigns?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Choose virtually any controversial article primarily of interest to one group. But in any event, I'm glad you seem to have retracted the most extreme and false version of your claim. I'd encourage you to rethink the position that people outside the community ought not be allowed to participate because they might actually influence us, though. Losing a vote and then complaining that the vote was somehow wrong because it allowed a voice for the general public is... well, it isn't the kind of project I think we should strive to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Characterize it as you will. There's only be one claim made, and no retreat has been made: that the vote was heavily affected by outside people who have no other interest in the Wikipedia community, and that the heavy IP vote affected the community vote. Companies don't let customers vote at the shareholder's meetings unless they've bought in. And these, as far as we know, were not even customers.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To which I say IPs are human too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So are fishermen in Bangladesh. Also the English football team, very much so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From that essay: "They should register for an account (e.g. if they want to participate): No. You need to accept their contributions, heed their suggestions and participate in consensus building with them. There is no requirement for anyone to register for an account before they can participate in the building of this encyclopedia. There is, however, a requirement on you that you behave." Also, by criticizing the vote as being heavily influenced by IPs that don't have a real interest, whether that assertion is true or not, you're assuming bad faith on the part of those IPs that did participate. Therefore, you must demonstrate conclusive evidence that they did participate in bad faith, or you are violating WP:AGF. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It is my opinion that they don't have a real interest. If they don't have a real interest, then they are voting in perfect good faith, but it behooves us to ask for a reasonable franchise if Jimbo goes for another lockout. Say the franchise we require for ArbCom elections, or for RfA. Nothing arduous. IPs vote from time to time, in utter good faith, at RfAs. However, they are indented because the community requires some commitment in order to pass on those in authority on WP who are subject to election. Forcing all editors off the site qualifies, in my view, as such a decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the IPs voting may well have been regular users of Wikipedia rather than editors. Surely they have as much of a say as the people who edit? After all, the encyclopaedia isn't just for editors, it's for everyone. --  M2Ys4U (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I watch the Olympics, but they don't let me sit on the IOC. Anyway, I made my point early on, but carelessly allowed myself to be baited. Back to the uncompensated grind. Feel free to carry on. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, suffice it to say that the blackout wasn't popular with everyone. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wikipedia. I don't think anything has ever been popular with everyone here. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I tend agree with Jimbo in many respects with regards to the O'Dwyer issue. The US continues to attempt to play the role of "world police enforcement" without regard to the sovereignty of other nations. That we would send our law enforcement after a young man that didn't host or post anything wrong - just links to sites which did - is a very Owellian fright. Amazing the weight that the privledged few in Hollywood can bring to bear (with their (m/b)illions of dollars) down upon some poor kid /outside/ the USA. Too bad our "officials" don't put that kind of effort into shutting down all the malware and scareware garbage afloat on the Internet.
Now - I'll also say that that Jimbo (and others) seem to have gotten a bit defensive in a rather harsh tone with Wehwalt here as well. Our (Wikipedia's) SOPA actions were not as universally "loved" as some would like to portray. And the fact that a lot of IP addys, SPA accounts, and out of the woodwork newly registered accounts posted "support" for the black-out is simply that ... a fact. Were they the majority? Did they turn the tide in consensus? To be honest, I don't know. I know it wouldn't be acceptable in a RfA, or XfD though. Personally I did support some sort of banner or click-thru in regards to SOPA; but it amazed me how that built into the unstopable juggernaught which shut the site down for a day. For a day, Wikipedia stopped being a resource of free online information, and transformed into a political lobby group. Sorry - that's just simply "truth" - and I'm pretty sure we can find WP:RS to WP:V that as well. Yet I admit - we were hardly alone in that one as many other sites offered their own protestations as well.
Getting back to O'Dwyer however - I'd ask Jimbo if he is contemplating bringing the weight of the Wikipedia website to bear in this matter. It's one thing for Jimbo to say as an individual that "X" is wrong, and "Y" is right; it's quite another to swing the "founder" hammer in those matters though. I've seen many posts, threads, and articles which profess that Jimbo has stated that Wikipedia is "your" site, "our" site, a collective rather than [his] individually run website. However, if every 3 or 6 months you (Jimbo) use your influence to make political statements, lobby for what is "right", then use Wikipedia as a platform for that - then we must forfeit all claims of NPOV, and you personally will likely face claims of the hypocritical nature. I am NOT making an accusation here in the least - simply offering one view to consider. And if you'd care to clarify your position as something seperate from Wikipedia as a whole, perhaps that would assuage some of the concerns as well. I have the utmost respect for you and what you (and the community) have accomplished with this project; but the "who" you are, Jimbo, is always going to be a very influential part of what is said. There are those who will follow you blindly. Equally, there are those who will oppose you, and just as blindly. Your words carry heavy weight sir. Just IMHO — Ched :  ?  00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur emphatically with Ched, and in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, not commenting on most of the above post, but I don't think Jimbo was being "harsh" to Wehwalt, rather he was simply shooting down a proposition which he senses as false. Nothing wrong with that. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is intentionally profiting off copyright infringement wrong?

You say "creators ought to be able to release their work under traditional copyright and have legal recourse against those who are illegally profiting from it". Okay, but that's pretty circular. If course it should be illegal to illegally do something.

More to the point, and without getting into the specific details of any particular incident, do you think it is wrong to profit by intentionally facilitating the copyright infringement of others? Note that I'm not talking about Google, or Tivo, or Betamax. I'm talking about knowingly, willfully, intentionally facilitating the copyright infringement of others. Incu Master (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you draw the line between facilitating infringement and not being able to tell which content is licensed or excepted under e.g. fair use law? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every TV show and modern film is copyright. So it ain't that hard to tell. Most of the big copyright holders like VIACOM also make proposals to these type of sites to bring them into line. Similar to how it is done on youtube where the ads from the copyright holder run along side the video. These link farms however want only to play there own ads. John lilburne (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question, to Mr. Wales, is about knowing, willful, intentional acts. I think he knows what those words mean. For those of you who don't you might want to start with the Wikipedia article mens rea. Also my question is about morality. If Mr. Wales wants to discuss legality we can get into that too, but first I'd like to try to establish a point of agreement - that intentionally helping people commit copyright infringement is wrong. This would build on the earlier point of agreement which Mr. Wales seems to have acknowledged - that copyright infringement is wrong and should be illegal. Incu Master (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean something like what Megaupload is accused of? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to rationalize principles from specific cases. I'm trying to establish principles, so that they can be applied to individual cases. My question, to Mr. Wales, is whether it is wrong to profit by intentionally facilitating the copyright infringement of others. Incu Master (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just trying to get a handle on the type of behavior you're talking about so that I can offer my own opinion on it, even though Jimbo's is the one you're seeking. If I understand you correctly, the type of behavior you are seeking a moral opinion on is as follows:
  • Someone is infringing copyright.
  • Someone else is intentionally acting to facilitate that person in distributing their copyright-infringing material.
  • Is the behavior of person 2 morally wrong, regardless of legality or illegality?
Did I state the question accurately? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, wait, hang on, it's specifically that Person 2 is profiting materially or financially from that behavior. With that clarification, did I state the question accurately? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the "profiting" part is pretty much irrelevant to the moral principle. I included it because Wales included it in the comment I was responding to. I think your description of a behavior which would fall under mine is correct, though not all-inclusive (it only touches upon "distributing"). Another description would be:
  • Someone (Alice) infringes copyright.
  • Someone else (Bob) helps them infringe copyright, knowing full well that they are helping someone (Alice) commit the acts which constitute copyright infringement (not necessarily knowing that the acts constitute copyright infringement).
  • That someone else (Bob) derives a financial benefit as a result of providing this assistance.
Again, personally I don't think the third criterion makes a difference to the moral principle. And I think the wrongness of Bob's action follows from the wrongness of Alice's action. Incu Master (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you use the right terminology, you'll find that what you're talking about has an encyclopaedia article: contributory copyright infringement, one of three theories of secondary liability in the U.S.. Also note that, as with fair use and fair dealing, copyright law is subtly different in the U.K., where the related concept is secondary infringement. We also have a whole article on (Court case). 1999. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |litigants= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |vol= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help), although we don't have one on, or indeed any mention of, (Court case). Vol. 983. F. Supp. 1997. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |litigants= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |opinion= ignored (help). Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question is about morality, not about UK or US or Swedish or any other law. My question, to Mr. Wales, is whether it is wrong to profit by intentionally facilitating the copyright infringement of others. I find the law, especially US law, incredibly interesting, but I'm not particularly interested in how Mr. Wales views the law. There are lawyers on each side of the issue who will make arguments about what the law says, and in what ways it is relevant to any particular case. Wales is making a moral argument in the quote above, in his Guardian article, and in his petition, and I am questioning him on his reasoning about it. Incu Master (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your question lacks nuance and it is not my style to give un-nuanced answers. It is like asking me if I think the color gray is more black or more white, if I have to choose just one. Well, some shades of gray are closer to black, and some shades of gray are closer to white. What degree of "intentionality"? What degree of "facilitation"? In terms of making a moral judgment about a specific person (or organization) in a specific case when the boundary lines are difficult to draw, I think it is extremely relevant to examine whether or not there was an effort to comply with the law.
Let me give some examples to make clear what I mean. If the New York Times says "If you want to see a lot of copyrighted content, you can download software called BitTorrent and search for websites that tell you about Torrent trackers" then it is arguable that they are profiting (through ads) by intentionally (they wrote it deliberately) facilitating (they tell you how to do it) copyright infringement. I don't think that's morally wrong.
Another way you might ask your question which would be easier to answer in a more absolute way: "Is it possible for someone to be doing something morally wrong in linking to websites where copyrighted material can be found?" My answer is: yes, it is entirely possible. To know for sure, I would need a lot more information, of the kinds outlined above.
My view is that morality depends on the full facts of reality, that principles are contextual, and that asking moral questions with a dropped context is not generally a productive way to gain understanding of someone's moral position.
One last thing that I should add, for the sake of clarity: there are many things that I personally think are immoral, but which I think both are legal and should be legal. So in terms of my advocacy in the Richard O'Dwyer case, I can say that I think one can either approve or disapprove morally of his actions, and still understand that extradition to a foreign country where none of the actions took place (neither Richard nor the servers were in the United States) is extremely problematic. If Richard were being prosecuted in his own country (the UK), then I would have a private view on how I think the case should be decided, and a private view on what I think the law should be, but I would not be launching a public campaign about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with the last thing first. A number of the copyright owners are in the US then extrapolating from your argument: if someone was say posting naked images of a 14 yo American girl onto a server in Mongolia that was being accessed by people in China then the US could not request the extradition of the poster from say the UK? John lilburne (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they could. But that is a very different scenario. In the case of O'Dwyer, there are allegations of "cyberlockers" located in the US, being accessed by downloaders located in the US. The fact that O'Dwyer is alleged to have given his orders from the UK does not seem to be, in itself, decisive. Incu Master (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard did not operate 'cyberlockers' in the US or anywhere else. His site hosted links to other websites, such as Youtube.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he operated the "cyberlockers". And the fact that he linked to Youtube is a nonsequitur. Incu Master (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O'Dwyer had a FAQ on his site, which is still in the internet archives where he was posting links to the site either of his own volition or by user request that sort of puts a large onus on him to have known that the links were not to material that wasn't copyright. John lilburne (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the NYT hypothetical many would say that they would be morally wrong to do that (see section of GIZMODO). John lilburne (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my question. I don't think the New York Times example goes to intent. The question of intent is whether the sentence was written to help people commit copyright infringement, or to inform people that there is software which others are using to commit copyright infringement. The former would be immoral, if not illegal (probably is illegal but would be impossible to prove - unless you substitute New York Times with How To Commit Copyright Infringement Monthly). The latter is not immoral, and presumably not illegal either.
As for things which are immoral but should be legal, of course. But I think we've agreed that copyright infringement is not one of these things.
As for the extradition issue, I don't see how the location of Richard or the servers is relevant. If someone facilitates credit card fraud, using the credit card numbers of US citizens, helping US citizens commit fraud against other US citizens, and taking a cut of the "profits", while running a website served out of Sweden from his/her home in the UK, and gets extradited to the US, would you be writing a petition to stop the extradition? It seems you are saying there is something special about copyright law in this regard, and I don't understand it because you seem to agree that copyright infringement is, and should be, illegal. Incu Master (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up positions of your own dreams, and responding to them. None of this has any relevance to my position or anything that I have said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested that because neither Richard nor the servers were located in the US, that the US didn't have jurisdiction over the issue. Incu Master (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it is extremely relevant to examine whether or not there was an effort to comply with the law." - Are you suggesting that ignorance of the law is an excuse? Incu Master (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say or suggest that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of whether or not he made an effort to comply with the law, then? Are you saying he tried not to link to copyright violations, or are you saying that he made an effort to do so legally? Incu Master (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that he diligently tried to follow the law of the United Kingdom, but also that he responded to DMCA takedown requests, i.e. he tried to follow both US and UK law. I believe that he successfully obeyed the law, but you weren't asking about that, but rather about how we should morally judge someone in a case like this. I think it highly relevant from a moral perspective that he responded to takedown requests in the manner prescribed by law.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He may have misunderstood the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and thought that they applied even in the case of "actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" (or when "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent", or in a case when you "receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity"). But ignorance of the law is no excuse. Incu Master (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's ignorant of the law, but it sounds like you very likely are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe he's ignorant of the law either. The FBI allegedly shut down his domain name and he allegedly just started up with a new domain name. I think it's more likely he just thought the law didn't apply to him. I don't think he realized that he could get extradited for this sort of thing, and so far it appears that he was wrong about at least that part of the law. But more information about what he knew (and the law, itself) will come out during the trial, if there is one. Incu Master (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have no reason to believe he had scienter even if he was completely aware of the law. The question of whether behavior in support of archiving is exempt from restriction because of fair use would have to be resolved before an arrest warrant could issue in this case, and the Librarian of Congress has ruled on that matter. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does a crime take place?

Can a person commit a crime in a country without ever stepping foot inside that country? Incu Master (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, yes. But claims that someone has done so should be subject to strong scrutiny.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure they will be. Incu Master (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, you may be aware that you have now replied to this obviously banned user 5 times. There's probably a reason he's getting all this attention. Please explain it to me. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like to be transparent and open in answering questions, but of course you have a valid point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be transparent and open at User:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ, where you have been asked "Why should unpaid volunteers help deal with the flood of non-neutral, non-encyclopedic advocacy that advocates are being paid to overwhelm them with?" and "You once stated, "[P]eople who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do." Do you still feel as strongly?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking me for. I think that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. I still feel just as strongly as ever. I do not think unpaid volunteers should deal with the flood of advocacy - I think we should ban them. Is there something more specific I might say?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I am obviously banned you should start a complaint somewhere else. I'm not, and I would be willing to reveal my identity to Mr. Wales if he feels that is necessary and if he promises to keep the information confidential. Incu Master (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary, but it would be desirable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling

A copy is here. This suggests that TVshack was enabling streaming 'through' the site, as opposed to simply directing users to external sites. It also linked to 'cyberlocking' sites where the stolen goods could be stored. It also recommended ways to link to the sites containing stolen goods, thus encouraging crime. It doesn't mention the DMCA thing - I have searched the net and not found anything except links to piracy movement sites. I consider Wikipedia a piracy-movement site, by the way. Of course Google searches can direct you to piracy sites, but then the London A-Z or the telephone directory lists the names and addresses of shops. The difference is that the A-Z doesn't specifically identify shops with poor security arrangements where goods can easily be looted, and does not identify the addresses of 'fences', i.e. people trading stolen property at knock-down prices. Quisquiliae (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the DMCA thing, even if he did comply. Well, that's like the police warning you that some item in your store of goods has been stolen. You say 'fair cop guv, you got me bang to rights', and return the stolen item to its rightful owner. And you continue trading in the other stolen goods. Quisquiliae (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One flaw is on page 5, where "select the receiver" is improperly conflated with "deciding who was allowed to post links" on page 6. Why do you think Wikipedia is a piracy-movement site? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage move

Excuse me, could I have this moved to User:68.173.113.106/Wikipedia: HTML5 edition (no redirect)? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voila :) --Errant (chat!) 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the wikipedia :)

Benvewikilerim (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be inappropriate for me to contribute to this? I would like to, if you're comfortable with it. I have made a habit of merely asking permission in such cases to gauge whether I am welcome. User:King4057 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (a COI editor)[reply]

Read carefully what it is supposed to be. It is an evolving document intended to represent my personal views - but with the help of those who generally agree with me, to try to make the document strong and as broadly appealing as possible. Activity on it has slowed down, particularly as I have personally been busy with some other things, but I intend to return to it and review it before semi-permanently freezing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NXIVM

I promised you that I would take the problems with the article NXIVM to the BLP noticeboard as you suggested and report back. So I'm reporting back.

I tried and failed. Actually it was the second time I'd tried to get help at the BLP noticeboard. The last time, in order to keep it from being auto-archived without a reply, I was reduced to repeating and adding little comments and the sound of crickets chirping and the lyrics to songs about stepping up and doing the right thing.

Please read this article and associated stuff from Forbes:

The cover: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp2.jpg
Art work that went with the article: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp3.jpg
Article and sidebars about other executive coaching programs: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html
First follow-up: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html
Second follow-up: http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/

After having read the magazine, have a look at the description of the magazine article written by a NXIVM fan, here:

NXIVM#Forbes_coverage

The point is to compare the two and match them if you don't think they match. Or to get someone else to do it. Or to say "yes, that's a fair description of the Forbes coverage, that's fine, I approve." They expected to have to work with others on compromise version, but no one said anything so it went into the article as they'd written it.

That's not all but enough for now. Chrisrus (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted to BLPN asking for more eyeballs on the issue. I will also look into it, but it will take me a couple of days at least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=499487850"