User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

(Manual archive list)

Monkey business

From the same BBC article: "the foundation rejected his claim on the grounds that the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright owner." Really? The WMF got involved in that? JMP EAX (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The communications team is working overtime to get corrections about this. Of course the Foundation did not claim that the monkey owns the copyright. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: it would appear that User:Odder is going the communications teams' job for them. Perhaps he should be given a job at the WMF as he is more effective than they are it would seem. 200.59.5.221 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I missed the memo [1] "Wikimedia Foundation revealed Wednesday, in its first-ever transparency report, that it denied Slater’s request to have the image removed from Wikimedia Commons." JMP EAX (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the files in question are File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg and File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg, and their derivatives. Seattle (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In the news today (posted Aug 6th) “Photography is my only source of income,” he told ABC News.¸--Moxy (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

His source of income has nothing to do with the copyright status of the photos. Seattle (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

[Insert] If the shot is in the public domain, he can't sell it. If he is the copyright holder, he can. Writegeist (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he's playing an appeal to emotion fallacy there. He's also invoked Godwin's Law. Dude certainly isn't endearing himself to any sympathy for his position. Resolute 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And Wikimedia and its arrogant community of know-nothing-at-alls are not endearing any sympathy whatsoever; more like international derision. Photographers' associations and their considerable funds, and army of copyright lawyers, will fall in behind the photographer. Paraphrasing what Stalin said about the Pope, "how many lawyers does Wikimedia have". It certainly does not have unlimited funds, as appeals for donations constantly remind us; should people's donations to improve the Wikiverse be used to defend a copyright dispute and contest interntational copyright law? If so, it is an abuse of those funds. Wiki-lawyering and the pontificating of Wikipedians about someone's motives are quite irrelevant to copyright law. Yes, Slater does have a right to make a living, and there's nothing wrong with that, though you are all insinuating his motives are suspect. That kind of insinuation about another Wikipedian results in a block. He invested in the trip to Indonesia, and for his supplies for his days in the jungle, and for his cameras and more; Wikimedia invested nothing. This is the tyranny of the ignorant and arrogant over someone being victimized by wiki-foolishness. But being victimized and doing the victimizing is common fare in Wikipedia, as is a complete moral vacuum on too many things to list. This will end badly, and very expensively, for the Wikimedia Foundation; it is already an international laughingstock; the schadenfreude of the press when Wikimedia is brought to heel and forced to pay damages will be even more of a chorus of hilarity and the butt of jokes for years to come. A consensus of fools is only foolishness. The monkey has the common sense to stay in the jungle...and as observed below, has not filled out a wiki-license relinquishing her copyright to the public domain. Animals cannot own copyright.Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Foundation lawyers will need to put in a lot of thinking about this one, because this is a very important issue affecting our attempts to try to protect the public domain. There are going to be a lot of arguments essentially appealing to some manner of "sweat of the brow" and various other circumstances that have favored various extensions of the copyright principle beyond the direct action of the photographer. For example, companies presently claim to own faithful photos of the Earth from orbit, even though any satellite in that orbit would have gotten pretty much the same thing. Modern artists fling paint at canvasses more or less randomly, or even paint it blank!, and claim it as an original protected work of art. You can purchase a commercial drone with a commercial camera, take a shot with all the default settings, and claim that simply because you controlled (with a very low level of accuracy) where the drone happened to be flying, that gives you a copyright over the photo. So what about handing a camera to a monkey?

However, once you abolish the sacred (if somewhat silly) principle that any monkey (literally) who presses the button owns the copyright, where do you stop? You go to the store, you buy a phone off the rack, you shoot a picture of the Taj Mahal and you upload it to Wikipedia as "own work". But why shouldn't the manufacturer, which spent years designing the CCD, lens, image adjustment software and physical layout of the camera, have the right to say that they put in all that design work, and you're just a monkey who pushed a button, no better or worse at it than the one who did the selfie? And say that that photo of the Taj Mahal you took is their copyright, and get it taken down off Wikipedia? There are other such examples, for example the very common "copyfraud" where people scan in a public domain document and claim to own it because it was their scanner. Well... why not, if the copyright goes to those who provided the camera?

I don't know how you draw a line on this one. A consistent theory of copyright won't be satisfied until a company can have a chip put in your head by court order to charge you when you think of a song, and with the power to make damn sure you never dare to hum it. All I see is a vast morass of inconsistent theory that depends mostly on who you are, and responds favorably to the application of large amounts of money. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Herro Jimmy, I have just seen this tweet which has this photo of a ducklips selfie with a photo of the macaque. Do you not think that, aside from the photo not being funny, that it is in extremely poor taste that this image is being widely discussed in the news at the moment, and here are people at Nerdpalooza making light of the situation, led by none other than yourself. The projects are already taking a bit of a beating in the media, and if this photo comes to the attention of the media I can imagine that the wider public will be thinking "Jimmy, what an asshole"...because this is the general sentiment that a large proportion of commentators are saying about Wikimedia in general over the issue. Thoughts? 106.185.32.199 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy you look great. So studious. But why does a monkey need glasses? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Several printouts of "the monkey" were propped up here on the Registration desk at Wikimania this morning, for attendees to take their own selfies with this newfound celebrity. But now, they have all been removed. I'm not sure by whom, or why. Censorship maybe? :) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear the photographer hasn't a leg to stand on here, but at the same time I think the selfies and such are in extremely poor taste. We're talking about a regular guy trying to make a living

here, even if he's wrong, I don't see any reason for the mockery and teasing being conducted by the movement's best and brightest on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC).

I have just taken a selfie of myself with a printout of Jimbo's selfie with the printout of the selfie of the Wikimonkey. Now I'm trying to decide who's the best looking guy in this photo.   Mandruss |talk  11:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all a lot of fun (and I hope the photographer at least gets some useful publicity), but the coatracking at Macaque#Copyright test case and Celebes crested macaque#Copyright test case is a bit hard to swallow. Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's been a lot written on this, but I'm adding this Washington Post/Volokh link mainly because I remember reading the original post from three years ago. We've all seen stories that get parts of this wrong, and this one gets most of it right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No opinion about the copyright of the pictures (not strong enough to mention, anyway) but... I have disagreed and agreed often with Jimbo in the past (not that he cares, off course :-) but I always thought of him as an intelligent person. That selfie with monkey-selfie does not make sense. Jimbo can't be that.. much.. well... he was high, or it is a fake. It must be... - Nabla (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very interesting that until the very moment he published that image to the internet it was totally within his control as to what happened to it. No one could demand he publish the image. If they took it out of his hands and downloaded the image and handed back the disk they would still be arrested for theft. Yet the very moment he publishes the image people think they may take it away from him saying it never belonged to him in the first place. Despite all this, I can see the merits to both sides of this debate, but I also think the clear precedent is not there. The bothersome part is the almost savage need to belittle and grab this image away from him because he doesn't hold to a free culturist's perspective. Frankly I think the WMF has and continues to be a bully in this situation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is embarrassing to Wikimedia, not just the photo dispute itself that the allows no edits there but that it is going on at all. The speciousness of the now-closed "keep" discussion is specious and evidence to me of the low IQ and lack of worldliness and sophistication of wiki-lurkers. Might as well change the description from "that anyone can edit" to "that any idiot can mess around with and screw up". Time and again Commons has seen images deleted for extremely minor issues with the license, or any whiff of a copyright dispute; even my own images and those from my family estate which I donated have been threatened by deletion for the merest flaw in the license, maps and images based on already-in-Commons maps and images have also been deleted, partly because there's a paltry 7-day warning notice and many people just aren't on Wikipedia all the time like the bandits who presume to power that they don't deserve. In the delete discussion, there's a bunch of "Keep" votes that observe that an animal cannot hold copyright, which by logic mean that their votes should be "Delete", not "Keep". US law, German law, UK law, Canadian law are all set aside saying "we'll keep it until the court decision" etc...well, have a nice lawsuit Mr Wales, I'm a photographer myself and know where this will end - with a big hole in the funds donated to support Wikipedia/Wikimedia et al, and a black mark (among many) in the history of the Wiki-verse; in the meantime it's all over the world media and making Wikimedians look like a bunch of jackasses. The Berne Convention is international, and US law is only a reflection of it. The Wikimedia Foundation is not a law unto itself; but that's definitely the position of the know-nothings in those discussions, very few of whom I recognize as regular Wikipedians, at least English-languages Wikipedia users. The last comment on the most recent keep/delete discussion, from User:Yann is the patronizing and loaded "Apprentice lawyers should look for padawan-lawyers.com"; but it applies most strongly to the "keep" voters being bulls***ers about copyright law that they do not understand but presume to interpret, and says "let the courts decide" . Oh, they WILL and it's going to be very, very, very expensive for you. But that's what happens when you let a bunch of monkeys and arm them with keyboards and let their chattering shipwreck the Commons' and Wikimedia's reputation....such as it is. Sadly, it's not Shakespeare. That macaque's wonderful smile will haunt this place for years to come; there are other pictures available of black macaques, is it so important that this one be kept - much less claimed copyright to by Wikimedia in the name of "public domain". Come again? The illogical nature of Wiki discussions and "votes" is one of the curses of the wiki-environment, and threats of lawsuits cause blocking and banning; here it's an invitation to lawsuits and the courts. You've got to find a way to cage the monkeys, they've turned the Wiki-zoo into a circus of mob-rule and tomfoolery. The photograher owning the camera and processing the images owns copyright, animals can not hold copyright under any int'l agreement or in US law, which supposedly governs Wikimedia; it's that simple. Unless the monkey's lawyers show up in court and argue for ownership of copyright, this will wind up decided in the photographer's favour and to immense cost to Wikimedia on top of the mounting international embarrassment still underway.Skookum1 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that anything that encourages hipsters not to harass wildlife with their first world money making schemes is a good thing.^TM. AnonNep (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

that's just another stupid reason to support Wikimedia violating copyright law because of its own community of illogic+vanity+arrogance. Anything that brings that b.s. to heel, as this court case will do, is a much better thing, given all the abuses of logic and wiki's own guidelines that are being fielded to defend this nonsense and theft. And besides, if you've ever been around monkeys (as at Ubud in Bali, or on the wild trails in and out of Railay/Tonsai to Ao Nang in Thailand, you'd know that monkeys excel in harassing humans; let them out of the zoo they'd do the same in the Bronx or Compton or Yonkers. They steal, they tease, and this monkey was not being harassed, she was the one doing the harassing.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From the BBC (there are similar statements in other reputable sources): Mr Slater said he spent three days in Indonesia shadowing the monkeys in 2011.. AnonNep (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Jane Goodall spent years "harassing" gorillas by your logic. But your opinion, and that of the other arrogant-but-uneducated monkeys fielding their opinions on copyright law that have no basis in copyright law (wherein animals cannot own copyright) is beside the point. The court case, and the inevitable verdict in the camera-owner's favour is going to bankrupt the Wikimedia Foundation. A consensus of fools is only foolishness. Unless the monkey has lawyers and wants to press the case, it is none of Wikimedia's business to claim copyright. Wikimedia did not take the photo, and the monkey did NOT sign a release or fill out a Wikimedia copyright-release-to-public-domain license of any kind. American court costs and damage settlements are famously expensive, this is only going to end badly; it is already an international embarassment.Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Point of quote was to respond to your claim the monkeys were harassing him. And I've never heard Jane Goodall claim she must have copyright over Gorilla selfies to fund her holidays. AnonNep (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another patronizing comment/accusation about this guy; photographers travel for a living, particularly nature photographers. Get a grip on this living person per BLP.Skookum1 (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That also something else that he said in interviews (that he needed the money to pay for his holiday). It seems that you haven't read very widely on this issue before commenting. AnonNep (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So WHAT does the fact he said that he needed the money to pay for his trip? He's a working photographer and ANY photo taken with cameras he bought and paid for is HIS. Your rationale is nasty, as if someone should be begrudged to make an income off their undertakings. That is NO reason to field a completely condescending attitude towards his RIGHT (aka copyright) to make earnings from his photography (which includes camera ownership, and contingencies such as accidental pictures taken, whether by a monkey looking at her reflection or a branch falling on the shutter or any other means). It's his camera, NOT Wikipedia's/Wikimedia's and it's most definitely NOT the monkey's. Appropriating it to the public domain, and then justifying it with weird rationalizations like "oh, he just wanted the money, as if that were a crime or suspect in any way is an argument that only someone with an axe to grind could make. A judge would certainly not tolerate it, and if Wikimedia's lawyers were to claim it in court the objection from Slater's counsel will be supported by the judge, just as it is supported by copyright law and the Berne Convention. You "obviously haven't read widely" on copyright law before shooting your tomfool mouth off about his motives; which are the motives of any artist of any kind about works undertaken with their equipment, at their cost. Argue as you are doing in a court and you would be held in contempt. You, and others with vindictive and self-righteous comments defending an untenable position not supporrted by law, definitely have mine and that of journalists (and photographers) all over the world. And since you clearly hold him in contempt, regarding YOU with contempt is fair game. And correct.Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see this progressing constructively and I'll leave it at that. AnonNep (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect, Skookum, that WMF legal has done a hell of a lot more reading about copyright than you have. Particularly since you think owning the camera automatically means you own copyright over everything created with it, regardless of the circumstances behind the creation of an image. Resolute 20:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You can read all you want about copyright but if the precedents aren't there then the lawyers are just making it up as they go along. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolute, where is your copyright "expertise" coming from? I know it only loosely, from being a creative person myself, though my years as a small-scale working photographer. Even within Wikipedia, in its own self-contained world of pompous irrelevance to reality and its disdain for WP:TRUTH vs "sources", that any copyright dispute exists at all should mean this photo should be removed from Commons until the case is decided in Wikimedia's favour. As someone here already observed, if a photographer's assistant is the one who fires the trigger, that assistant does not own copyright. As Saffron Blaze observes about "lawyers are just making it up as they go along", that is even more about "wiki-lawyers" and the bizarre babble and self-justification that's going on around here. I'm not an expert on copyright law, particularly on American copyright law....but unless you can demonstrate otherwise, neither are you. The monkey signed no release, and did not fill out a Commons license releasing "her work" into the public domain; she, being an animal, cannot have owned copyright; by default it goes to the owner of the camera; Saffron Blaze is right; though the precedents are there, as per the bit about photographic assistants; I can't cite them but I know they exist or commercial photography would be a very different thing than it is. The opinions on law and the derisive comments about the photographer here are not just BLP and AGF, they will also be used by the photographer's lawyers, and it's very very very likely that photographic associations and their lawyers will do the same. Any taint of legal action, or legal challenge, in Wikimedia/Wikipedia, is supposed to bring on a block or other punishment; yet here a pack of wiki-monkeys and wiki-baboons are chattering in the jungle of wiki-babble as if this were a closed arena. It's not; and much that is being said here can and probably will be used in the court of law. Curb thy tongue, knave; unless you can cite a portion of copyright law that says "pictures taken by monkeys who have grabbed a photographer's camera are public domain", you're talking through your fat hat like all the other wiki-simians here.Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And about those lawyers....I object to the use of funds donated to Wikimedia for supporting Wikipedia for improving its content and interface being spent on a very questionable and obviously very controversial legal case; that is not what those donations are for; and the virulent mean-ness of comments about this photographer is indicative of a very very sad attitude of arrogance within the global fishtank and is not what those funds were donated for and should NOT be used for. You and others supporting the WMF's position here should start your own legal fund for this case; I reject the notion that charitable donations should be used for this case, period.Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Poor decision-making

Who's brilliant idea was it to print up the "monkey selfie" so that Wikimania participants could create "derivative works" from it? The photographer is already clearly posturing for a lawsuit (see "Monkey selfie sparks copyright battle,") ad infinitum. WMF refused a DMCA takedown request on the basis of a novel technical interpretation of the law, the photographer is alleging loss of income... This is certainly not a WMF position that I would want to bet money on holding up in court. So then we're going to make a game of the matter, with the public face of WP effectively taunting the potential litigant at London? Terrible breakdown in decision-making there... Carrite (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Derivative works was my phrasing to describe what they were making. The people who were doing it called them "selfies".  — Scott • talk 21:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if I have deprived you of royalties by lifting your excellent phrasing without credit... ;-) Carrite (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Carrite on this. We are, legally, in the right, but morally this is wrong - we're effectively saying "ner-nerny-ner-ner". We should be making reasoned arguments to support our position, not behaving like bullies. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Morality in my estimation, and repeated experience, is in short supply in Wikipedia....Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that WMF is legally in the right on this issue either. The obsession with who pressed the button is ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As is also far too common in Wikipedia (ridiculous decisions/arguments).Skookum1 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It is the instruction to take the picture that establishes ownership, not who owns the camera or who presses the button. That's WMF's own legal opinion, published somewhere on the Foundation wiki. Mr Slater just has to convince the court that he deliberately left the camera with the monkeys in the hope they would use them, then it is his copyright. --Pgallert (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's complete hogwash; are you a copyright lawyer? I doubt it, or you wouldn't be opening your yap here; WMF's lawyers are simply holding the position that they have been assigned, nothing more. Wikimedia has to convince the court that public domain applies to an image they pirated, pure and simple. This is already an international laughing stock, and the jury's out until the court hands down its verdict. Donations made by people to the WMF to support Wikipedia and its sister projects should NOT be used to finance this case; if you're so ardent about supporting it, I suggest you and the others in the chattering chorus of wiki-monkeys babbling, rather gloatingly, about the photographer and in the gloriously incoherent way that is way too common in the self-referential universe that is the wiki bureaucracy need to establish a separate legal fund, rather than bankrupt Wikipedia et al. with this insane court case. Or do you expect that people donating money to improve the encyclopedia are all on-side with your claims and foolishness? Clearly a lot of us don't, huh? This is misdirection of funds and is full of BLP bullshit against the photographer, very much in contravention of Wikipedia policy about court actions, copyright and more....pay for it yourselves if you want to support this madness, it's an embarrassment and right now a global laughing-stock.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you grokked what I wrote, as I was arguing that Mr Slater does have copyright on the photo. The WMF legal opinion is a general one, unrelated to the selfie, and contradicting their stand on the selfie. Be that as it may, you don't need to answer this with yet another insulting rant; not sure what I have done to you to deserve it. --Pgallert (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, then, it sounded like you were being snide about him, like so many others around here; and if you are not a copyright lawyer, then, still, "just has to convince the court that he deliberately left the camera with the monkeys" is a legal opinion on how to interpret copyright law per "instruction"; when a thief of any species takes a photo with a stolen camera, and the camera is gotten back, does the thief have copyright on any photos he/she might have taken? That the camera was set for shooting conditions is, to me, enough, but as monkeys cannot own copyright and, as the WMF claims (but is not to my knowledge anywhere in copyright law) the photo is then in the public domain, that also is an interpretation of copyright law not endorsed, as yet, by any court that I know of. And if you are in support of Mr Slater, then I think you see my point about it not being appropriate using funds donated to WMF for this very controversial legal test, and that is one of my core points; misappropriation of funds for a cause clearly not supported by all Wikipedians, yourself and myself included. As for insulting rants, there's enough of those here against Mr Slater to make this an open playing field; I'm sorry to have directed my opinion of the mounting idiocy about this in your direction, that resulted from a misinterpretation of your intent.Skookum1 (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted; I can see how the general tone here can get people excited. No, I'm not a lawyer and don't intend to become one. For as long as I'm not in court I think I have the right to hold (and publish) a legal opinion, just like I could hold and publish an opinion on gardening or black holes. I have, however, witnessed that the legal fraternity in many parts of the world is open to logical arguments. That anything created with some degree of intentionality could be PD from the start sounds illogical to me, and yes, a camera thief would hold the copyright on pictures they take with it. In the US where such battles would eventually be fought that might all be different of course. According to legend it is all a bit different over there. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

> camera thief would hold the copyright on pictures they take with it Not in the US and not in Russia at least. The fact of robbery or forced actions eliminates the copyright ownership rights. Same way that gang from Belgium that stole children and enforce them for porno in the house cellar and killing after are not "authors" and are not entitled for royalty fees for viewing or quoting their "creativity products".
Yet it is not a human thief, it is a monkey (Celebes crested macaque to be exact). And the issue gets crossed with many popular animal exploitations for money by human owners. That includes monkey paintings sold by many zoos and "pet-photo" business. The latter is getting especially popular (surprise, surprise) in the United Kingdom. I will remind that in the latter case a pet is sent for a walk with a camera on timer, and later sorted out by the owner. That might be (in no way I'm saying "that is") one of the roots of the ingrowing excitement over the issue.
Yet I see the current arguments of supporters of Slater's original copyright rather strange. Some superfluous wording away, they want to see a simple algorithm like "in a chain of events of any length go up to the first human met and (s)he will be the author". With such ideas it would be more reasonable to argue for a full PD of everything :-) Because if "going by a chain of events of any length", any creative work appertains then either to God (for creationists) or to Nature and its Big Bang (for evolutionists). --NeoLexx (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[orgy in cellar] Hmm, and I would have thought that exactly this would form one of the charges, producing (=being the author of) child porn. And who would the author be if not members of the gang? Hope nobody is arguing it is PD now... --Pgallert (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not PD and it is not copyrighted, it is in the third category "copyright is not applicable", just like stamps and banknotes in those countries where this is stated. The traditional approach at Commons is to treat is as PD which is not really much sensual. It is like claming an exact color of the pure vacuum. That is the color of the pure vacuum? There is no answer for a by default senstless question.

As of "being the author of", there is a common misunderstanding of it at Commons, codified in "Author" field name. It is long time ago fixed at ru-wiki being named "Автор или правообладатель" ("Author or rights owner"). Indeed for copyright status it is very seldome necessary to know the author of a relatively modern work. One needs to know who is the copyright owner. The actual author and the year of his death (together with the year of the first lawfull publication) comes into play only when it is needed to assert PD-old status of the work. For the rest we don't care at all who's the author - yet why not to indicate if known - we do care who's the owner, if any exists. So that gang are the "authors and actors" of produced "artworks" but they never and for a second had copyright for it from the point of view of the law. Just like the pure vacuum never was black, white or rozy, not even for a nanosecond.

Coming back to the monkey :-) the only way I see to set it favorable for the photographer is to stick to the second public claim made after troubles for Caters News Agency started. I mean keep insisting that the camera was not stolen, but intentionally left in a place where monkeys are often in expectance of the regular monkeys curiosity. Neither first written statement (stolen, activated by monkey, dropped) nor second written statement (left intentionally, activated by monkey, dropped) are made under oath, just an interview to newspapers. Yet the sequence of the statements and the context of their appearance would make any neutral court triple demanding for arguments. --NeoLexx (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed true that obscene materials are barred from copyright. For example, when police agencies hold international conferences to convince politicians to pass international treaties requiring internet surveillance, they have been able to show child porn at the conferences for maximum dramatic effect, without having to obtain permission from the people depicted, let alone those who made it. Similarly, I've seen a few items on Wikipedia that actually list as their license that they've been banned in China and hence ineligible (sorry, I forget what they are now) Wnt (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That may take us too far away from the monkey to the jungles. :-) Sticking to the US law there is a number of cases when the author doesn't get any copyrights, even for the initial moment, even if a real masterpiece produced. Stolen software as the tool, reinforcement for acting, "one buck deal" in corporate contracts — just to name a few. Yes, in say Beslan school hostage crisis the shotage of captured children before to explode them is attributed to an unknown terrorist and is not free. So good he was killed or his DMCA takedown would be well expected... :-) When I was young and energetic, such "lawyer role games" were making me ballistic. Now in such cases I am applying to nirvana technics mostly. Whatever however inside the project, and in case of a crucial (but only such) disconnection with the outside world there are office actions. --NeoLexx (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Still decided to express my own opinion within the subtopic "Poor decision-making". I do believe that it was a poor decision made to make that monkey nearly a mascot of Wikimania 2014 held in London. Wikimedia, Inc. is a purely US organization. And anywhere outside of the US we are all "damn Yankees, who are putting their legs on the table and moking up the local culture and traditions". Even those who are not American and badly speak English (the author of this post as a sample). American readers may refer to the sentiments by thinking of a US movie making fun of Americans and a foreign movie making fun of Americans. Mr. Slater is a British citizen, Caters News Agency is a British company. And a good effort was made to decline the initial neutrality of a British court where the case will be analized if ever submitted. It will be not an excuse of course for a prejustice if any detected. Yet the monkey should be used in Washington, D.C. or Hong Kong but not in London, where some US/Britain mutually neutral issue could be used as a landmark. IMHO, IMHO, IMHO. --NeoLexx (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a remark about tasteless Wikimanians: I saw the pic at Wikimania. The selfie story was shared widely there. However, I doubt that many who posed with the picture knew about the copyright argument. --Pgallert (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

How about the WMF fights for PD-ing something more worthily, like orphaned works?

How many animal selfies does Wikipedia or Commons have? And how many orphaned works photographs does it show, through the "graces" of national archives in various countries, which have appropriated the copyright to some such works, typically by a special interest [section of the] their national law. Some but not all of these are then "magnanimously" released on Commons with the copyright holder set to the national archive. (There's a Bulgarian saying about giving as gift somebody else's pie.) 188.27.81.64 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment about that re national archives; it may vary on countries and lower-tier jurisdictions and institutions within them, but photos in the National Archives of Canada, the British Library (whose excellent collection of images is now in the Commons, the Vancouver Public Library, the Vancouver City Archives and more are in the public domain. The British Columbia Archives, a subdivision of the Royal British Columbia Museum, claims on its website to own the images thereon, but in actual fact that's a bluff; they only own copyright on images made from the negatives in their holdings; they are a profit-making subcontractor (actually run by Disney) and their claims in many cases are specious; the same photos are in public circulation and no formal copyright on many of them, such as the photographs of Artie Phair, are in postcard form or copies held by other museums and archives and in private collections; his estate (his descendants) claim copyright, but they are ignored by the BC Archives; those that were undertaken with public money had had Crown copyright, such as those of Frank Swannell, who was a prolific land surveyor photographer, are covered by the pd-50 license and even though digital copies are hosted on their site, and they have in most cases the negatives, any claim of copyright over them would not hold up in a court of law....there have been no test cases nor is there likely to be...because they know they'd lose. They're an exception, public domain in Canada is a dicey issue in Wikipedia, because American copyright law is 100 years, not 50 years, after the death of the photographer; but that's if the photographer owned the copyright, when photos are taken on government contract or on government payroll, the photographer does not; pictures taken under governemnt contract/payroll; Wikimedia's "rules" assert American extraterritoriality in these matters; but again, logic and morality and "doing the right thing" in Wikipedia are rare; in fact WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is used to justify great wrongs, or at best to shrug off any responsibility. It may be different with teh Bulgarian national archives and in other countries; but the Berne Convention applies under international law in any case, including this one.Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also rather disappointed with the triumphant and tactless gloating over the macaque selfie business. And I am a strong supporter the legal argument. This whole issue has sparked an unwholesome bout of coatracking across various Wikipedia versions. I have done my best to stem the tide. Some projects get the point, others simply balk and pretend that this is an appropriate way to illustrate an encyclopedic article about a primate species.

An Italian admin even went so far as to block me for a week without motivating her/his revert and without any warning. Just a blanket excuse that I had tried to revert coatracking, particularly in stubs.

Can we please apply a little off-wiki civility to this? We're part of one of the most influential open source enterprises in the world. What's the point of making an enemy out of someone like David Slater? People here seem to forgetting that while the legal argument is clearly for a free image, the moral argument is unequivocally on Slater's side. Without him, we wouldn't have these wonderful images to fool around with and rejoice at. In cases where museums and corporations try to lock up reproductions of ancient works of art and PD photos through technicalities, we tend to get very upset and protest their actions. But this is essentially the same thing, but in reverse. The least we could do in this case is to act with more humility. Peter ^Isotalo 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am awaiting the release from the WMF where they state they sympathise with the photographer and that by denying him copyright and moral rights in this image they may be doing him a favour by forcing the issue to court. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'm awaiting comment from whatever the national association of professional photographers is called....and their lawyers....Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees a massive disconnect between Jimbo's new crusade for "moral ambitiousness" and what's happened with this monkey's selfie? There can surely be no doubt that the photographer has suffered financial loss from WP's usurpation of his copyright, whether strictly by the letter of the law or not. But that's totally at odds with the focus not on the floor for what's right but on a higher moral purpose. Still, I suppose it's easier for some people than others to hold two inconsistent ideas in their heads simultaneously. Eric Corbett 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has expressed a rational opinion on who legally or morally has the copyright. I am not a lawyer, but I have played one on USENET for a number of years, and have rarely been contradicted by a lawyer.

Under US law, the copyright normally belongs to the person actually taking the picture. If he's employed to take the picture, it belongs to the employer. The "photographer" (person pressing the button) can assign (or pre-assign) the copyright to someone or an entity by a written contract. The owner of the camera is irrelevant. This does lead to anomalies such as pictures taken with a stolen camera possibly belonging to the thief, and I don't want to deal with motion-sensor cameras.

Morally, he doesn't have any rights to the picture other than by owning and being the last person to control the camera. Seems inadequate to me.

If the monkey were considered a domestic animal, then its owner might hold the copyright, combining copyright law with the legal maxim that you are considered to have done what your property does.

But it's up to the Foundation whether they want to remove the picture as a copyright violation, and to Commons whether they want to remove the picture as a license violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Having an article deleted

Hi, Jimbo,

I recently did s site re-design for a client named Sandy Frank, and he contacted me last week about having his Wikipedia page removed from your system. I referred to your procedure for having this done and inserted the necessary code on the page to request removal, then gave it a week as your instructions state.

I got a call from the client this morning informing me that the page is still up, and when I went to the page I saw your explanation that you couldn't rely on an anonymous user's request to remove a page (understandable) and the link to message you, so here I am.

The client does not know who initially set up the page (it may have been a former employee who is now deceased), so they've tasked me with trying to get this done. My question to you is this - if the person who set up the original page is now deceased and no one in their organization has any knowledge of an account corresponding to the page, how do we go about proving to you that our request is legitimate? Would providing contact information to the company or the subject of the page help? I'm at a loss as to how to prove that my request is legitimate, and would really appreciate any pointers on how to provide you with sufficient proof to legitimize the request.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Don Waller 74.101.141.17 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's currently up for Proposed Deletion, but there's a few sources out there. Worthy of a Wikipedia article isn't defined as the person wanting it or not, it's about notability, especially through reliable websites. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is a service for the reader, not the subject. We're not a Who's Who that you can (and have to) buy your way into; we're volunteers sharing what we read in public sources with one another and anyone else interested. What we choose to talk about is, therefore, ultimately up to us. Because this person has touched films that have entered the popular culture - apparently deciding (directly or via subordinate), for example, how much material to cut from films about Gamera when they were dubbed into English - the interest in his role is now inevitably part of the popular culture, and therefore, of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We're a lot of things but one thing we're not is robots, so these things are complicated. People who are very marginally notable by our rules and standards (Sandy Frank's not even that, but supposing he was) who have requested that their article be deleted have a special stake and should (and do) get special consideration. Looking at the deletion discussion, I'm confident that the article will be deleted in a few days. Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia contributed a very important reference in the discussion, to a lawsuit he filed against Michigan for a system of film tax credits that had promised, but denied him, support for making a certain kind of show. The reason why we need to claim the right to look behind the curtain, to write articles about the people behind the scenes and how movies actually get made, is that when we look back there we find, for example, that what we might naively think of as a free market is really almost a state agency, receiving a 42% tax credit for making the right kind of film that portrays Michigan residents in a positive light. We have the right to see this and know this, not just to sit there in front of the boob tube sucking down Sandy Frank productions and taking them as some kind of a fiat from heaven that they're this way instead of that way and wondering why The Guys In Charge all make them like that. Wnt (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, relax. We're not The Nation, here. I get how you feel, but let's not use this guy as whipping boy for some ulterior motive; he should or should not have an article on the merits (a decision to be informed, though of course not controlled, by his desire not to have an article since we're in the grey area of notability (if even that)). Herostratus (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using him as a whipping boy - he filed suit against this law on constitutional grounds, so I'm thinking of him more as the hero. The thing is, how often do we find the goodies left at the top of the rabbit hole? Figuratively, indeed sometimes literally, there has to be a certain leap of faith where you put aside pessimism and all rumors of sharp-toothed jackalopes and reach deep into the rabbit hole to find what fabulous treasures await. Wnt (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing and the ToS

Jimbo, a question was raised today about adding info to UDG Healthcare regarding its Ashfield Healthcare division, which is now the largest profit contributor to UDG. If a user posted a reward offering at WP:Reward Board for such sourced information to be added to the article, would this be seen as appropriate, one that would fulfill Wikipedia's mission? Also, would the appropriateness of such an edit/reward system be affected by any circumstances such as either editor (the reward-offerer or the reward-earner) being employed by Ashfield Healthcare, or a PR firm contracted by such, or even a competitor? Would there be privacy concerns if either the giver or the receiver were required to disclose such information? Or would disclosure be necessary to ensure the maximum transparency? Tarc (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, is the reward to be offered a barnstar or a Dogecoin (cash value $0.0002) or something of that nature? Those are the types of rewards offered on the Reward Board. Assuming this is so, what would be the a problem? It's hard to imagine a "PR firm contracted" for compensation consisting of a barnstar, so why bring the Reward Board into the discussion??? Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, missed the edit war. OK, there was a really confusing and kind of weird post about paying five dollars for an edit... was reverted and Tarc's just reposting a version of that.. Tarc it's not really a good idea to be reposting stuff like this. If you have an actual question could you formulate it in some succinct and cogent form please. Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

He's posting it on behalf of a banned user see summary here [[2]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Jimbo gives a fair amount of leeway to that, just here on his talk page so don't worry about it. Actually Tarc's version is less inflammatory so that's good in that sense. Herostratus (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I was pressed for time and may have been a little hasty in summary, sorry. I don't feel that questions here should be suppressed unless the talk page owner himself decrees it, that is what the warring has been about lately. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to be able to have serious discussion on this page. About February I found that the banned user "Mr 2001" was making that impossible, so, in accordance with WP:REVERTBAN I declared that I would revert Mr 2001 on-sight wherever I saw him. I also declared that on this page, if Jimmy asked I would refrain. Jimmy has never asked me to refrain and I have reverted Mr 2001 about 30 times since..

Tarc disagrees, and boasts on my talk page about his ability to edit war on this matter.

Very well; I have reconsidered my practice of reverting Mr. 2001 on-sight on this page and I will start a new practice.

• I will revert Mr 2001 and anybody WP:PROXYING for him on-sight on this page
• If Jimmy wants me to stop doing this, he can let me know in any way he feels best, and I will stop.
• If any admin wants me to stop, they can drop me a line on my talk page, and I will consider their reasoning. I will not necessarily agree, and per policy, I will not necessarily respond.
• If anybody reverts my reverting of Mr 2001 or his proxies, I will warn the reverter after the 3rd reversion and after the 4th reversion will ask at ANI for the reverter to be blocked. This is automatic.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you remove a post of mine, it will be reverted. You will be taken to ANI, and failing a solution there, Arbcom. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think Smallbones is out of line, presuming to be judge, jury, and executioner of alleged sockpuppets without evidence or investigation. I think the original post here was a troll and should have been hatted. I think the parties in the edit war should all, each and every one, knock it off. One would think that 3RR applies here and that both sides are already on the brink. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• You are right Carrite, everyone should be held to the same standard. I suggest we wait 24 hours and then block every single person who is still violating 3RR on this page, regardless of who they are. This is getting silly. Chillum 15:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:PROXYING is pretty clear that 3RR doesn't apply; but also that Tarc is free to repost a question from a banned user because Tarc wants to know the answer to the question (but not because Mr 2001 wants to know the answer). WilyD 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is no 3RR exemption for posting on other people's talk pages. Just because a policy allows for something does not make it 3RR exempt. 3RR is a bright line to prevent disruptive edit warring. Chillum 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? WP:PROXYING (which is a policy) is quite clear that there's a 3RR exemption for removing the contributions (as far as I can tell, in all namespaces) by banned users or those acting on their behalf. However, if they make good/worthwhile edits, other users can make those edits for their own reasons. It's a little bit silly, but realistically, yes, reverting the restoration of Mr. 2001's question is not subject to 3RR, but removing someone else asking the same (or a very similar one) is subject to 3RR (and the prohibition on edit warring in general - I'd suggest that removing the talk page comments of a user in good standing is problematic the first time it happens, and waiting for 3RR to call it edit warring is overly cautious). WilyD 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is really overlapping more now with the discussion at ANI regarding Russavia's socks (link). What the overly-draconian rules-sticklers are going to do here is create a never-ending system of well-poisoning. Alleged Bad User A posts to Jimbo's talk page, or Alleged Bad User B adds an image to an article. We have several editors in both discussions suggesting that all such edits not only be reverted on sight, but also that no one else can re-post them due to literal "proxying" interpretations. So if a good question is asked on Jimbo's talk page, it'd be forever tarred and verboten. If a quality image of an airplane is added to that airplane's article, whoops!, that image can never appear again lest the adder be accused of proxying. This is fostering a culture of fear and paranoia, and I question the competence and sanity of a person who thinks he/she is doing the project a good service by doing this. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Btw, 3RR never really came in to play in the current discussion like it did last week. I reverted twice, Hell did twice, Johnuniq once, and Smallbones 4x, and even the latter is moot now so there's nothing to really dig into regarding 3RR atm. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, 3RR was brought up, with some implications that people are up for edit warring, so it's worth addressing. I don't think anyone has violated (Smallbones has 4 reverts, but I believe they're all actual edits of an actual banned user, so would be 3RR exempt), but the conversation certainly reads like someone might violate it, going forward. The question of the problems associated with banned-users-behaving-themselves-hunting is a separate one, I think, (and one more worth asking than the pedantics of when to disclose you're getting paid). WilyD 16:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At ANI Monty suggested a compromise, just hat the offending material. Just in case anybody is unsure of the rule

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

So even though Monty's hatting proposal looks like a reasonable compromise, I wouldn't feel bound by it since the policy says without qualification that I may revert. I wouldn't consider it binding on anybody else either. Nevertheless, depending if it was effective or not, I would likely leave the hatted material alone, and respect the hatter's wishes. I do encourage all other editors to participate in stopping the banned editor's trolling, whether they are hatting or reverting according to the rules. In particular, I think admins should be trying to stop this trolling and enforce the rules on banned editors.

I would also be open to any sort of moderation, arbitration, or any other sort of dispute resolution on this, with only one condition: Tarc agrees to follow the rules, e.g. banrevert. There's not much else for me to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With all this discussion, we're still no closer to learning whether editors in good standing who earn cash Reward Board incentives (and disclose them) are subject to having their good-faith edits deleted if it is learned that the offer came from a banned user, or from a PR firm or self-interested corporation, for that matter. This comment isn't intended to make discussion "impossible", as Smallbones claims. The comment is intended to foster honest and appropriate discussion. But most seem more interested in playing the revert-unrevert-revert drama game. - 2001:558:1400:10:FC4F:3F4E:798A:2BBA (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just dancing around the fundamental flaw with the Reward Board: anyone editing with the intention of earning the bounty already has a WP:COI justifying reversion. betafive 18:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone is free to have whatever other motivations they want so long as they don't conflict with Wikipedia's goals. Merely being a paid editor isn't an excuse to revert good edits; one would need to judge whether the edits were good or bad before knowing whether reversion was acceptable. WilyD 13:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect; see WP:NOPAY. betafive 19:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You'd be well advised to read things before linking them; that page says you're discouraged from writing if you're getting paid in such a fashion that it's likely to compromise your ability to remain neutral. So, as a I said, you're free to have whatever other motivations you like, including getting paid, as long as it doesn't conflict with the goal of writing a free, neutral encyclopaedia. WilyD 11:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you're technically right, but that's a very fine and very dangerous hair to be splitting. betafive 01:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones - This will not end well — you are making accusations without evidence. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, per the link you cite above, there is no 3RR exemption for repeated reversion of a proxy. It reads: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." Tarc is neither a banned user nor a sockpuppet of a banned user... Both of you would be strongly advised to knock it off. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP, here, and underlying series of edits appear to be breaching experiments. Regardless, the TOS is clear, you have violated the TOS if you do not disclose your employer and affiliation. Otherwise, you have denied readers any chance to find out that your material is written by the subject (at its direction) or by the competitor (at its direction), and mislead them - which is part of the encyclopedic information that we should impart. ('World: I know, I'm the subject (I'm the competitor), this is me making this statement'). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that if there are questions about COI from legitimate accounts, you should post them at WP:COIN as it would be less disruptive or pointy, and then, after that discussion, if you legitimately still have questions for Jimbo, you can refer him to that discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Banned editors should be reverted when they attempt to create drama or damage articles. However, the act of reverting an arguably productive edit can itself create drama. For that reason, a smart editor will look the other way when a banned editor makes what could be a productive edit. It's more beneficial, sometimes, to ignore than to revert. Be smart. If you make an edit and get reverted, for whatever reason, a smart editor will discuss the issue rather than revert warring. The perceived need to revert a banned editor does not give one license to engage in revert warring. Be smart. Stop and discuss it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK about early learning

Related to two threads in the last archive: DYK has more good news, such as the Inkpot Madonna. She returned to her cathedral today, after it was closed for restoration for four years, but I see also a woman, working on early education. - This user learned that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Arbcom

[[3]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one opinion

Dear Jimmy,

I would like to write you briefly (well, I tried being brief!) about why I am leaving Wikipedia.

I used to be a moderately active Wikipedia user (1,600 edits in 6 years), but I have not really edited Wikipedia in the past few months. Over the years I have repeatedly felt bullied by "more equal than thou" editors, and have had quite a few reasonable additions removed by tireless reverters, who do in fact own articles. It is an unspoken secret that article ownership is one of Wikipedia's main problems.

Despite Wikipedia's attempts to foment reasonable discussion, during a dispute it is invariably the tireless reverters and "owners" who win out. There was even one occasion where a single editor got his agenda through against myself and two others all trying to reason with him for over a week on a talk page. And we didn't even want to get rid of his opinion from the article, but rather to add that there are two opinions on the matter.

Many times I have wanted to write you about this, but thought you've got better things to do than waste your time with me. I essentially left Wikipedia about six months ago, but now I've got an editor removing some stuff I'd added a while back, that had never bothered anyone, and who's coming up with contradictory arguments for doing so.

Don't worry - I'm not here asking for you to defend me. That's not my point. My point is that much of Wikipedia editing operates like a clique, not like a community. So-called "experienced users" politely but firmly tell you that you're not welcome on their territory, they use jobsworthy arguments, and they are relentless in their agenda, which more often than not involves deleting stuff. This guy summarizes the problem succintly.

You may simply say to me "sorry to have lost you" (or you may not, I don't know), but that won't help the droves of enthusiastic new people coming into the project from being bullied out within their first year. And the enthusiastic new people are sometimes people with real knowledge, such as scholars and scientists, who get forced out by some kid in high school who sits in front of his computer all day, reverting article pages, adding barntars and/or userboxes to his user page, and quoting perfectly learned yet intentionally misinterpreted versions of Wikipedia policy at them.

I don't mind continuing to contribute, but it just feels ever more pointless when work you've researched meticulously because you're passionate about it and which you know is relevant to a given topic...gets erased, often without even a deletion comment. It's like a kick in the gut, man.

Thanks for your attention, and keep well! BigSteve (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need a WP:Ownership noticeboard as a mild inducement for longer term editors to specific articles to chill (but only if the complainant shows all other policies are followed in their own edit). It would work for this long-time editor when ocassionally my hackles get up at some appropriate WP:RS statement that doesn't quite fit my vision of what the article needs... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The real unspoken secret here is that the overwhelmimg majority of articles aren't crowdsourced but are instead written by a very few editors. Ownership is therefore a red herring, since without it there would be even more poorly developed articles than there are now. Ownership is both inevitable and beneficial in other words. Eric Corbett 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but good "owners" should be open-minded about improvements to "their" articles, and help others "fix" their desired improvements rather than flat-out revert them.

@Bigzteve: I don't know the longer history, but just looked at your recent edits to the single article that triggered your visit to Jimbo's talk page. You might ask the reverting editor, if "the numerical examples are nonstandard notation" can you change them to the standard notation please, rather than revert, and if there are links to "numerical planetary data" elsewhere on Wikipedia, please provide those links, to show me where such data can be found. Engage more on the talk page. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course they should. Did I suggest otherwise? Eric Corbett 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the original premise was "article ownership is one of Wikipedia's main problems" and you called that a "red herring". Perhaps the better way to say it is abusive article ownership is one of Wikipedia's main problems—but, while I know such behavior is a problem (whether it's a "main" problem is debatable), I don't see that in this editor's recent history. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So the original premise is arguably wrong, and from a wrong premise it's unlikely that the correct conclusions will be drawn except by accident. Eric Corbett 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When BigSteve says "My point is that much of Wikipedia editing operates like a clique, not like a community", I think he's absolutely right. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And I don't. Eric Corbett 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree either. Perhaps there are some small cliques somewhere on Wikipedia—it's a big place, after all—but I'm not aware of any, or who might be members of one. You would think I'd have noticed by now, as I've recently climbed into the top 2,000 by # of edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, of course there are cliques here. Some are very positive, others are less so. Some of the positive ones involve interests in particular subjects. We even have a formalized system for them, we call them WikiProjects. Others, that are not positive are the non-formal packs of Editors who share beliefs about how WP should operate and what content should or should not be in it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, User:Scalhotrod, for you it is in spite of your not signing, wikipedia actually get users who enforce BLP in defiance of you, imagine that. Perhaps you would like to justify here as to why your favoured project, wikiporn, is being harrassed by our BLP policy and why BLP should not be enforced on porn articles when a consensus of porn editors deems that it should not be enforced, proposing topic bans for those who defy them by actually trying to enforce outr core policies. I say any cliques who try to disrupt our core policies should be disbanded. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Squeak. As for the rest, you seem to be off topic. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm, this is a user talk page not an article, so there is no topic to be on. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, its those fundamental misconceptions that make you so misunderstood and get Editors ticked off at you. But hey, it's what makes you, you... :) Have a nice day Squeaker. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Then let me suggest an experiment. Establish a new user name and start editing a controversial article. You may experience things differently. Deltahedron (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. Now I remember. I have had such an experience editing as an IP, before I registered. That is a problem. I think it happens in many topics that are tagged as "pseudoscience". That is definitely an issue, allowing minority viewpoints to get heard. But no, much of Wikipedia editing does not operate like a clique, that stuff happens on a subset of articles. It is a problem that may need the Foundation to step in with a solution, if only they didn't have such an aversion to editing content. If there was an easy answer, it would have been solved by now. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic sniping; let's get back to the subject

Maybe those who consider themselves "owners" should just ask other editors if they've "ever improved anything"? Or say "Who cares what the article says? Haven't you got anything better to do?" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC) That would not be constructive. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC) I think the reference is to the recent history of Talk:Moors murders. Deltahedron (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Which follows on from an editor who has written several featured articles being followed around by an editor who appears to be making some sort of point. It gets tedious after a while not to mention predictable. J3Mrs (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Oh, I see. indeed. Trout-slaps to a certain editor here. Actually, at this point, I think using whales should be considered. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Probably a mistake to try and use wales. Especially here. Sorry that he feels he has to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I admit I had a laugh when I read the reply to my comment in the collapsed section. I did not make that connection until I read the reply. Honest! Sometimes I'm slow about such things.

I did take the time to read Talk:Moors murders. What I found was excellent bold-revert-discuss behavior on the article itself, but overly lengthy and dramatic discussion to just go from mass murder → multiple murder → serial murder. It seems to me you got to the right place, but oh the ordeal to get there. And I'm not sure who to blame more for the problem. Can't y'all just work it out? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see blame as a useful dimension. But surely new editor's contributions can be as valuable as those from established editors. Even established editors were new once. People tend to thrive on encouragement (unless they have some kind of debilitating personality disorder, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

new editor's contributions can be as valuable as those from established editors Of course, does someone disagree? If a new editors contribution is rejected, it doesn't necessarily follow that it as rejected because the editor is new, it might be because there were issues with the contribution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As BigSteve says, the problem is more that an explanation for a revert may be lacking or even, of course, downright rude and derogatory. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly had an unpleasant series of responses from an editor who took the view that as an established author of some very long articles, he was exempt from any requirement to explain his actions. That editor is now banned for harassment (not of me). The experience was extremely disheartening. Deltahedron (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Deltahedron, I'm sorry to hear that someone took that view, but it sounds like the community did the right thing. Why did you bring it up, are you still disheartened? Should the community have responded more swiftly? I don't know the circumstances, but I am unsure whether you are bringing it up as an example of the community doing the right things, or as an unsolved problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the community did not do "the right thing", whatever that might have been – the editor in question was banned over quite another matter – so yes, I'm still disheartened. But I would rather use the experience constructively than replay it. My point is that refusal to engage in a constructive way is a toxic experience and one which is, in my opinion, likely to discourage other editors more than any other single factor. I may say that I still get that, although in a less extreme form, from a variety of other contributors, including one administrator and more than one member of WMF staff. Deltahedron (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Away

Post Wikimania I took a week's vacation with my family and I've been for the most part offline. I've glanced over some discussions (now archived) to which I really wanted to respond. I had anticipated being fully back to work tomorrow (Tuesday) but as it turns out I've been called away on a business trip for a few days and expect to have little access to the Internet for a few more days.

When I get back, I'll issue a call to please re-open any issues that I missed but also I'll dig through the archives and try to summarize and respond to some threads.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)