California Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

M Dillion indicated that there's no soucre for the student death in my original edit. It's true, I haven't yet been able to find that on-line. Most newspapers in the area seemed to have started archiving editions in 1995. I'll look into more research from my memory as a student (not in Barrington)- the student who died was named "Juan" and depending on who's telling the story he either fell, jumped, or was pushed off the roof the week after the "all-night riot" incident. I will look into sources.

• His name was Juan Mendoza from Taos, New Mexico. He was 19 or 20 years old and the fall/jump/push occurred sometimes in Spring, 1990. --AStanhope 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the cause of his fall was never definitively determined. the fact that it happened while hostile, armed security guards were patrolling the roof was considered very suspicious, because 1) he was not reported to be suicidal, but was happy at the time 2) his body was thought to be too far away from the building for an accidental fall, indicating instead that someone pushed him. there were no witnesses except guards, and they claimed never to have seen or heard him. their "saw nothing" claims were regarded suspiciously, however, since they spent all their time on the roof--they were stationed exclusively on the roof because barrington residents threw a washer and dryer off of it into beverly and sebastien's yard. (actually, someone threw a washing machine into her yard, and when she called to complain *then* they threw the dryer. guards were posted to make sure nothing else went off the roof, due to usca liability concerns. no one except them was permitted on the roof after that. that is even verifiable according to the original east bay express article, which is no longer available on-line but should perhaps be scanned.) to say that juan died in a fall from the roof which was never explained, while armed guards were patrolling it is NOT inaccurate or even biased, and newspaper accounts verify it. an outright accusation that they killed him is not verifiable, however. Cindery 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lived at Barrington from 1974-78, and was house president and Board rep. I'd really like to expand this article, since there is much more to the history, culture, and significance of Barrington Hall than the unfortunate events preceding its closing. I'm also going to see if the USCA will release some historical photographs into the public domain, GFDL, or CC free license. MCB 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good initiative! I think that Barrington Hall in its many aspects was alwas something special and the time there was formative and singular for many. Two of us have visited Andreas Floer there in the eighties and have never seen anything like it again. Erkabo 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a long article in the Daily Cal (Berkeley campus newspaper). Wish I remembered the date!

(begin comment by Mr. Atoz) Barrington Hall was not =the= headquarters of the University of California at Berkeley anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. I have no information about the 1970s. Several members of Barrington were very active in the Berkeley anti-apartheid movement from late 1984 to 1986. For example, Barrington members often brought large amounts of food to the student and community occupation of Sproul Plaza (then known at Biko Plaza by the anti-apartheid movement to honor the late South African student activist Steve Biko) MrAtoz 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Mr. Atoz[reply]

DanielCD, I'm not clear why you reverted all of User:Cindery's edits. While much was added which doesn't really belong, or was badly styled/written, some of what was added was worth keeping. I've edited some of what Cindery restored; please don't remove material without an explanation. Argyriou 03:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding acid rain/idiot flesh--not my original writing, and i would agree "fire on the mountain" not important enough/"memorable" too subjective. (also not my additon) but charming hostess, faun fables-- those are internationally recognized musical artists very much related to barrington (and they all have wiki pages already). reference to them in the musical history section should absolutely stay (and deletion without comment or research quite rude).

joshua clover appears to have been deleted with NO research regarding his notability, and should stay, as he is quite notable (and should have his own wiki page already).

same for micah garen. he was on every major tv news station during his captivity in iraq, and received a macdowell fellowship to write his book, which was published by simon and shuster.

re joanna--the line "internationally recognized sculpture conservator" was taken verbatim from her obituary in the dallas morning news.

joel rane might be iffy, but editing all of raymond pettibon's films is not completely UN-notable, as pettibon has a wiki page to link to, AND he did album covers for black flag, already mentioned in the article. i get the feeling danielcd has no clue about 80s punk culture, and is not a judge of what is relevant to that subtopic. (as a side note, there is a definite need for explansion of this article to include some of barrington's history that is not from the 80s, although that was the period about which most has been written in the news, etc. right now it's an article about "barrington in the 80s," not really barrington.)

FURTHERMORE, the link of the picture of the front of the building was already in this article, but the link was broken. so i replaced it with an updated link. deleting that is not just rude, it's vandalism. Cindery 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Looks like I made a mistake. Sorry. --DanielCD 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like you made more than one mistake--it looks like you just thoughtlessly reverted everything without looking at it. Cindery 07:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well be nasty about it. I realize that. --DanielCD 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"nasty" is a subjective and unfounded accusation--i could even say it's nasty of you to lob that accusation at me, man. if i had said, "looks like you made more than one mistake,<expletive>," that would have been nasty. meanwhile, i think your autocratic editing was more objectionable because you're not a newbie--or even a mere user--you're a wiki administrator. so in that august capacity, you're the last person who should go around deleting things from articles without discussion or research. it's reasonable to hold you to a higher standard. "whoops" is kinda lame, given that you already knew better.Cindery 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure where/if to put this. i think some mention of the slingshot would be ok--it's a well-known anarchist newspaper, it was started in barrington, and it still exists. (it evolved out of "the biko plaza news," during ant-apartheid protests. funnily enough, ex-barringtonian jeff kravitz, now a lawyer, who helped start both publications, is running for congress right now--california 5th district: sacramento. he has the green party's endorsement...and a website, where he lists involvement with slingshot/biko plaza news as accomplishments...) but anyway, maybe slingshot could be listed in "long tradition of social and political activism" etc?

i don't think ian was "famous" enough to be listed as notable--but his obituary in the slingshot gives interesting perspective/info on barrington. ("southside wingnut culture" and "unofficial Nudity Liberation Front.") maybe it could be listed in external references? like the allison roberts piece, it's a subjective account, but it was published:

http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0059022

Cindery 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget the unforgetable moment when Johnny Puke (chimsack) had his head smashed in by the hollow body guitar being used by the player for the Misfits, after he had thrown a beer bottle at the afore mentioned. Johnny Puke was an unpredicable type- last time I saw him, after his car accident in the back of Lonnie Hunolt's truck (rick from Exodus's bro) which left him brain damaged, he was feeding LSD to pidgeons on the UC Berkeley campus. To many of us Bekeley Heathen Scum, this was THE moment to remeber, and a moment of turning in Barrington's history as Meth and rebellion capitol of the world (and it was- don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you don't know, you better ask somebody) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:35, 7 November 2006 (talk • contribs) 84.107.144.216 (UTC)

(begin comment by Mr. Atoz) Barrington Hall was not =the= headquarters of the University of California at Berkeley anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. I have no information about the 1970s. Several members of Barrington were very active in the Berkeley anti-apartheid movement from late 1984 to 1986. For example, Barrington members often brought large amounts of food to the student and community occupation of Sproul Plaza (then known at Biko Plaza by the anti-apartheid movement to honor the late South African student activist Steve Biko) MrAtoz 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Mr. Atoz[reply]

Good point. The article should probably read, "a center of activity of the anti-apartheid movement". --MCB 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...some rewording seems ok. i mean, there was no official headquarters, anywhere. the "biko plaza news" was published in barrington, making it "headquarters-tastic" :-) maybe say, "center of activity, publisher of BPN..."? Cindery 04:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is not copyvio--the link is provided free on the barrington site (which is still busted at moment, i think). anyway, the film was made by mahlen morris and his brother, and they have always provided free access to it online. adam stanhope put it on youtube for easier access, because the site is down (but the link is still available through cache--it was you-tubed only because the cache was a long, clumsy link. Cindery 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please switch the links anyway. The YouTube page can't be linked, since it does not give licensing information. Dmcdevit·t 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly false. We link to bazillions of Web pages that do not have copyright information at all. This has never been, and still is not, any kind of problem. Copyright terrorism is unacceptable conduct. --FOo 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is in fact the 1% of links to YouTube that do NOT violate copyright. My brother, Clark Morris, and I made this film in 1988. Clark just redigitized to remove the audio. The credits on the wall at the end of the film were written on my bathroom wall. Is there any mechanism to assert our permission to link to this? Cause this situation is getting a bit silly. Mahlen 18 November 2006

If you're willing to license it under the GFDL, please upload it to Commons instead of Youtube. 67.117.130.181 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is ZERO requirement that he do so; he does NOT have to license it to the commons if he doesn't want to, or even if it would be a minor inconvenience. YouTube is NOT a prohibited medium. Cindery 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. You're simply wrong. --AStanhope 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I know what you mean, Astanhope, but maybe you should explain that point a little bit more. -- Melmoth1984 3:28, 2 December 2006
  • hehe - sorry, I was being silly. I think that User:Cindery spelled it out in perfect detail here:[1] --AStanhope 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Does anyone here read the most popular blog online? BoingBoing has a post entitled Fake "no-linking" copyright law breaks Wikipedia (Link) by Cory Doctorow which states: Some Wikipedia editors have now taken the position that all links to YouTube clips and any other material whose copyright status can't be validated (that is, practically every single page on the Internet) should be ripped out of Wikipedia. Since this imaginary rule against linking to alleged copyright violators is not on the books, either in the reality of international law or in Wiki policy, it is extremely impractical (If you wish for perfect compliance, OK then, please remove the Google and Yahoo search bars from ever showing on Wiki, and ALL links that go to Google or support Google, since its search results could have copyright violating link suggestions therein! Spooky! Do you seriously want to validate every web page link on the Wiki project for copyright? What about if pushed one step further, and the pages your links link to are violating? And so on, leaving scrutinizing pages for infinity or the ends of the internet, whichever comes first!) This is going to is already giving negative PR to Wikipedia, which I love and believe in as a great social and educational experiment that can teach us much about human nature. I have never edited very much or been vocal in discussions, but I feel I must stand up and say how absurd this restriction is. It is nothing less than asking for a complete restructuring of Wikipedia because of a flimsy, largely discredited argument about liability and the hand-wringing of overly cautious editors. Until serious debate is made with professional pro-Wiki copyright lawyers on the matter and Wiki policy clearly takes a position on this specific case, it should be left as-is. Remember: "Be Bold". Let us do so, and test the waters others fear to tread. --Natezomby 16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BoingBoing. To eliminate links to YouTube and other material with similar copyright status is more than lazy, it's irresponsible. Treating copyright like this would destroy real copyright and substitute a draconian system that favors big publishers.

Linking to copyrighted work is absolutely not a violation of copyright. No copyright holder could possibly get that to hold up in court. Fox threatening to sue is a deliberate attempt to intimidate responsible Internet providers, and by doing this they put themselves in the league of the current Administration equating criticism with aiding the enemy! Where have our principles gone off to? Are we all gonna roll over and play dead, in this, a so called free society? I should move to Russia! At least there, if you criticize the powers-that-be, they have the decency to try to murder you, rather than holding this vague, ominous threat of taking your money.Jmalin 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't play the "I am afraid to act" game. While I support copyright protection, we can't live in fear that the copyright status of a video or photograph has not been fully explored by another site's poster. If necessary we can use disclaimers when in doubt. FrankTownend 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that we should not remove the links. Wikipedia's primary goal is allow the free exchange of information. We didn't back down to China's call to censor it, we post information while the media self-censors it, we are dedicated to addressing topics the mainstream media never would, and even unpopular viewpoints in the name of neutrality. Until linking to copyrighted material is made illegal, which it will never practically be because it would severely cripple the web, Wikipedia should post it. I will go as far to say Wikipedia has a mandate to post it. Companies will pick on the little guy but when someone like Wikipedia comes into play, these companies think twice about their sleazy tactics. Wikipedia needs to stick to its principles! Sifaka ^talk 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments here may be talking at cross purposes. This discussion should not be about copyright law, but about Wikipedia policy. If a video on youtube is likely to breach copyright, at some point youtube will remove it, making a dead link on the page. Additionally, linking to copyright violations paints Wikipedia in a bad light. I'm not saying all youtube links should be removed, only those which are likely to cause the problems I outlined. --h2g2bob 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking to ANYTHING may one day result in a dead link. Editors are constantly scouring the Wikipedia for these types of problems. Dead links are removed all of the time. The possibility that a dead link may one day arise is absolutely NOT a reason to not link to YouTube or elsewhere. --AStanhope 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comments, (INAL but) it looks like this video is probably OK from a copyright point of view, so should be fine to include. I'd like to point out that lots of the links to youtube do link to copyrighted materials, and there are literally thousands of youtube links to check. It is hardly surprising if mistakes are made, so please assume good faith about edits. Don't forget that it's very easy to correct mistakes like this (in fact, it's corrected already). --h2g2bob 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between linking to copyrighted material (which draws attention to that material and its author) and linking to material that is in violation of copyright (which draws attention to material outside of the context of its authorship). The Fox lawsuit is related to the first (linking to copyrighted material) and the YouTube issue is the second (linking to material in violation of copyright).

The web exists on the principal that anyone should be allowed, in good faith, to direct viewers to content made available for public display. Without this fundamental idea, linking as we know it would collapse. A link to a YouTube video should not be treated differently than any other web video within Wikipedia policy, because all web video is governed by the same interplay of disparate copyright laws and governing organizations. YouTube is the same as all other hosting services in that it provides tools that are absolutely necessary for a set of legitimate content delivery services, and it is the burden of the person that uses those tools to observe copyright law when using them, just as a printer must not break copyright law with her press. YouTube clearly states in its Terms of Service(part 5C) that users may not utilize YouTube to display copyrighted material. Furthermore, YouTube has a method for reporting copyright infringements. As such, YouTube has a written policy of observing copyrights, should authors choose to invoke them.

Any assumption by Wikipedia that all YouTube content may be in infringement of copyright would observe the rights of video authors without observing the authors' privilege not to exercise them.

By the same token, any content posted on Wikipedia should meet the Wikipedia verifiability standards. If a statement about a specific piece of web video content, on YouTube or otherwise, can meet those verifiability standards, it should be acceptable. If the video itself is presented as encyclopedic content, it should also meet those verifiability standards. It's my guess that most articles fall in one of three categories when dealing with video:

1. There is a link to a video as a related resource, with no claims made about the video
2. There are claims about the video, but the video is not presented as encyclopedic content, in which case the claims should be verified
3. The video itself is presented as encyclopedic content, in which case the video content, claims about it, and the video's copyright standing should be verifiable

As a side note, Wikipedia policy should not be based on the expected availability of a link target because to do so would require two things:

• reciprocal communication between the linker and the linkee, which is not guaranteed by the standards(w3c) that define links
• that the original author of the content have an expectation of the lifetime of her content, which is not guaranteed by the methods that are used to generate content

Jbruder 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty. Even if 99% of YouTube material is against copyright, linking to it is not an offense (unless maybe if you know it is against copyright), and the video you may be linking to might not be against copyright. The argument you have used is the same as that used by those pro-discrimination. I think you need to look back, and consider exactly what it is that you are including in Wikipedia, ie a link, not the copyrighted material itself. Ian¹³/t 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(From here) However much I enjoy the first blog entry about something I've done, this isn't a fake issue. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain a few things about PR and publishing to you: 1) you were not notable enough to mention by name (hence not even "bad press is still press" to crow about) 2) uh, it was bad press. Note that no "controversy" was written about, in which you might have a stake as a player. Wikipedia was just dagged for witless jackassery; on par with Fox.

Cindery 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, wikipedia quite clearly falls under the fair use doctrine for just about everything. Wikipedia's articles are more touchy about copyright than is actually necessary. Kaiguy Dec. 3

Your claim that Wikipedia falls under US fair use doctrine for "just about everything" is patently untrue. There are a *lot* of people who think that anything can be copied willy-nilly for educational use, but they are incorrect. If you find a way to accomplish this, please tell my local school district so they can stop spending million on text books. :) However, you are right that Wikipedia's policy is more restrictive than strictly required by law. Not only does being more strict simplify enforcement and improve international compatibility, it is required by the desire to create free content which is part of Wikipedia's mission. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for more information. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks, this is really nothing new. If the content on Youtube was released there by its copyright holders we should, generally, delink it because of our long standing practice to avoid being a link gallery and to encourage people to upload free content here. If the content was submitted to youtube without the authorization of its copyright holders, then it's a violation.. and we have had a long standing practice of removing links to copyright violations. The Wikimedia foundation has a mission of increasing the amount of freely available content in the world, and on Wikipedia we've found that linking material creates a general discouragement against the creation of new completely-free material. Obviously, we should link sources.. but youtube is not a good source and I don't see anyone arguing that it is a good source. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can... sometimes... be a good source. Not most of the time, but sometimes. (For example, a notable political commercial and the counter commercial were both uploaded to YouTube by thier respective campaigns. Since it's official, copyright and reliability concerns are satisfied.)

Alot of people have missunderstood the mission with what we are doing here. The goal isn't to remove all YT links. The goal is to remove the vast majority that fail the rules outlined in WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:C, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:EL. Some clearly don't. I could provide a dozen examples.... but I've removed 500 that do. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to copyright material is not the same as placing copyright material within Wikipedia. According to WP:COPY, It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.

The copyright policy goes on to say If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. That is not the case for the particular YouTube video being discussed. Argyriou (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point of JS's comment. He mentioned that there are other rules for placing links on Wikipedia, not just copyright.

While Wikipedia policy forbids totally linking to copyright violations only; there are also guidelines which should be followed in most cases. The Manual of Style guideline for external links is Wikipedia:External Links. It says a lot about what should or should not be linked to. For example, it suggests video content should be avoided if there is a text replacement.

The rules for links are used to cite sources of information in the article may be slightly different. YouTube may sometimes be a reliable source for doing this, but may also cause problems if the content is ever removed from YouTube.

For free content media, please consider using Wikimedia Commons (link) rather than YouTube.

--h2g2bob 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issue being argued about here is not free-content media. It's a copyrighted piece of work which serves as an illustration of some of the points made in this article. Linking to it is perfectly acceptable, but posting it on Wikimedia Commons is probably not legal, just as if the content were a photo in the SF Bay Guardian. It's being given away for free, but it is copyright, and thus permission for Wikipedia to give it away for free must be obtained from the copyright holder.

The specific issue is not whether it is acceptable to link to the video in general, but whether it is acceptable to link to the copy of the video posted on YouTube, because many videos posted to YouTube are infringing copyright, and it's not acceptable to knowingly link to infringing content.

And, as User:Astanhope has pointed out above, there is always a risk of the link going dead, no matter where it is. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No. --AStanhope 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the link (assuming it qualifies as a reliable source - and if not it still might be a good external link). It was uploaded by the creator(s) with as much proof as we require for uploading self-made media. Unless any of the murals have a copyright notice, they are not copyrighted, since the video was shot in 1988, and copyright notices were mandatory for copyright in the U.S. until 1989. --NE2 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the above arguments, I have removed the links to the clip as it contains music that is copyrighted - from The Matrix. Also note that with a site that users can post any video on, there has to be some form of evidence that the video copyright is actually owned by the uploader - which this video does not do. Stating that there is no evidence that it is copyright is looking at it from the wrong end.

The link should not be reinserted unless suitable evidence can be provided showing that it a) has permission to use the soundtrack, and b) the uploader is indeed the copyright owner.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a user above quotes Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. from our copyright policy. This line states that we should not link to a site if it contains copyright infringements. I think this is quite sensible, as there has been cases brought against companies such as Kazaa, Napster etc... for 'linking' to copyright infringing material.

This isn't a link to copyright infringing material, even less so than (for example) the link to 4chan.org in 4chan is. --NE2 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my point - my point is that it says that linking to a site (not a particular clip/page) that infringes copyright is contributory infringement).-Localzuk^(talk) 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to an explanation of that? We don't have an article on contributory infringement, and the stuff I'm seeing with a Google search is about file sharing services - in other words, possibly referring to YouTube itself but not to links. In any case, your point applies to the link in 4chan, the link in Google Groups, and so on, even more so than it applies here. --NE2 19:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go a google define - the first result is relevant. Also, you should read up on the results of cases brought against Kazaa and Napster - both of which were found guilty of copyright infringement, despite the fact that neither held any files on their servers - they just provided links to them.

Can you link me to an explanation of how that's relevant here, for a home movie that the uploader claims to have made? --NE2 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There is no music, or any sound at all, in the clip. --NE2 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there must be something wrong with your computer as I am hearing one of the songs from The Matrix on this clip (have tried it on 2 computers now). Do not re-add it as it is 100% a copyright infringement!-Localzuk^(talk) 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It even fades out at the end, so it isn't an advert running at the same time or something.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this link? if that's the one - yes you need to look at your computer (is the volume switched on?) - it clearly plays music from the Matrix from the very start. --Charlesknight 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what's happening - there are two clips, one with and one without. I've changed the "external links" link to the one without. --NE2 19:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can anyone provide me with evidence to show that the uploader of the clip owns the copyright of that video? -Localzuk^(talk) 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide me with evidence to show that the uploader of Image:Supermarine Spitfire Mk XVI NR.jpg owns its copyright? --NE2 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is not that the uploader owns the copyright, but that the uploader has permission of the copyright holder. There's been significant discussion above; AStanhope has claimed that the copyright owner has given permission to make the video freely available. That's more evidence than most links have of being non-copyvio. Argyriou (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not live in a world of presumptions, Argyriou. AStanhope has claimed, can he produce evidence? Do you understand the legal consequences for facilitating copyright violations? Do you understand that the original copyright holder does a lot of work in creation of his work? He has a good amount of rights over what he creates. And the law of the land prevents us from using his work without his permission. I am a law student, and I know about the copyright laws. Please stop bickering on this topic, already. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I'd be interested to know about the legal consequences of linking to something where there's no particular reason to believe that it's a copyvio, but it turns out afterwards to be one. I know there are problems with knowingly contributing to infringement, but no one is suggesting we do that. No one has expressed the slightest belief that this Barrington video is a copyvio, but only that we maybe don't have solid proof that it isn't one. Where is the knowing infringement, or else where are the legal consequences for inadvertent infringent? Where does it say it's our job to gather documentation (maybe even backed up by DNA evidence, everyone knows that written documents can be forged) for every URL on the web before we can link to it? If you're saying we face legal consequences for inadvertent infringement, I'd particularly like to know how the DMCA's safe harbor provision figures into them assuming we're willing to remove disputed materials on receiving a takedown notice. If you're not saying there's such consequences, then what's the problem here? Thanks. 67.117.130.181 12:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its the other way around. Without any information we have to assume that the subject is copyrighted. That is why we do not upload images from websites not mentioning their licensing information. We need them to be explicitly free-licensed, creative-commons licensed, link them to the website of the original copyright holder or uploaded on Wikimedia Commons by the original copyright holder (once we have that provision). Any default on the policies and the copyright laws would then be treated like we treat other kinds of plagiarism. You can see how the fair use policy has been tightened by Jimbo in a similar manner. Also have a look at this thread – Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Update — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with a site such as YouTube which has a reputation of supplying copyrighted material we cannot simply accept that this one clip, with no evidence, is not copyrighted (or the copyright is owned by the uploader).-Localzuk^(talk) 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick - you are continually attempting to blur the distinction between the standards which apply to content hosted by Wikimedia and content linked to by Wikimedia. There are different standards. It is not reasonable to assume that content which lacks a copyright notice and which was made before the Berne Convention took effect in the U.S. is actually copyright. It is not reasonable to assume that content made by a (at the time) amateur video producer which has been uploaded to YouTube is in violation of the producer's copyright. Especially when it's been asserted above that the film does not violate copyright. Argyriou (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way out of this mess would be for the owner of the film to upload the file to wikimedia commons and release it under creative commons or similar - then we can link to it internally. The issue here is that youtube is a problematic site to link to and as such we can't simply assume a file is not copyrighted because an editor on this site says so.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the best way out of the mess here, but it's not the only way. I can understand not wanting to upload one's work to Wikimedia Commons, given the licensing rules, but I'd be much happier to see a statement on the YouTube page saying "this work has been uploaded (by|with the permission of) the author, asserting whatever restrictions on distribution they wish. At that point, Wikipedia is effectively immunized against any claim of contributory infringement. It appears that the creators aren't in a huge hurry to deal with these issues, though. Argyriou (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is just not reliable. Can you not make out the difference between New York Times and YouTube? We want to make an encyclopedia, not a directory of linkfarms. Argyriou, I think its time to file an RfC over YouTube link contents; as I see that is the best way to resolve the dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC filed Argyriou (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG--YT policy has been decided on policy pages--consensus is against you. any RFCs or Arbcom cases will be filed over your inappropriate behavior, Dcmcdevit's inappropriate behavior, etc. Cindery 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really silly.

The link to the video on YouTube will stay.

There are two main aspects of this discussion. One is linking to YouTube videos in general. That appears to be a fight for another day. The other aspect is linking to this video specifically. I wish to address that.

Both User:Cindery and I know Mahlen and his brother personally. We all lived together, in fact, at Barrington Hall in Berkeley, California - the subject of this article. Mahlen and his brother are aware of the desire here to link to the video. There was a question about the Matrix soundtrack - that question has been answered by Mahlen and his brother rebuilding the video sans music. There is, therefore, no copyright issue with this work.

The Wikipedia depends on experts on an article's topic to decide what information is relevant and not in a given article. Both Cindery and I are, by virture of our personal histories at Barrington Hall, "experts" on the topic. The video exists. It is an essential piece of the history of Barrington Hall. A link to the video belongs in this article.

I'd like to suggest that people who are super-paranoid about violating copyright laws focus their time and energy on articles that link to YouTube where the article's editors simply don't care. Cindery and I "care" and I'm not going to allow anyone to interfere with this aspect of the article because they have wrong and unhelpful understanding of copyright law and how it works in the real world. --AStanhope 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask Mahlen to put on the youtube page a statement saying "I am the copyright holder for this video", or "This video is authorized to be on YouTube by the copyright holder"? Having that information *at YouTube* should make this particular bit of copyright paranoia go away. Argyriou (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, from what i can discern from a quick read, the issue now is 1) mahlen and clark never applied for/wanted copyright 2) therefore they cannot prove they are the copyright holders? that puts them in the absurd condition of being forced to disprove a negative. in honor of the holidays, i will give anyone a million dollars if--after providing tangible proof that jesus is *not* the son of the flying spaghetti monster--they can then also provide tangible proof that mahlen could not be the copyright holder.

confidential to adam: are undergraduates dimmer now, or has the "war on terror"/the popularity of CSI turned everyone into a "shithouse lawyer"/wannabe facsist:-)? but seriously, for those of you who are "in law school," perhaps you should read up on the first amendment. and libel--the accusation that mahlen has made a false claim in writing to hold the rights to the video is tantamount to accusing him of lying, and he has every right to interpret that as defamatory. there is no "reasonable doubt" about this, (i.e., no one else has claimed copyright, there is no reason to believe mahlen is not mahlen or not the rights holder) and the only circumstance in law in which something must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is criminal court. what do we have here? a hypothetical civil case, in which the preponderance of the evidence--the standard of evidence for a civil case-- indicates that the video is owned by mahlen and clark, who have specifically indicated their permission for its inclusion on wikipedia. mahlen's a pretty mellow guy, though... and a grown-up. i imagine he will laugh at undergraduate-Fed attempts to libel him. (but i dunno who has seen barrington's friendster profile--remember the "mostly, i'm a lawyer. i have thousand law degrees or somthing, i forget"? this is definitely the *wrong* article to try to pick a fight about *anything* without good cause, but especially not something petty. it's probably worse than abortion or israel or george w. bush, because of the high number of lawyers crossed with, er, "onngh yannghism", which could perhaps result in sheer delight in the absurd...we did not unanimously elect <redacted> to represent us in the USCA for every semester he ran for nothing...anyhow, as part of the grown-up vote, which also happens to include--AHEM--all the regular editors of this article, i insist that the video is not only an invaluable enrichment to the article, but the single most valuable resource in the article, and should absolutely stay, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers--the forgotten population in most stupid arguments over nothing. Mahlen need do nothing more, and has every right to be free from libel and harassment. in my opinion, anyone who disagrees has "talents" which could best benefit Wikipedia elsewhere--fixing typos, posting vandal warnings directed at highschool students who have inserted the word "COCK!" randomly in articles, etc. otherwise, it may be time to ask ourselves, "what would Berkeley Bob do in this situation?" (he was the former head of both the CIA *and* the KGB, so, as i'm sure you can imagine, this could involve a lot of yelling and confusion, insults-that-go-over-your-head of a highly poetic-judicial nature, a sort of mayakovksy-on-LSD-in-1984 affair...:-) Cindery 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cock! --AStanhope 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock out with your cock out, brotherman! Cindery 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, the problem - at least that part of the problem where the deletionists have a case - is that (until recently) the file was hosted on AStanhope's YouTube account, and he's not the copyright holder, and that there is no statement saying that whoever is hosting it right now (Mahlen, I believe) says they do have the copyright. Copyright doesn't take much to assert - no big forms and no fees, anymore. So if the deletionists are reasonable people (I have my doubts about some of them), just saying, on YouTube, "I am the creator and copyright holder to this video" should be enough to put an end to this nonsense. Argyriou (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but look - I attributed the video to Mahlen and his brother in the notes associated with it in YouTube. Regardless, Mahlen's version is now the one in question. There should no longer be any need for discussion. --AStanhope 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not so much the attribution, but the assertion that you have permission. If you, for example, posted to a YouTube video taken from some local newscast, saying that the video was from Channel 5 isn't enough - the uploader on YouTube would have to say that he had permission from Channel 5 to upload it. Technically, right now, Mahlen doesn't say that the video is his, so someone who doesn't know Mahlen might assume that he uploaded it without permission. If Mahlen says, on YouTube, that he owns the rights to the video, or that he has permission from the copyright holder, or that the copyright holder has released the video into the public domain, then there's a presumption that the material is not in violation of copyright. Mahlen could also go through the process of releasing the video under the GFDL or a CC license, but that's not really necessary. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam is correct--on Nov 18th, I put Mahlen's author-authenticated version in. We did contact Mahlen privately, and request that he post on talkpage here/provide his own version, which he did. Nov 18th. Pls check the edit history/edit summary. this is *totally dead* issue. Cindery 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, sorry to yell, but, there is no legal requirement whatsoever that anyone submit their work to copyright. people are free, free, free to give things away free, free, free. information wants to be free, remember? Mahlen is old school info-wants-to-be-free. and, hello?--i dunno about you, but i would never have wasted a nanosecond on my 2,000+ edits if i didn't have the same ethics...this is not a deletionist v. inclusionist conflict. this is an altruistic v. petty powertrip conflict. and since Wikipedia is an altruistic project, petty powertrippers can blow me while i play air guitar, as far as i'm concerned. Cindery 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law is more complicated than that - Mahlen and Clark own copyright on that video automatically, unless they take some sort of steps to place it into the public domain or give it a free license. They don't have to enforce that copyright if they don't want to, but they have it anyway. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...i know. i was responding to the idea that they should have to file to prove it, when they are purposely not filing/didn't file to prove a sort of point. sorry for any misunderstanding/was not directed at you.

meanwhile, for those of you who who don't read the admin page, here's the most up-to-date current "consensus" (derisive snort) sir mimsy-whomever referred to in his edit summary ("current consensus at WP:ANI"): Cindery 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are being willfully obtuse if you believe that "(t)here is no project to remove YouTube links blindly." Editors like Sir Nicholas and others are taking the information you've posted, and removing every link to a YouTube page without checking either the talk pages of the affected articles or the videos being removed.

People like User:J.smith and User:Tom harrison are correct when they say that most YouTube links should be removed. But most is not all, and your project is encouraging people to remove all YouTube links, without any checking. Tom Harrison suggests that each YouTube link requires individual justification, but how is someone running AWB with the regexes you supply supposed to know that there's a talk page with 30k of discussion on why that particular YouTube link has been repeatedly justified?

Ok - I've just answered my own question. Will you, and the people who are part of your YouTube deletion project, honor notices like the one I've placed on Barrington Hall? I've placed it in a way that it's nearly impossible for an editor to miss. Note that I don't agree with Tom Harrison - I think the burden of checking should be on the deleter - but if people in the YouTube Deletion Project are willing to actually stop and notice that there is a history or justification behind a particular YouTube link, I'm willing to accept that it's up to the person linking to YouTube to justify and restore (once!) the link. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expect anyone to heed you once I've given you a warning for incivility and your response is to repeat the very same incivility, and then even come here to point it out. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopedia, not a disagreement over links. Stop it. Dmcdevit•t 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...you are way out of line talking to Argyriou that way. First of all, his vandal warning was clearly given in good faith. Bringing the issue here is precisely what he should have done, and also done in good faith, not "pointing out incivility." Moreover, you are not The Arbiter of civility (and I have personally noticed Argyriou to be more civil than I have noticed you to be). Last but not least, it is a gross failure to AGF to decide that you will ignore a reasonable request/refuse to engage in reasonable discussion "as an authority" because of something you have decided someone did in a previous conversation (i.e., if Argyriou had been blocked and returned, that would not be sufficient reason to render any reasonable edit he made "ignorable," now or in the future, as you are well aware.) The fact that the whole YT issue is something in which you are very subjectively over-enagaged makes this much worse, in my opinion. This is the second time I have observed you to be rude and threatening to someone over YT, and I believe that you may be so ill-equipped to objectively assess any situations in which YT is involved that you should recuse yourself from acting as anadmin with regards to YT disagreements. I may file a report. Cindery 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Cindery! Any chance, you think, that we could convince the Lord of the Flies people here to move to another island and leave us alone? --AStanhope 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, upon reviewing things which occurred during my wikibreak, it seems first of all that sticking up for NE2 is necessary. Pls see his/her talkpage. that really disgusts me--the discouragement of a neutral party from giving an opinion, by an admin who conceals heavy subjective investment. It also appears that--as NE2 points out--there was no discusssion by mimsy whomever and devit in the so-called "edit war"--it doesn't look like there was an edit war at all, or that there is anything to discuss. There was just a petty boring petty opportunistic "silent coup." There is--and has been since it was included--consensus that the link should be here. It would appear that the people who deleted it this time are people who 1)have never at any time been editors of this article or contributed to it in any way 2) are in the micro-committee which deleted the video in the first place on kneejerk source bias. They have declined to offer any reasoning or discussion for their actions, so unfortunately we can only speculate about why they did this. It seems that their likely motive is probably petty malice???? --they looked like jackasses/soundly LOST all the arguments on all policy pages regarding YT source bias, which were largely started by me after they attacked the link on this page ??? Bearing some grudge, and noticing that I was on wikibreak, they returned to delete the YT link here??? If so, nobody likes a sore loser, guys!--go find those typos and "COCKS!" if you're looking for consolation prizes :-)

I suppose we should just request unprotection on the grounds that we have consensus/page should never have been protected in the first place. (And I would back up an RFC on Dmcevit for his actions here, and towards NE2 and Argyiou, to prevent further shenanigans from the YT Crew/out of a general sense of justice about how Dmcdevit has treated people. Though it seems like a bummer thing to have to do. Kids!--I can't tell you how sad it makes me that you are not out partying and trying to spring Gitmo prisoners at the same time! That you have chosen to waste your youth...deleting unproblemmatic You Tube links instead! It's sort of tragic...? Cindery 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...mimsy-whomever was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall Cindery 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Nearly Headless Nick and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington are the same person, so to say they are close allies is an understatement. If you click on Nearly Headless Nick's signature above, it takes you to Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's home page. The names are based on a character from Harry Potter. Girondin 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Now can we get back to more self-congratulatory reminiscenses about how great Barrington Hall was, and how lame the youth of today are?[reply]

...it doesn't really change anything/make a difference if NHN is a sockpuppetesque rather than meatpuppetesque. Cindery 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetesque? meatpuppetesque? I don't understand. They are A SINGLE ACCOUNT. It's just that the sig says "Nearly Headless Nick", while the account is at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. There's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name, even though it points back to your account.

"there's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name" is SOCKPUPPETESQUE, derrrrr. And again, it changes not at all any substantive element of mimsy whomever's bad faith editing. Did you have a point? Cindery 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ok, calm down - No need to call anyone names now is there -- Tawker 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "names," but there is a DEFINITE need to point out lying, bullying, bad faith, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Lennon. See also current EL talkpage/RFC.

Cindery 08:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Has anyone ever considered that AGF is a two-way street? It is absolutely correct to insist that we do not link to rich media which violates copyright (contributory infringement, as it's known, which has been identified as a legal and ethical problem for the project regardless of what anybody here might assert), and the entire dispute could have been settled right at the outset by calmly stating the evidence that the work is (unlike very many YouTubes) not a copyright infringement. Instead I see a lot of arm-waving and hysterical assertions of "copyright terrorism" which really does not help. So: after the holidays, how about everybody takes a dose of calm and move on? Guy (Help!) 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There were repeated assertions, and heated discussions (above) regarding the propriety of the link. Sometime after those discussions died down, with the link having been restored, the same user came through and deleted it again, without having bothered to check the talk page or provide any rationale for the deletion, beyond a mechanical insistence that all YouTube links are invalid. That is why I have assumed that the particular user was not acting in good faith. Argyriou (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 5 days and a holiday weekend; I've unprotected the article in the hope cooler heads will now prevail and the edit war will not resume. If it does, it can be protected again. Reading through the comments here, I'm hoping there's a consensus on the specific issue of the YouTube link. --MCB 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article is in dire need of citations.

Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choose your battles. --AStanhope 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am assuming this is again about the YouTube issue) Look, its just not worth arguing; it will only cause more bad-blood between various editors. Instead this should go for Arbitration, where they will deal (issue by issue) with the copyright issues as well as the reliable issues. Common sense and the law will prevail. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I long ago stopped caring about the YouTube link here. I actually slightly lean towards supporting it's inclusion... Most of my copyright concerns are alleviated and it's relevant to the article. My main concern with the article now is it's current failure to satisfy WP:V (and possible violations of NOR). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pick you battles, dude. Pick your battles. :] — Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just formatting--there are references instead of inline citations. I will make the conversion when I have time if consensus is that it's necessary/a good idea, etc. There is a great deal more in the curent refs--especially from Krista Gaspar's "Counterculture's Last Stand" --that should probably be incorporated into the article. Also, many more Bancroft library refs. Article is definitely "in progress," like most Wiki articles.-Cindery 21:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations are pretty much the standard here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to provide (Book, Page) type citations, I'll be more then happy to convert them into more complete {{cite book}} citations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more elegant and useful to leave the Green Book as a general ref, instead of citing it 30 times in the article.-Cindery 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know "where the bodies are buried" on the Lemmings--way before my time. They were all friends with Jones, Cohen, Clay etc., and they did come back to visit--that's how it's common knowledge that the mural of cars-off-cliff was one of Lemmings' album covers. This refers to the band, under "Code of the West": http://us1.fakescience.com/scientificjournal.php, and is good jumping off place for further research. They were a significant Berkeley band of the late 70s/early 80s. If the album cover is not online somewhere, someone who has it on vinyl should take a picture of it.-Cindery 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• point of clarification: the mural is in the You Tube film, but the film doesn't specify that it's an exact-replica painting of the Lemmings album cover. A photo of the album cover would confirm that they are the same, or a note could be added to the film.-Cindery 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were popular in 1980, apparently. Should perhaps be mentioned in article, as they have a Wiki article. You can buy the "handbill" for only $43.00! That's a pretty good 27-year appreciation in value for something that looks like it cost one tenth of a cent? :-)[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They played Barrington, but there are no refs. If you miraculousy somehow preserved *your* "handbill," (and are not selling it on ebay for $43...) scan it and email it to me or Mahlen.-Cindery 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the college paper would have a reference to it? If you (or anyone who happens to wonder by) has access to the archives they could look it up and get the information for a proper citation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A call for ephemera is a call to those who were there, and might have some. If there are an extant handbills etc., they would not be references. They would be scannable image sources. There are many in the Bancroft library, but not for Negativland or the Jesus and Mary Chain.-Cindery 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bonus sugar" is clearly marked as "the winter palace" of Jane Dark, with a link to www.janedark.com. It doesn't matter when it was published, if it's a reliable source. (A documentary about Barrington, for example, could be made in 2011, and refer to events which occurred in 1960.) If you don't know who Jane Dark is, try Google.-Cindery 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections redundant due to simultaneous posting... combining ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A blog started today being used as a reference? Err... surely it fails as a reliable source... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bonus sugar" sure claims to be connected to Jane Dark but I have not been able to find any kind of confirmation of that at janedark.com. Furthermore, it seems to me that you either A. posted the information yourself or B. solicited the posting of the information. Either way, it's inappropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep trying--the more you learn about the subject, the more you will be able to contribute to the article. Start with the notable Barrington residents, by reading the articles about them.-Cindery 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an informal request for comment at WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the RS discussion is here:[3]-Cindery 06:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats redundent. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) but it's not clear to readers, because you noted WP:RS, without specifiying that you were also linking to the discussion.-Cindery 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what reason do we have to believe that the "bonussugar" blog is genuine? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, "bonus sugar" is clearly marked by the author as "the winter palace" of Jane Dark@ www.janedark.com.-Cindery 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And I could create a blog and clearly mark it as yet another site of Jane Dark and mention www.janedark.com. That doesn't give us any verification. Now if janedark.com linked the other way to the bonus sugar blog, that would mean something. (and to respond to your edit summary, nobody is commenting on the number of blogs anyone has, just that we can confirm who the real author is) --Milo H Minderbinder 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have the resources to determine that anyone is or isn't the author of their own blog. We can only weight the evidence, and make reasonable assumptions. Since the blog is identified by Jane, and there are no compaints from Jane, the reasonable assumption is that it is Jane's blog.-Cindery 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that WP shouldn't try and determine things like that. Which is why sources like that shouldn't be used if they are doubtful. Go read WP:RS, particularly the part about self publishing. The blog is not identified by Jane, it claims to be by Jane but provides nothing that couldn't be provided easily by an imposter. And we don't even know that Jane is aware of the other blog, after all it just was created what, yesterday? "No complaints" is hardly evidence, and the reasonable assumption is that we simply don't know and therefore we shouldn't use it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can see the difficulty of a website vouching for it's own credibility... Cindery, can you get Jane to create a link from janedark.com to bonus sugar please? That would go along way to resolving the issue of reliability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, Wikipedia does not have the resources to verify any external websites; we can only make reasonable assumptions. What is the definition of a "link" from "Sugarhigh!" to "bonus sugar" ? Wouldn't Sugarhigh! then be "a website vouching for its own credibility"? I have yet to see any credible reason to believe that "bonus sugar" is not "the winter palace" of "Sugarhigh!."-Cindery 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, let's say I hypothetically created another website that claimed to be written by Jane Dark and mentioned janedark.com. I assume you wouldn't see any credible reason to believe that it wasn't real and thus would insist on linking it? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the points that 1)Wikipedia cannot verify that anyone is the author of their blog 2) For the purpose of making assumptions, there is reason to believe that Jane's blog is Jane's blog, but no reason presented not to do so.-Cindery 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely am addressing those points, I'm not sure if you're unable to understand them or are intentionally ignoring them. 1) I agree this is absolutely true - and this is exactly why WP recommends not using blogs as sources, except in exceptional circumstances (such as when a blog is hosted on or linked from an official website, which does verify the authorship of the blog). And 2) There is NO reason to believe it is really his/her blog since anyone could create a blog and put the name of someone notable on it. With potential RS, the burden of proof is on the source (as RS says, have you read it?) - if we have no way of knowing if it's legit, it's not a reliable source. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would establish the connection. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Reasonable assumption for connection is already established by the title and author of the blog, and the clear notice that it is "the winter palace" of www.janedark.com. Wikipedia does not have the means to "establish" authorship of blogs, it can only make reasonable assumptions. What did you say your grounds for "reasonable doubt" was, again?-Cindery 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could make a blog and put his name on it along with the "winter palace" claim. In the case of verifiability, WP does not make assumptions - if assumptions need to be made, it's not an acceptable source. Have you actually read WP:RS? It seems you're under the impression that anythiing can be used as a source, as long as it has the name of someone you consider an expert slapped on it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a regular contributor to the New York Times who writes an established blog--noted by the Academy of American Poets-- cannot maintain an offshoot of the blog? -Cindery 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blog cannot be verified as being owned by the person - this has to be done externally by another reliable source (such as another site which is already verified as by that person or a news publication). To just go at face value and say 'yes this is the site of X because it says it is' is naive and against our verifiability policy. Note that blogs in general are discouraged from being used as sources - unless they have a very good reason to be linked, and in the case of being a self published blog,100% guarenteed that they are the work of that person. Otherwise we can open the project up to libel claims (as someone running a fake blog could state something to libel that person and then we may repeat it as fact).-Localzuk^(talk) 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to "100% guarantee" that anyone's blog is anyone's blog; blogs of established writers are an exception to blogs; the blog in question, "Sugarhigh!" is an established blog by an established writer. There's no reason to believe that "bonus sugar" isn't a subpage of "Sugarhigh!" (If you want my opinion, I think "Sugarhigh!" was archived at the end of 2006, and is on hiatus. Hence, the "winter palace." I think that the search term "1989," on the left at "Sugarhigh!" might be hyperlinked when the 2007 entries officially begin...)-Cindery 22:10, 16 January 2007 (

UTC)

If you don't know 100%, then it's not an acceptable source. If that means that blogs should never be used as sources, then so be it. Again, you put the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. There is no reason to believe that "bonus sugar" is a subpage of sugarhigh. If the only thing required to use a webpage as a source was for it to self assert, WP could be overrun with hoaxes, rumors, and other bogus info. You never addressed my earlier question, if I created a bogus webpage that claimed to be written by Jane Dark, using your logic, wouldn't you have to assume it was real? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is - an interview with the person would be 100% proof... but anyway, near enough 100% proof is what I meant. All of your other reasons are simply your opinion and without a source to back it all up the blog is still not a reliable source.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should both read the Foundation comments at WP:EL, regarding any claims Wikipedia can make to establish anything about external sites. "Exernal sites" includes all references, as Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Each link is evaluated case by case. Nothing can be proved or disproved %1, let alone %100--only assumptions can be made, based on available evidence. What again, did you say is the grounds to doubt that "bonus sugar" is published by Jane Dark?-Cindery 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Book--the main ref for the article--notes that the decison to close Barrington happened in 1989, but that Barrington was not actually closed until March, 1990. (Meaning: people were living there in until March 1990.) I think that should be clear in the article, but perhaps both dates can be used, specifying that one was year of decision to close, the other the year or actual closure? -Cindery 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have page numbers for that? I can add {{cite book}} tags for it no problem if you have page numbers... and it should keep people from modifying it further. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is visible in the film, and cited at the first mention of the graffito in the article. (I do agree that "classic" is uncited and not necessary.)-Cindery 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that ones ok. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're all ok, and anyone who recalls other significant/particularly memorable graffiti can email it to me to pass on to Jane Dark, or email it to Jane Dark directly. It will be added to bonus sugar, if it was in fact a significant/particularly memorable graffito. Jane is an expert in the subject, an established writer, and a reliable source, so Jane will be the judge of that.-Cindery 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I guess you have no qualms about filling articles with original research as well? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are some un-ethical publicists who just try get whatever they want into the press, without regard for accuracy, and succeed a great deal of the time. In my personal experience of journalists, Jayson Blair is the tip of the iceberg. :-) But I, personally have a code of ethics. I believe that Jane does, too.-Cindery 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If others are doing it, that still doesn't make it OK for you to do it. You are not exempt from COI or NOR. Do you really not see the problem with asking an "expert" to publish information just so you can keep it in a WP article?--Milo H Minderbinder 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're completely missing two points:

• 1) COI does not apply. Jane Dark is an "expert": note that among J.Smith's original objections to Jane Dark was that Jane was not an expert on "70s/80s Berkeley graffiti." Any source who verified the graffiti would have to have personally seen it, photographs of it, or interviewed someone who had seen it. If they personally saw it, they are an "expert." COI, moreover, refers to commercial interest in a subject. As the subject was a nonprofit housing cooperative which is now defunct, there is no possible commercial interest.
• 2) "original research" can be unverifiable because it is false, or it can be unverifiable merely because it is not yet unsourced. -Cindery 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Original research is a big no-no. I wasn't going to suggest a WP:COI violation because I don't think the motivation for the link was to promote the blog.

If we can somehow establish that this blog is legit then I'd be willing to accept it for the sake of verifying the trivial claim that the graffie existed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you are giving info to a website for publication, and then using that published info as a source, you're basically citing yourself, which is a clear COI. Assuming the new blog is legit, is it a coincidence that it was published now, or did you contact him and ask him to publish it? COI has nothing to do with whether a person is an expert or not, it's simply about whether the info/link is being added to WP by the same person who created the source. 2) I agree with both of these. But OR is still unacceptable in either case. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The line between "original research" and "research" is publication. "Orginal research" does not equal "unverifiable." Primary sources are transformed every second into secondary sources at an astonishing rate by an astonishing number of people: it's called the publishing industry. That is why we have any secondary sources at all, and everything is not "original research." :-)-Cindery 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Milo re COI: read COI. Baarinton is not a corporation, doesn't have any blood relatives, etc. I think the argument you want to make is WP:AUTO. You would have to argue that someone with knowledge of a subject who publishes information about it is violating WP:AUTO, when cited by someone else.-Cindery 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources which meet WP:RS for the graffiti which Cindery reports, though it might take a little work to find them, as they're mostly on paper, not online. I'll spend a little time digging into my records this weekend; and failing that, I'll contact George Proper, who probably does have something citable. (Incidentally, I've seen most of the graffiti which Cindery reports, back when I lived in the USCA.) Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that George O.Proper is a reliable source on the grounds that "if you remember the 60s, you weren't there." :-)-Cindery 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I even care about the COI issue here. If the source is legit, I don't much care if Cindery is Jane Dark or a good friend.

Argyriou, I look forward to having those {{fact}} tags rendered unnecessary. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact tags are already unnecessary; Jane Dark is a reliable source. Speculating about my identity is a big no-no, but no, I am not Jane Dark. (Unless we're married, which would make us one person under law...) But I invite you also not to speculate on the nature of our relationship, beyond what I choose to disclose, as it is expressly prohibted.-Cindery 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't care. Should I clarify my lack of caring further? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• note: you shouldn't be commenting on contributors at all, let alone speculating about whom they might be, as all editors have a right to anonymity. If you don't care about that, perhaps you should report yourself to ANI?-Cindery 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need to resort to strawmen again? I was saying I don't care about your relationship with Jane Dark. I wasn't the one who brought up WP:COI and I was recommending we drop the WP:COI line of inquiry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to calm down. You clearly said "I don't much care if Cindery is Jane Dark or a good friend," which is commenting on a contributor, and in a way which doesn't respect all editor's right to anonymity.-Cindery 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While JD may be a reliable source, that blog isn't until we know it's written by him/her. The tags stay until the authorship of the blog is confirmed or another source is found. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're convincing anyone at RS about your new amendment to RS regarding authorship and identity. While that's being discussed, there is no reason to presume that JD's blog is not JD's blog.-Cindery 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can assume it's not until the connection is provided otherwise. The burden of evidence is not on us Cindery. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict)You have things backwards here - the onus of proof is on you to show that it is indeed JD's blog. Otherwise I can create a blog and say 'that is Tony Blair's personal blog' and you wouldn't be able to say 'no it isn't there isn't any proof'. This is part of our policies. Please stop this pointless argument - you are in the wrong.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) That is clearly not the consensus at RS. [4] Cindery 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't? That we require sources to be reliable? Why can't you understand our policies (Note: WP:V is a policy and is much more strict that WP:RS)? Why can't you understand that if a site has no way of checking its authenticity then it is simply not reliable and the information is not verifiable. We don't accept blogs on this site as a general rule so arguing for the inclusion of this one without any evidence to support it being by the person you claim it to be by is just counter-intuitive!

You will find also that the argument on WP:RS is actually against you Cindery - the majority of the people there either agree with the proposed addition or think it is unnecessary instruction creep as it it is quite well defined already via that page and our verifiability policy. I am against the idea of such verbose policies - as common sense should prevail really but seems not to quite often! (Remember, this site is an encyclopedia edited by an anonymous set of editors who could be adding information by anyone about anything and without a decent source to back it up the information is next to useless).-Localzuk^(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JD is not not just a "decent" source, he's an amazing source. Meanwhile, it seems talk of this has begun to spread, and now Robert Anasi has commented! I wonder who will be next? : [5]-Cindery 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to think of a better example of why blogs are generally considered unreliable sources. First, an uncited edit is made and citations are requested; subsequently a couple of blog postings pop up which list nearly or exactly the information in question? The ex post facto appearance of the "sources", regardless of whether the posts were solicited by Cindery, underscores the fact that these are inherently unreliable sources for Wikipedia, and that citing them violates both the letter and spirit of WP:V. If photos are forthcoming, as the livejournal page says, why not just wait till they're online? Or wait for Argyriou to dig up the more reliable sources he's mentioned? Then I doubt anyone will have a major problem with it. Doesn't that seem like the most reasonable, conflict-defusing way to handle the situation? MastCell 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]