Richard Arthur Norton copyright cleanup

[Renée Bagslint]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (T-C-L) was found guilty of numerous copyright violations and a list of 6539 articles needing to be checked was compiled and published in November 2011. Some six years later, less than a third of these have been checked, so at the current rate of progress, the cleanup will be complete around the year 2030. We observe that Wikipedia has no effective process for preventing major copyright violations being inserted, and no effective process for cleaning them up afterwards.

[mynameisnotdave]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (T-C-L) was found guilty of numerous copyright violations and a list of 6539 articles needing to be checked was compiled and published in November 2011. Some six years later, less than a third of these have been checked, so at the current rate of progress, the cleanup will be complete around the year 2030. We observe that Wikipedia has no effective process for preventing major copyright violations being inserted, and no effective process for cleaning them up afterwards.

The first thing that New Page Patrollers should be doing is using Earwig to find a copyvio, with the obvious flaw -- if it is not an online then we cannot tell.

And even then, I'll readily admit that when doing NPP I forget to check every page. AfC as well. And I bet we all do that.

For articles that have escaped NPP with copyvio problems, it ends up being a matter of randomly detecting it. I know a copyvio when I see one, but subtle ones are obviously hard to root out.

So, yeah, you're quite right. Kudos to people like Diannaa (T-C-L) though, who strive to ensure that such is not the case.

[Randy from Boise]

The case against Norton was trumped up. His bad editing came back c. 2005-2008 when bad editing at WP was pervasive and the Contributor Copyright Investigation, using an all-or-nothing approach rather than targeted cleanup of likely problematic editing absolutely does not scale for someone as prolific as he.

In fact, CCI has essentially sunk under the weight of its own idiotic structure.

Norton has been harassed time and time again over sins of the past. He's not willing to spend a year of his life cleaning up three years of editing, or whatever, so the CCI powers that be have imposed a brain dead sanction against him, prohibiting him from starting new pages, even though his risk of recidivism is infinitesimal, given the fact that he has enemies looking over his shoulder at every turn.

In fact, this entire thread, based on the flawed assumption that Norton today is what he was 10 years ago in terms of, say, grabbing content from a church website and pasting it in — which he actually did back in the day, naughty, naughty — does nothing but pile on further.

Norton is not a great writer, but he's a solid contributor of sourced content that has filled in massively along the edges of WP, mostly with content from the New York Times.

I dare you to show me a single problematic edit to mainspace from the past five years outside of his ridiculous glossed quotes (that are a legitimate field in the reference template that he uses)... There are none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

RfB

[Renée Bagslint]

I dare you to show me a single problematic edit to mainspace from the past five years outside of his ridiculous glossed quotes (that are a legitimate field in the reference template that he uses)... There are none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Very likely, and very irrelevant. The point at issue is whether Wikipedia has an effective mechanism for checking new articles for copyright, and clearing up the backlog of old articles that they, not I, have called into question. Wikipedia, it is worth remembering, purports to be an encyclopaedia, written according to certain principles, delivering knowledge to readers across the world. It is comprehensively failing to do that. Whether one particular contributor, who has previously caused them several thousand mainly unresolved problems in the past, is or is not currently adding to the backlog of those unresolved problems, is hardly an important issue here, and even it were established that he is currently not causing them problems, that would not in any way diminish that backlog.

[CrowsNest]

I dare you to show me a single problematic edit

He cut and pasted content from diff to diff, without making the required notifications as per here.

Someone with his history cannot conceivably say they're not aware of this sort of thing, or think they can get away with it because they sort of kinda did leave a trail. This, to me, is clear evidence he either doesn't understand or simply doesn't respect copyright. And on that basis, with his history, why wouldn't alarm bells be ringing as he then proceeds to add text to that article, cited to offline sources?

I didn't even have to go looking for this edit btw, it is the one cited in the report that he broke his ban on new page creations. In that report, User:Justletterseandnumhers seems to have found it just as easy to find examples of problematic edits, all demonstrating issues surrounding his understanding of copyright.

[CrowsNest]

Norton is not a great writer, but he's a solid contributor of sourced content.

This is the heart of the issue. Good encyclopedia writers understand copyright implicitly, it's a necessary part of the job. They don't need to be told the difference between scraping and dumping and summarising in your own words, nor be lectured endlessly about the importance of attribution.

[Randy from Boise]

Norton is not a great writer, but he's a solid contributor of sourced content.

This is the heart of the issue. Good encyclopedia writers understand copyright implicitly, it's a necessary part of the job. They don't need to be told the difference between scraping and dumping and summarising in your own words, nor be lectured endlessly about the importance of attribution.

He understands it, he just didn't really give a shit back in Wikipedia's "Wild West Days." Otherwise, he'd be long gone by now, adding tens of thousands more edits with an enemies list as long as your arm...

Sourcing standards have tightened and casual, lazy plagiarism is no longer winked at.

RfB

[Renée Bagslint]

Sourcing standards have tightened and casual, lazy plagiarism is no longer winked at.

I find it hard to see why you think that, when the pace at which this "casual, lazy plagiarism", not to mention outright copyright violation, is handled says that it is in fact being tolerated at this very moment, and will apparently be tolerated on this so-called encyclopaedia until the decade after next.

[Kingsindian]

I dare you to show me a single problematic edit

He cut and pasted content from diff to diff, without making the required notifications as per here.

Someone with his history cannot conceivably say they're not aware of this sort of thing, or think they can get away with it because they sort of kinda did leave a trail. This, to me, is clear evidence he either doesn't understand or simply doesn't respect copyright. And on that basis, with his history, why wouldn't alarm bells be ringing as he then proceeds to add text to that article, cited to offline sources?

I didn't even have to go looking for this edit btw, it is the one cited in the report that he broke his ban on new page creations. In that report, User:Justletterseandnumhers seems to have found it just as easy to find examples of problematic edits, all demonstrating issues surrounding his understanding of copyright.

The relevant quote from the policy is this:

Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary.

RAN started a "Sheriffs" section on the page (the combined diff is this). He then moved the section to its own page in this diff. He also noted what he was doing in the edit summary on one page, but didn't do it on the other (nor was he required to, as far as I understand).

Anyway, he was sanctioned for creating new articles, not violating copyright. The old copyvio case is just a stick to beat him with.

[Kumioko]

To be honest I used to reuse some of the text I created for Medal of Honor recipient articles in multiple articles to ensure consistency. If you look at a lot of the lists especially, it gives the same description of the Medal of Honor.

[Renée Bagslint]

Anyway, he was sanctioned for creating new articles, not violating copyright. The old copyvio case is just a stick to beat him with.

So your take on this is that it is purely a mis-handled conduct issue? It's not a problem that there are apparently thousands of articles on Wikipedia which are copyright violations which it will take decades to clean up? That's your idea of what an encyclopaedia ought to look like?

[Kumioko]

Anyway, he was sanctioned for creating new articles, not violating copyright. The old copyvio case is just a stick to beat him with.

So your take on this is that it is purely a mis-handled conduct issue? It's not a problem that there are apparently thousands of articles on Wikipedia which are copyright violations which it will take decades to clean up? That's your idea of what an encyclopaedia ought to look like?

It's really just another excuse for the admins to target a regular editor who is contributing positively to justify their own existence. Shameful!

[CrowsNest]

I dare you to show me a single problematic edit

He cut and pasted content from diff to diff, without making the required notifications as per here.

Someone with his history cannot conceivably say they're not aware of this sort of thing, or think they can get away with it because they sort of kinda did leave a trail. This, to me, is clear evidence he either doesn't understand or simply doesn't respect copyright. And on that basis, with his history, why wouldn't alarm bells be ringing as he then proceeds to add text to that article, cited to offline sources?

I didn't even have to go looking for this edit btw, it is the one cited in the report that he broke his ban on new page creations. In that report, User:Justletterseandnumhers seems to have found it just as easy to find examples of problematic edits, all demonstrating issues surrounding his understanding of copyright.

The relevant quote from the policy is this:

Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary.

RAN started a "Sheriffs" section on the page (the combined diff is this). He then moved the section to its own page in this diff. He also noted what he was doing in the edit summary on one page, but didn't do it on the other (nor was he required to, as far as I understand).

Anyway, he was sanctioned for creating new articles, not violating copyright. The old copyvio case is just a stick to beat him with.

You have definitely got the pages the wrong way around (you attribute at the new page, as a minimum). Plus you don't explain why you're pointing out he doesn't need to attribute in this case, while also claiming he sort of has. Plus you ignored the fact that the easiest way for anyone to tell he's merely copying his own text, is for him to state that. Plus you ignored the fact there are other examples - are they all cases of self-copying? Plus you ignored the fact that the reason he is banned from creating pages, is to stop him introducing his own text as new article, if that text hasn't been reviewed.

Other than that, well done. I'm sure everyone is reassured now.

[Kingsindian]

You quoted a diff as violating a specific policy (about copying within Wikipedia). It didn't. Maybe he has done many bad things, but this wasn't one.

The rest is noise.

[CrowsNest]

Norton is not a great writer, but he's a solid contributor of sourced content.

This is the heart of the issue. Good encyclopedia writers understand copyright implicitly, it's a necessary part of the job. They don't need to be told the difference between scraping and dumping and summarising in your own words, nor be lectured endlessly about the importance of attribution.

He understands it, he just didn't really give a shit back in Wikipedia's "Wild West Days." Otherwise, he'd be long gone by now, adding tens of thousands more edits with an enemies list as long as your arm...

Sourcing standards have tightened and casual, lazy plagiarism is no longer winked at.

RfB

He quite cleary still doesn't give a shit now. Someone with his record should be demonstrating an ultra-cautious nature, asking for clarification before he pulls a stunt like this redirect-article two step. And for things like attribution, he should be doing it by the book, if not going beyond the book.

[CrowsNest]

You quoted a diff as violating a specific policy (about copying within Wikipedia). It didn't. Maybe he has done many bad things, but this wasn't one.

The rest is noise.

You retrofitted an unconvincing explanation of why that specific edit isn't a literal violation. Now you're clinging onto that as if its some kind of answer to the points raised. This really is just noise. Take it back to Wikipedia, where it belongs.

[Randy from Boise]

Norton is not a great writer, but he's a solid contributor of sourced content.

This is the heart of the issue. Good encyclopedia writers understand copyright implicitly, it's a necessary part of the job. They don't need to be told the difference between scraping and dumping and summarising in your own words, nor be lectured endlessly about the importance of attribution.

He understands it, he just didn't really give a shit back in Wikipedia's "Wild West Days." Otherwise, he'd be long gone by now, adding tens of thousands more edits with an enemies list as long as your arm...

Sourcing standards have tightened and casual, lazy plagiarism is no longer winked at.

RfB

He quite cleary still doesn't give a shit now. Someone with his record should be demonstrating an ultra-cautious nature, asking for clarification before he pulls a stunt like this redirect-article two step. And for things like attribution, he should be doing it by the book, if not going beyond the book.

Actually, funny you should mention that — therein lies one problem. The cite-news template includes a field where the editor can gloss in a direct quote from the article being cited to prove that content of the source matches the fact being attributed. It's not necessary, I would argue that it does nothing to bog down the footnotes section intolerably — but it is a Wikipedia Approved™ means of "going beyond the book" for the extra-meticulous.

Of course, RAN, being obsessive, has used this field massively, including full paragraphs and more, which some of his enemies (anxious to have him banned for bogging down their SPI game so) have claimed is itself a form of copyvio. Which is bullshit.

So, yes — he should be doing it by the book. He is. And, no — he should not be "going beyond the book."

RfB

[Renée Bagslint]

I think this discussion has proved most illuminating. It seems pretty clear that Wikpedians regard their so-called encyclopaedia project as being run for the benefit of the writers, not the readers. What is important to them is whether a contributor has been treated well, not whether there are thousands of articles lying around waiting for cleanup. They want the kudos of having written an encyclopaedia without doing the actual hard work of learning stuff and writing it properly.

[Randy from Boise]

I think this discussion has proved most illuminating. It seems pretty clear that Wikpedians regard their so-called encyclopaedia project as being run for the benefit of the writers, not the readers. What is important to them is whether a contributor has been treated well, not whether there are thousands of articles lying around waiting for cleanup. They want the kudos of having written an encyclopaedia without doing the actual hard work of learning stuff and writing it properly.

It is for the benefit of the readers, of course, but this is not some campfire and s'mores stop on by and edit a spell encyclopedia project — there are a core of people who actually do the stuff to keep the serious encyclopedia growing and fixing its prose and improving its illustration and protected from vandalism and so forth... THOSE are the ones that are important in terms of "the way the encyclopedia is run."

The PRODUCT is what it is all about, but the structure of the community entity needs to be focused on a finite set of active volunteers.

In terms of the "problem" represented by Norton's ten year old editing: virtually non-existent. Don't believe me? Burn an hour on his SPI case digging through the old files and prove it for yourself. Almost all his shit has been paved over five times by now.

RfB

[CrowsNest]

And, no — he should not be "going beyond the book."

If you say so. But you can hardly complain when he gets treated with suspicion. If it were me, I'd want everyone to know how sorry I was for my past misdeeds, how eager I was to avoid a repeat, and how I was doing everything I possibly could do to ensure nobody had any cause to misunderstand or even misrepresent my actions. But hey, nobody's perfect.

[Randy from Boise]

And, no — he should not be "going beyond the book."

If you say so. But you can hardly complain when he gets treated with suspicion. If it were me, I'd want everyone to know how sorry I was for my past misdeeds, how eager I was to avoid a repeat, and how I was doing everything I possibly could do to ensure nobody had any cause to misunderstand or even misrepresent my actions. But hey, nobody's perfect.

That is not his nature is all I can say, whether that is attitudinal or physiological.

RfB

[CrowsNest]

And, no — he should not be "going beyond the book."

If you say so. But you can hardly complain when he gets treated with suspicion. If it were me, I'd want everyone to know how sorry I was for my past misdeeds, how eager I was to avoid a repeat, and how I was doing everything I possibly could do to ensure nobody had any cause to misunderstand or even misrepresent my actions. But hey, nobody's perfect.

That is not his nature is all I can say, whether that is attitudinal or physiological.

RfB

Obviously. This is the dilemma. Do you block all the people not behaviourally suited once it has become clear (usually after their second block), in the hope it persuades those that are, to get involved. Or do you continue to try and retain anyone who shows a willingness to wikiscribble, regardless of how well a fit they are. One of these strategies has put Wikipedia into a state of terminal decline. The other has never even been tried.

[JCM]

I think this discussion has proved most illuminating. It seems pretty clear that Wikpedians regard their so-called encyclopaedia project as being run for the benefit of the writers, not the readers. What is important to them is whether a contributor has been treated well, not whether there are thousands of articles lying around waiting for cleanup. They want the kudos of having written an encyclopaedia without doing the actual hard work of learning stuff and writing it properly.

This seems to overlook one rather huge point. I know from my own experience and that others have related to me that many active editors have limited access to a lot of the sources. That is one of the reasons the various free subscription to databanks are offered. No one really can check to see if something is a copyright violation unless they have ready access to the copyrighted material. And a lot of editors don't, and many of those who do find that there are more than enough active discussions which might potentially lead to sanctions in some cases which would reasonably be a higher priority.

[Poetlister]

there are a core of people who actually do the stuff to keep the serious encyclopedia growing and fixing its prose and improving its illustration and protected from vandalism and so forth... THOSE are the ones that are important in terms of "the way the encyclopedia is run."

I doubt that many people here would disagree. But are these the editors most valued by the powers that be on the site?

[Renée Bagslint]

JCM's "huge point" being that Wikipedia had no effective mechanism for preventing this mass of problematic articles from being inserted, and having allowed them in, has no effective mechanism for checking them. There are no doubt all sorts of reasons why the current way of organising the work cannot achieve the desired result, but what seems to be overlooked is the simple fact that the work is not being done effectively and cannot be done effectively under the present arrangements.

[Randy from Boise]

And, no — he should not be "going beyond the book."

If you say so. But you can hardly complain when he gets treated with suspicion. If it were me, I'd want everyone to know how sorry I was for my past misdeeds, how eager I was to avoid a repeat, and how I was doing everything I possibly could do to ensure nobody had any cause to misunderstand or even misrepresent my actions. But hey, nobody's perfect.

That is not his nature is all I can say, whether that is attitudinal or physiological.

RfB

Obviously. This is the dilemma. Do you block all the people not behaviourally suited once it has become clear (usually after their second block), in the hope it persuades those that are, to get involved. Or do you continue to try and retain anyone who shows a willingness to wikiscribble, regardless of how well a fit they are. One of these strategies has put Wikipedia into a state of terminal decline. The other has never even been tried.

You have arrived at the concept of "Net Positive" vs. "Net Negative."

RAN is either a grumpy bastard or a kook (or a little from column A and a little from column B) — but he is clearly a "Net Positive" in terms of improving the encyclopedia's content.

WP is not in a state of "terminal decline" — it is perking along quite nicely, thank you very much.


RfB

[Renée Bagslint]

RAN is either a grumpy bastard or a kook (or a little from column A and a little from column B) — but he is clearly a "Net Positive" in terms of improving the encyclopedia's content.

WP is not in a state of "terminal decline" — it is perking along quite nicely, thank you very much.

So the six thousand articles that will take you until 2030 to check were "improving" the content? Having a million inadequately sourced articles is "perking along quite nicely"? Having huge problems and no effective plan or realistic prospect of dealing with them is not terminal decline? It seems your view of the world differs from mine in more than the question of how to spell "encyclopaedia".

[Randy from Boise]

RAN is either a grumpy bastard or a kook (or a little from column A and a little from column B) — but he is clearly a "Net Positive" in terms of improving the encyclopedia's content.

WP is not in a state of "terminal decline" — it is perking along quite nicely, thank you very much.

So the six thousand articles that will take you until 2030 to check were "improving" the content? Having a million inadequately sourced articles is "perking along quite nicely"? Having huge problems and no effective plan or realistic prospect of dealing with them is not terminal decline? It seems your view of the world differs from mine in more than the question of how to spell "encyclopaedia".

Those articles will never, ever, ever be fully checked because CCI does not scale, CCI is grossly understaffed, and CCI has more important work to do than fiddle with a bunch of 10 year old violations that have been buried under a decade's worth of subsequent additions, subtractions, and alterations.

Like I say, if you want to be convinced that what I say is true about Norton's old work (and I've probably read through more of his old crap than all but a dozen or so CCI volunteers), knock yourself out... Grab some of his old edits and see for yourself how severe the copyvios were to start with (not) and whether they are even still showing in the current articles (often not).

It's one of the most overblown non-issues in the Wikiworld.

RfB

[Renée Bagslint]

As I said before, explaining why your current model does not allow you to fix these problems does not make them non-existent -- it merely reinforces the point that they are unfixable.

[Kingsindian]

As far as I understand, RfB is saying that the scale of the copyvios, most of them from 10 years ago, is likely to be very small.

ArbCom imposed a remedy on RAN, saying that unless he fixes his old violations, he will be subject to a topic ban from creating articles. He hasn't fixed them
and is still under a topic ban. Judging from his behavior so far, he's not going to fix them.

So what should be done about this, within the Wikipedia system, and under some alternate system one can imagine?

Within the Wikipedia system:

• One solution is to ban RAN altogether unless he fixes them. That, perhaps will not work.
• Another solution is to harass him about his topic ban violation about creating articles (even without copyvios). This is the approach taken by ArbCom and the AE request. The fact that the last violation was more than 2 years ago is irrelevant, in this view.
• Another solution is to let it go, since the violations are old and the scale is likely to be small. Perhaps RfB is advocating this.

Under an alternate system, one can imagine that contributors are paid for doing this unpleasant but necessary work (or fined for violations).

[Renée Bagslint]

Other possibilities that do not seem to have been considered include

• Deleting all the suspect articles, or replacing their content with a notice to the effect that the content has been removed as a potential copyright violation;
• Formally terminating the cleanup project on the grounds that there is consensus to accept the status quo, it has been there for a long time, no Wikipedian cares enough to do anything about it anyway and it is easier to believe that the damage is likely to be small than it is to face up to the possibility of a major flaw in the crowd-sourcing model.

[CrowsNest]

replacing their content with a notice to the effect that the content has been removed as a potential copyright violation;

This has been proposed before, probably as a result of discovering a serial case like Richard, or even his actual case. It was of course, rejected.

[CrowsNest]

It's one of the most overblown non-issues in the Wikiworld.

You are aware that damages for copyright violations are calculated based on number of infringements, duration of infringement, and knowledge of the likelihood of infringement? Perhaps the people who take this issue more seriously than you, can foresee a time when the rest of the world finally realises that Wikipedia is most likely the largest single host of copyright violations in the world. Much like the manner in which they're the biggest single host of links to the Daily Mail, therefore according to the Wikipedians themselves, the biggest single source of fake news in the world. Whether these violations have subsequently been mushed up in the wiki soup is of course totally irrelevant from a legal or policy perspective, except of course to make subsequent re-users panic because all their licences are all invalid, and potentially infringing.

There is a reason why the mandated action on finding a copyright violation mixed in with original content is to wipe the revision from the database, and any subsequent revisions which included it, and do the tedious manual work to recover any useful content added that wasn't derived from the infringement. It's a pain in the ass, isn't it? Hence why taking a hard line against anyone who shows a flagrant disregard for copyright and a complete unwillingness to learn after being caught multiple times, is an absolutely necessary. It is the height of selfishness to pretend the guy is a net positive, when you admit your not the person whose time will be lost by mitigating the damage he has, and probably still is, causing.

[CrowsNest]

A check of Richard's contributions just before this latest block seems to suggest he's not so much writing an encyclopedia, as doing the sort of research to write the secondary sources that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. A classic Wikistuffer. Not only is that more proof he's got no business being on Wikipedia, he's probably making as much of a pig's ear of that task, as he has regarding copyright.

The only way this guy is a net positive, is if the only goal of Wikipedia is to literally hoover up anything and everything that has ever been written, reliable or not, primary or not, notable or not, and try and make some sense of it, using the collective brain power of people who have no recognised skills or experience in such things.

Richard is a classic example of the phenomena that Wikipedia is all about giving people like him something to do with their lives, and pretending this activity is somehow a benefit to society. It is not. And in the area of copyright, the damage is both quantifiable, and eligible for damages. If only the same could be said of the false advertising which claims this is a project to build an encyclopedia.

[Graaf Statler]

Anyway, he was sanctioned for creating new articles, not violating copyright. The old copyvio case is just a stick to beat him with.

So your take on this is that it is purely a mis-handled conduct issue? It's not a problem that there are apparently thousands of articles on Wikipedia which are copyright violations which it will take decades to clean up? That's your idea of what an encyclopaedia ought to look like?

O, it is extreem easy to find copyvio articles, and for you information, there are not thousands, but millions. One of the reasons of my SanFanBan was because I found something out. How do you find copyvio? Look in the history of a article to the first edit. Heee, that is strange, a complete article at once. And Ymnes boy writes Dutch as a child of five years. He can only babble. Because, this is the way someone who writes a article is writing. I/we needed almost 80 edits to come to this result. We had also discussions on the talk page, how we wanted to build up the article. So, look also always at the talk page of a article if you are looking for copyvio. (Thanks for the inspiration, Eric Barbour.)

And, many times you find also copy past pieces in the history of a article in this way. That is because wikipedians don't understand what secondary sources are. They copy past out of them. After I found this out my dear friend (I am careful now) Natuur12 rushed with Ymnes to Meta for a global lock. Why? Because I found something out what never had to become public.
Copyvoi is mixed through complete Wikipedia, like they have used a 3D printer. You can't clean up Wikipedia, not in in decades, even not in a a million years. And WMF panicked
and freaked out when they understood I was right....

[Randy from Boise]

As I said before, explaining why your current model does not allow you to fix these problems does not make them non-existent -- it merely reinforces the point that they are unfixable.

This long after commission, they are unfixable except through the application of uneconomical amounts of volunteer labor — which is simply NOT going to happen in his case.

It's entirely plausible for a bot to be devised to check every single edit for copyvio at the time it is made and to automatically red flag violations found.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

It's one of the most overblown non-issues in the Wikiworld.

You are aware that damages for copyright violations are calculated based on number of infringements, duration of infringement, and knowledge of the likelihood of infringement? Perhaps the people who take this issue more seriously than you, can foresee a time when the rest of the world finally realises that Wikipedia is most likely the largest single host of copyright violations in the world. Much like the manner in which they're the biggest single host of links to the Daily Mail, therefore according to the Wikipedians themselves, the biggest single source of fake news in the world. Whether these violations have subsequently been mushed up in the wiki soup is of course totally irrelevant from a legal or policy perspective, except of course to make subsequent re-users panic because all their licences are all invalid, and potentially infringing.

There is a reason why the mandated action on finding a copyright violation mixed in with original content is to wipe the revision from the database, and any subsequent revisions which included it, and do the tedious manual work to recover any useful content added that wasn't derived from the infringement. It's a pain in the ass, isn't it? Hence why taking a hard line against anyone who shows a flagrant disregard for copyright and a complete unwillingness to learn after being caught multiple times, is an absolutely necessary. It is the height of selfishness to pretend the guy is a net positive, when you admit your not the person whose time will be lost by mitigating the damage he has, and probably still is, causing.

Whose ox is being gored and how much financial damage is it causing?

That's the big question.

In Norton's case: nobody's and none.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

A check of Richard's contributions just before this latest block seems to suggest he's not so much writing an encyclopedia, as doing the sort of research to write the secondary sources that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. A classic Wikistuffer. Not only is that more proof he's got no business being on Wikipedia, he's probably making as much of a pig's ear of that task, as he has regarding copyright.

The only way this guy is a net positive, is if the only goal of Wikipedia is to literally hoover up anything and everything that has ever been written, reliable or not, primary or not, notable or not, and try and make some sense of it, using the collective brain power of people who have no recognised skills or experience in such things.

Richard is a classic example of the phenomena that Wikipedia is all about giving people like him something to do with their lives, and pretending this activity is somehow a benefit to society. It is not. And in the area of copyright, the damage is both quantifiable, and eligible for damages. If only the same could be said of the false advertising which claims this is a project to build an encyclopedia.

Look, we're officially in the business of providing the sum total of all human knowledge for free to everyone in their own native language.

That, of course, is horseshit.

But we are collectively building the most comprehensive information database in the world, and that involves not just the bios of rookie footie players playing in a fully professional league for the first time, but arcane biography from the 19th and 20th centuries. That's what RAN contributes.

Is he a good writer? No. But he does fill in legitimate, sourced encyclopedic content around the edges so that Siri doesn't end up sounding stupid if somebody actually asks.

RfB

P.S. His topic ban on creating new articles is about the most idiotic thing imaginable. If he's a copyvio danger, EVERY edit is dangerous. They just wanted to fuck with him, as they are doing now. It burns Sandstein's sadistic executioner essence that he wasn't able to dish out a six month ban for the grievous misstep of converting a redirect into a biography.

[Graaf Statler]

It's one of the most overblown non-issues in the Wikiworld.

You are aware that damages for copyright violations are calculated based on number of infringements, duration of infringement, and knowledge of the likelihood of infringement? Perhaps the people who take this issue more seriously than you, can foresee a time when the rest of the world finally realises that Wikipedia is most likely the largest single host of copyright violations in the world. Much like the manner in which they're the biggest single host of links to the Daily Mail, therefore according to the Wikipedians themselves, the biggest single source of fake news in the world. Whether these violations have subsequently been mushed up in the wiki soup is of course totally irrelevant from a legal or policy perspective, except of course to make subsequent re-users panic because all their licences are all invalid, and potentially infringing.

There is a reason why the mandated action on finding a copyright violation mixed in with original content is to wipe the revision from the database, and any subsequent revisions which included it, and do the tedious manual work to recover any useful content added that wasn't derived from the infringement. It's a pain in the ass, isn't it? Hence why taking a hard line against anyone who shows a flagrant disregard for copyright and a complete unwillingness to learn after being caught multiple times, is an absolutely necessary. It is the height of selfishness to pretend the guy is a net positive, when you admit your not the person whose time will be lost by mitigating the damage he has, and probably still is, causing.

Whose ox is being gored and how much financial damage is it causing?

That's the big question.

In Norton's case: nobody's and none.

RfB

Very good question. In Europe I suppose WMF, and/or the chapters. Because of the strange way of financing it is posible the judge sees them as employés of WMF, and because they are involved in the content as wiki managers. I have asked this to Dutch experts. But nothing is sure in our legal system, Code Napoleon.

[JCM]

I have to agree with Randy here. If someone's problem has been historically violating the copyright of sources currently under copyright, one could do much the same thing with sources which are no longer under copyright on topics which may be very unlikely to have had critical opinion of them changed since they were written. So, let me use an example I saw some years ago, a biography of a bishop in an out of copyright encyclopedia. The subject is and was clearly notable and notable enough for a standalone biography, even if it might be one that few people today are likely to look at. But it still fills a gap in our coverage and makes it easier in the event anyone ever decides to develop content on the main topic, in such cases the diocese or history of the diocese. There may or may not be other topics which might be of a higher priority, but that is an entirely separate matter and one that could be involved in several million of our extant articles in English.

[Renée Bagslint]

As I said before, explaining why your current model does not allow you to fix these problems does not make them non-existent -- it merely reinforces the point that they are unfixable.

This long after commission, they are unfixable except through the application of uneconomical amounts of volunteer labor — which is simply NOT going to happen in his case.

It's entirely plausible for a bot to be devised to check every single edit for copyvio at the time it is made and to automatically red flag violations found.

No, they are perfectly fixable. Simply delete them. This is Morton's Fork -- either the problematic articles form a negligible part of the so-called encyclopaedia, in which deleting them causes very little damage, or they form a significant part of the encyclopaedia, in which you you have a serious problem that you cannot afford to overlook, or to fix either.

JCM's point is interesting. Quite a large number of articles are based on out-of-copyright sources such as the 1911 Britannica (about 12,000 in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica (T-H-L)) and the 1900 DNB (about 9,500 in Category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template (T-H-L)). Some of the articles are transposed more-or-less verbatim. There is nothing wrong with that, assuming that there is some kind of effort underway to bring them up to date. But there isn't, is there?

[Graaf Statler]

It's again the strange anarchist discussion I had for years on WP-NL and WQ-NL, what ended up in a Global Block for me. Let me ask you a question Randy. Wikipedia is breaking in the way you describes almost every copyright regulation and other regulation in the world. Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia foundation, and has many servers and chapters in the whole world, and is in many languages. So, it's a complete spaghetti of all kinds of international rules, regulations etc.
And here is my question.

What legal right has the Wiki mouvement to break almost every law and regulation to reach there goal, collecting knowledge? Can you explain to me what the legal basis of this project is? Because in my opinion it is just a border balster, and a legal torch. Light one corner, and the whole wiki circus burns down. Where am I wrong in your opinion?

[JCM]

What legal right has the Wiki mouvement to break almost every law and regulation to reach there goal, collecting knowledge? Can you explain to me what the legal basis of this project is? Because in my opinion it is just a border balster, and a legal torch. Light one corner, and the whole wiki circus burns down. Where am I wrong in your opinion?

I think in general collecting knowledge is thought to be at least implicit in freedom of thought, a fairly universally recognized human right which presumably supercedes most governmental laws.

[Graaf Statler]

What legal right has the Wiki mouvement to break almost every law and regulation to reach there goal, collecting knowledge? Can you explain to me what the legal basis of this project is? Because in my opinion it is just a border balster, and a legal torch. Light one corner, and the whole wiki circus burns down. Where am I wrong in your opinion?

I think in general collecting knowledge is thought to be at least implicit in freedom of thought, a fairly universally recognized human right which presumably supercedes most governmental laws.

I don't think any European judge agrees with you. Do you have any source, or evidence this is right what you are claiming? Because in my opinion this at it's best wishful thinking...

[Renée Bagslint]

What legal right has the Wiki mouvement to break almost every law and regulation to reach there goal, collecting knowledge? Can you explain to me what the legal basis of this project is? Because in my opinion it is just a border balster, and a legal torch. Light one corner, and the whole wiki circus burns down. Where am I wrong in your opinion?

I think in general collecting knowledge is thought to be at least implicit in freedom of thought, a fairly universally recognized human right which presumably supercedes most governmental laws.

Freedom of thought is not quite the same thing as freedom of expression or freedom of action, especially as there's no particularly practical way for anyone to prevent you thinking what you like in the privacy of your own skull. (Technology is moving on, of course ...) Most countries do not recognise a right to steal the work of others, although many Wikipedians do indeed see it as one of their fundamental rights.

[Graaf Statler]

Freedom of thought is not quite the same thing as freedom of expression or freedom of action, especially as there's no particularly practical way for anyone to prevent you thinking what you like in the privacy of your own skull. (Technology is moving on, of course ...) Most countries do not recognise a right to steal the work of others, although many Wikipedians do indeed see it as one of their fundamental rights.

(edited by t to fix quoting)

De Piratenpartij what support this vision had the last election in Holland 30.600 votes. (0,3% of the votes) So, the change a Dutch judge agrees with this vision seems to me not realistic. Is there anyone with a better vision?

[CrowsNest]

A check of Richard's contributions just before this latest block seems to suggest he's not so much writing an encyclopedia, as doing the sort of research to write the secondary sources that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. A classic Wikistuffer. Not only is that more proof he's got no business being on Wikipedia, he's probably making as much of a pig's ear of that task, as he has regarding copyright.

The only way this guy is a net positive, is if the only goal of Wikipedia is to literally hoover up anything and everything that has ever been written, reliable or not, primary or not, notable or not, and try and make some sense of it, using the collective brain power of people who have no recognised skills or experience in such things.

Richard is a classic example of the phenomena that Wikipedia is all about giving people like him something to do with their lives, and pretending this activity is somehow a benefit to society. It is not. And in the area of copyright, the damage is both quantifiable, and eligible for damages. If only the same could be said of the false advertising which claims this is a project to build an encyclopedia.

Look, we're officially in the business of providing the sum total of all human knowledge for free to everyone in their own native language.

That, of course, is horseshit.

But we are collectively building the most comprehensive information database in the world, and that involves not just the bios of rookie footie players playing in a fully professional league for the first time, but arcane biography from the 19th and 20th centuries. That's what RAN contributes.

Is he a good writer? No. But he does fill in legitimate, sourced encyclopedic content around the edges so that Siri doesn't end up sounding stupid if somebody actually asks.

RfB

P.S. His topic ban on creating new articles is about the most idiotic thing imaginable. If he's a copyvio danger, EVERY edit is dangerous. They just wanted to fuck with him, as they are doing now. It burns Sandstein's sadistic executioner essence that he wasn't able to dish out a six month ban for the grievous misstep of converting a redirect into a biography.

And the point of the post was of course to explain that his edits are very likely not legitimate, nor are they encyclopedic. I see no rebuttal. Worryingly, I see a complete lack of recognition that there is even a difference between "encyclopedia" and "comprehensive information database".

For his past crimes, and his current attitude, he should absolutely be banned. It's inexcusable that he hasn't been. Wikipedia is in the mess it is in, because so many of you quite clearly seem to think the law doesn't apply to you, and others persist with denying the fact that current approaches are insufficient.

[CrowsNest]

It's one of the most overblown non-issues in the Wikiworld.

You are aware that damages for copyright violations are calculated based on number of infringements, duration of infringement, and knowledge of the likelihood of infringement? Perhaps the people who take this issue more seriously than you, can foresee a time when the rest of the world finally realises that Wikipedia is most likely the largest single host of copyright violations in the world. Much like the manner in which they're the biggest single host of links to the Daily Mail, therefore according to the Wikipedians themselves, the biggest single source of fake news in the world. Whether these violations have subsequently been mushed up in the wiki soup is of course totally irrelevant from a legal or policy perspective, except of course to make subsequent re-users panic because all their licences are all invalid, and potentially infringing.

There is a reason why the mandated action on finding a copyright violation mixed in with original content is to wipe the revision from the database, and any subsequent revisions which included it, and do the tedious manual work to recover any useful content added that wasn't derived from the infringement. It's a pain in the ass, isn't it? Hence why taking a hard line against anyone who shows a flagrant disregard for copyright and a complete unwillingness to learn after being caught multiple times, is an absolutely necessary. It is the height of selfishness to pretend the guy is a net positive, when you admit your not the person whose time will be lost by mitigating the damage he has, and probably still is, causing.

Whose ox is being gored and how much financial damage is it causing?

That's the big question.

In Norton's case: nobody's and none.

RfB

Are you seriously trying to argue nobody has a valid legal claim to damages as a result of Richard's violations?

[CrowsNest]

As I said before, explaining why your current model does not allow you to fix these problems does not make them non-existent -- it merely reinforces the point that they are unfixable.

This long after commission, they are unfixable except through the application of uneconomical amounts of volunteer labor — which is simply NOT going to happen in his case.

In that case, you can kiss Wikipedia goodbye. Nobody ever won a copyright suit on this basis.

It's entirely plausible for a bot to be devised to check every single edit for copyvio at the time it is made and to automatically red flag violations found.

I was under the impression there already is a bot that automatically checks text against a url included in the submission. Even in that narrow case, there's not really much point in assuming it would catch every case. But a bot that automatically identified copyright violations? It would seem far easier to simply disallow any non trivial edit that didn't provide a source, or queue it for pending changes.

[Graaf Statler]

Many times on WP-NL and WQ-NL I gave this example.
I don't like red traffic lights in the world. They are always red when you are in a hurry.
So, I start the worldwide the Ignore Red Traffic Light Movement. With a Foundation, with a staff, with donations, with chapters in the whole world. Does that give me the right to ignore every red traffic light in the world? Because my foundation is above every local regulation? Judge yourself.