Talk:Barrington Hall (Berkeley, California)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

student death

M Dillion indicated that there's no soucre for the student death in my original edit. 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.

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)

Expansion

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)

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)

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

Cindery and DanielCD's edits

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)

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)

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

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)

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

"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)

ian ray/slingshot?

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)

barrington hall

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

"Headquarters" of the anti-apartheid movement?

(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

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

...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)

you tube

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

YouTube links

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
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)

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)

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)



(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

YouTube redux

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)

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)

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)

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

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

  • 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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

evidence of bad faith

...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)

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?

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

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)


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

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)

Unprotected

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)

Requesting citations

Much of this article is in dire need of citations.

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

Choose your battles. --AStanhope 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Battle? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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)
Pick you battles, dude. Pick your battles. :] — Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
In-line citations are pretty much the standard here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

Lemmings

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)

  • 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)

The Zeros

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).

Negativland, The Jesus and Mary Chain

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)

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)
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)

graffiti

"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)

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

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)

"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)
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)
I filed an informal request for comment at WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The link to the RS discussion is here:[3]-Cindery 06:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats redundent. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(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)

So what reason do we have to believe that the "bonussugar" blog is genuine? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It would establish the connection. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(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)

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)
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)
No. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What again are the grounds to accept that it is indeed the site of that person? Other than original research? You are using our policies in a completely incorrect manner and your behaviour is edging on trolling now. You seem to simply be misunderstanding our requests - the burden of proof is on YOU not US to prove NOT disprove something. Unless we can in some way verify a site as being legitimate we cannot accept it. If you do not provide any reasons to do so that are acceptable, I am going to stop arguing on this. If you try and re-insert the links I will remove them and place an WP:RFC for this article. I am truly shocked that you seem to think that an unverified blog can be an acceptable source!-Localzuk(talk) 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(indent) There's no need to yell, just read WP:RS. As noted below, there is no way to disprove a negative. What again, did you say is your grounds for disbelieving that Jane Dark is Jane Dark or Robert Anasi is Robert Anasi? Can you provide examples of other self-published sources by professional journalists you have contested on the grounds that the authorship is "suspect"? Can you explain why unspecified proof of authorship is not required by RS, but that you are requiring it, and only at an article you do not edit, but at which your sole involvement has been a dispute about You Tube on the talkpage? (On a tangential note, since you have never made an edit to this article, and have only contributed to the talkpage regarding the You Tube issue, you may not have noticed that I didn't write the graffiti section...)-Cindery 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Authorship is covered by RS. As one example: "Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content." At this point, we don't know if the authors really wrote those blogs, so we know zero about the originator of the source material. Also: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions." (emphasis mine) --Milo H Minderbinder 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1989/1990

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)

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)


Only seven more shopping days till armageddon

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)

Yeah, that ones ok. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Wow. I guess you have no qualms about filling articles with original research as well? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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 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)


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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)

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

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)
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)
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)
Exactly! Also, Cindery have you read any of the comments on the WT:RS discussions? The majority are against you, as they are here too.-Localzuk(talk) 07:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What situation? Now there is an established writer who verifies not only the graffiti, but the connection between bonus sugar and Sugarhigh! The blogs of book authors who also publish in The New York Times are reliable, according to RS. (Others may want to also supply so-called "photos of the graffiti," but I think that should not be allowed, per WP:V: how could anyone prove that someone isn't writing "You're persona non grata in my hippy van, bitch" on the wall of an alley right now, taking a picture of it, and uploading it all over the internet? Is there any way we could establish that any photo of such graffiti was authentic? :-) I haven't looked at RS--was it changed to exclude New York Times writers? Let me know if it happens, so I can cancel my Times subscription the minute it becomes unreliable, according to a few people on Wikipedia. -Cindery 08:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Hmm. At the relevant discussion [6], I don't see anybody "against" anyone else. I see people making arguments, having a discussion. It looks like there's a slow progression towards establishing criteria for evidence of authorship, but it's still not clear that the current guideline needs to be adjusted, as it may already be sufficient. I doubt that "there is no doubt" will make it into the guideline, as there is always doubt. I think it's a good discussion to have in general for Wikipedia, but I don't see how it's relevant to this article?-Cindery 08:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The new blog link isnt a reliable source as far as the infomation advalible indicates and still no link from janedark.com to sugarhigh. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what "advalible" means, and can't find it in a dictionary. (Is is a typo?--I want to make sure I understand you.) And can you explain why you think Robert Anasi isn't a reliable source, according to WP:RS? Also, please define "link," and explain how you think it pertains to RS. Thanks, -Cindery 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't simply use one unreliable and unverified source as the evidence that another similar source is reliable... All we want is: evidence to show that these blogs belong to the people that they say they belong to! It is not difficult. You talk of journalists but they would also in most cases agree on this point - without some sort of way of authenticating a blog they would not say that the blog belongs to someone (they may say 'which claims to be the blog of x' but here we cannot do that, we simply don't include the blog).-Localzuk(talk) 09:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why professional journalists are not reliable sources, citing policies and guidelines? (It seems that they are considered reliable sources, according to WP:RS.) No one has suggested that Robert Anasi is not Robert Anasi. Can you explain why you think he is not? (In general, I have to say I think this could end up being very interesting. Hmm. The blogosphere is so viral, amongst professional journalists. I wonder if it could "catch on," so to speak. If enough of them interviewed Barringtonians, the whole thing could turn into a cultural phenomenon that becomes of interest in itself...)-Cindery 09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am going to continue this argument in a single section only. My point is very simple - we do not have to disprove anything on this site, we have to prove it. I have no problem with information by a journalist on a self published site being cited - so long as we have some way to back up that it is their site. Unless a source is in some way verifiable as being legitimate it is not reliable - regardless of who wrote it (even if it is true). Please answer my question in the section later on the page.-Localzuk(talk) 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

blanking

Hmm. I don't understand why a section was blanked without discussion? As the same person affixed fact tags to each item in the section, agreed with someone else to wait for sources, agreed that one of the items was not disputed at all, and there is both a new reference and an ongoing discussion about it, it doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me.-Cindery 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Anasi

Here is the source which has been deleted, with the edit summary "provide some real sources please" [7] I will leave it here for now, to encourage discussion. J.Smith, can you explain what is "unreal" about this source? I do not see "real" and "unreal" sources covered anywhere in policy. Can you explain what you mean?-Cindery 08:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no indication that the blog, a free livejournal account, passes WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The indication is in WP:RS: "When a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." I don't understand what your objection is. Farrar, Straus and Giroux is not a credible third-party publication? The New York Observer? The New York Times? Or is is it WP:RS itself you object to?-Cindery 09:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Note: Abstractdynamics hosts Sugarhigh! for free. Blogger is free. I do not see the relevant policy or guideline which stipulates that the self-publishing medium of professional journalists must cost money. (That would be interesting, though, an index of "journalistic credibility by blog cost." Gawker would cover it, for sure. :-)-Cindery 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, can you provide any evidence that this blog is actually th blog of the person? Otherwise we cannot take it at face value. The default position on this site is to not accept blogs and in the face of people saying they don't want the blog used, this is the position we fall back to unless a very good reason can be provided to say otherwise. -Localzuk(talk) 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Who is "we"? Can you cite any relevant policies or guidelines with reference to self-published sources by professional journalists? -Cindery 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
We = Wikipedia website (all editors are representitives) really. What do I need to cite? That we don't normally accept blogs? Well that comes under WP:V I believe - as an unreliable source. Exceptions are made for a few things, such as the publications by 'experts' etc... but in light of there not being any evidence that the source is in fact legit then generally, from experience (having done ~5500 edits on the site now) we just disallow the inclusion of blogs. This is common sense. Again, all we are asking for is some evidence that the blogs belong to the people they say they do. Simple. Nothing amazing, nothing complex. Just some evidence. As it stands you are not providing any reason to believe that they are the blogs of those people beyond conjecture and 'they say they are' - which is quite simply not good enough. This seems to have got beyond the point of reasonable arguments and is approaching nonsensical repetition of previous arguments that have no grounds or value. Please provide me with your reasons why these blogs should be considered as reliable sources - and don't use original research to justify them.-Localzuk(talk) 11:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The situation has gotten pretty ridiculous, and Cindery's arguments have become increasingly out of touch with WP policy. At this point, I'm not sure if she simply doesn't understand the policies or is intentionally trying to ignore or wikilawyer them to try and get what she wants. I agree with the idea of no longer wasting time arguing and just reverting the addition of unsourced material (or "sourced" by something unreliable like the two blogs). If the grafitti is truly notable and verifiable, it will appear in a reliable source, not just some guy listing things his friends told him over the phone. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
  • From WP:RS: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. [emphasis in the original] That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." It seems pretty straightforward. Why not await the more reliable sources Argyriou has said he's digging up? There's no deadline. MastCell 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You're all ignoring WP:RS, which has been cited repeatedly: "When a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Also, given that Milo proposed a change to RS yesterday to state "unless the authorship is in doubt," I would like to see evidence that the authorship of the majority of blogs by professional journalists are immediately suspect at every article, and the agreed upon criteria for establishing authorship (which currently does not exist.) In the absence of criteria, any blog of a professional journalist is of "dubious authorship," and there is no agreed way to establish that it is not. (This is not unlike the the EL copyvio discussion, in which Milo noted, hmm, if there's no way to establish that an EL is not a copyvio, people can delete links they don't like on that grounds, and there is no way to prove that the links aren't copyvios. Not logically possible to disprove a negative, etc.) Discussion about changing RS to exclude self-published sources by professional journalists, or to demand an unspecified proof of authorship should take place at RS, not here, as RS currently and explicitly allows self-published sources of professional journalists, and does not demand unspecified proof of authorship.-Cindery 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"Ignoring". That's rich. Even if Anasi were a reliable source, we don't know that the blog is actually his. And assuming it is, he may be a journalist but is he an expert on Barrington Hall? (I guess you're ignoring "writing within his or her field of expertise", or do you feel that once someone is published by a big paper, everything they write from then on is automagically guaranteed to be true?) It's not even mentioned in his WP article. Aside from his blog, what has he written about the subject? And what fact checking has taken place (as mentioned in RS) on this particular blog entry? Since he says he got the info from "phone conversations with friends" I suspect none. "In the absence of criteria, any blog of a professional journalist is of "dubious authorship," and there is no agreed way to establish that it is not." This is exactly why blogs are not acceptable in the vast majority of cases. Also, I should point out that based on current WP policy the burden of proof isn't applied the same way for verifiability of sources and info, and copyright. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. yes, ignoring. RS clearly states When a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.
  • 2. Re "I guess you're ignoring "writing within his or her field of expertise"--RS states "writing within his or her field of expertise" OR is a well-known professional journalist. I believe this is a distinction which allows an experts in sciences who do not write for Rolling Stone to self-publish.
  • 3. Yes, professional journalists and writers are afforded a degree of credibility about what they self-publish that other self-publishers are not--that is why they can be reliable sources/are the exception.
  • 4. If Anasi didn't live in Barrington, he would have to interview people. Are you saying that interviews are not a valid source of information? (If so, there goes every secondary source in Wikipedia, as they all contain interviews. That is the only way to obtain quotes.)
  • 5. Please address the issue of disproving a negative/unspecified criteria of "proof" of authorship.
  • 6. In Anasi's case, his blog looks rather old (not that it matters). But, what are the grounds for doubt that it is his blog?

_Cindery 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery you have to take an entire guideline into account and not just focus on a single line of it. Else we can pick and choose what bits we want all the time - it doesn't work that way!
Sorry but you are hugely missing the point and your obsession on including these links is amazing. I will repeat my earlier question - What evidence have you got to show that either of these websites belong to the people you and they say they do?? Right, now, disprove that this blog is not yours... You cannot. Why? Because it is not possible to disprove something like that unless you have another blog that is already known to be yours. (Note, I shall delete the blog in a few hours). In the case of a journalist this situation is the same - somehow we have to be able to track the authenticity (so a link on the journalist's employers website or a plug in their column or something).
Finally, don't comment on my editing behaviours as they are irrelevant. I edit pages how and when I want to - that has nothing to do with you.-Localzuk(talk) 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To refocus on the issue at hand: blogs are deprecated as sources because they lack any editorial oversight. Case in point: Anasi's NYT article on Mike Tyson, in which he incorrectly wrote that, with one exception, all heavyweight champs in the last 60 years have been African-American. The error was picked up and the Times printed a correction. Even experts writing in their field of expertise make mistakes. If such an error occurs on a blog, there's no mechanism to reliably correct it. This is presumably why WP:RS states that ""Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. [emphasis in the original] That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." But repeating the same arguments seems unlikely to change anyone's mind. If there's really a rush to settle this before Argyriou produces more reliable sources, an RfC is probably the next step; otherwise the back-and-forth is likely to continue. MastCell 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, agreed with the two comments above by MastCell and Localzuk) Note the use of the word "may" in that quote (and that RS even emphasizes may). And read the rest of RS which talks about attributability, editorial oversight, declaration of sources, corroboration, recognition by other reliable sources, etc. And specifically "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is...about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject" and "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." You seem to be under the impression that if someone is published by the New York Times, anything they write anywhere automatically deserves to be a reliable source. As for disproving a negative, if that's not possible, I guess you can't use it as a source. What part of that don't you understand? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You're still ignoring that "may" is qualified specifically by "so long as they have been published by credible third party publications," and I have yet to see an answer. (I do think it's an interesting thing to explore further at RS if you have an objection, though.) But let's look at "reasonable doubt" that Robert Anasi writes his blog. I just looked over the first couple of pages, and he has posted a link to a published piece about H.P. Lovecraft.  ? If you click "email me" at bonus sugar or Sugarhigh, the email address is the same. Hmm. I'm just not seeing any reasonable doubt that these people write their blogs. ? (I think a lot more interviews could be conducted, though. If I were a publicist, and I wanted to make something that happened in 1985 newsworthy in 2007, the easiest way--if I were lucky enough that there was some controversy about blog authorship with reference to the subject--would be to sit back, do nothing, and let people blog about it until it hit print.:-) -Cindery 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and if/when it "hits print", you'll likely have a reliable source, as opposed to a blog. That's the distinction here. MastCell 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fun, but it is not necessary--there are already two reliable sources, whose "identity" have been questioned. Let's hear back re why Robert Anasi is not Robert Anasi, and about JD. There was agreement all round that JD is a reliable source, accepted by everyone here, if only there were some "link" between Sugarhigh! and bonus sugar. As they are both registered to the domain www.janedark.com, and email at Sugarhigh! and bonus sugar both go the same registered address: janedark@janedark.com, it seems there is an undeniable link?-Cindery 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get that http://bonussugar.blogspot.com/ is registered to janedark.com? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's something Jane pointed out to me today: under profile, there's "email me," and the address is the registered address janedark@janedark.com, which is the same email contact address for Sugarhigh! (Both people, incidentally, are confused that anyone would question their identity. When I said, well, it's being disputed and asked, how can you *prove* it, Jane said: email. Robert said, that's amazing. It actually could be someone else, but pointed out 1) the recent Lovecraft piece 2) how high in Google results for "Robert Anasi" his blog appears--if it were a fraud, he would have noticed 3) he has seen his Wiki article, with the link to his blog (I didn't link it, he didn't link it. Was anon IP from Europe).-Cindery 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti

I'm removing these, per the verifiability policy, as no published sources for them have not been cited. They can be reinserted when accompanied by source citations to published sources meeting the reliable source guidelines. I've done some quick online searches for sources myself and failed to find them. Per the policy, the main burden of finding sources rests with those who wish to have the material in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your research skills don't seem to extend to the talkpage of the article, where reliable sources have been provided, and are being discussed in good faith.-Cindery 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sources have been provided. Has anyone agreed with your assertion that they are "reliable"? And please quit failing to AGF with snide remarks about "research skills". --Milo H Minderbinder 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was unanimously agreed that JD is a reliable source. (I'm still not sure what the argument is regarding Robert, as none has been made. Can you address The New York Observer, The New York Times, and Farrar Straus Giroux?) Also, can you address the issue of janedark@janedark.com--I have asked repeatedly now. I do not think it is "snide" to point out that "research" of a subject should include the talkpage of the discussion during a dispute, where a source has been provided and is being discussed. I'm not sure it's good faith on your part to use such language, nor is it helpful or constructive.-Cindery 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you point me to this "unanimous" agreement? I mostly see people disagreeing with you on this. I take no issue with The NY Times or the other ones, I just don't see how being published there automatically makes one an authority on any given subject. What makes either author an expert on this particular topic? Has either written material about it? Has either researched it? Does either document their sources for those quotes? If one or both lived there (which isn't documented), is living at a place enough to make one an expert on that place? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Please review the previous discussions (in which I believe you yourself thought JD was a reliable source, and the issue was whether JD was JD). Also review the difference under RS for professional journalists and "experts"--experts can only write about their area of experise. There is a long justification at RS for why JD would find graffiti interesting, how it relates to other writings (music, poetry, ephemeral language, etc). I think it's possible you may be overly argumentative about this, to a degree that is not serving the article, or Wikipedia. Can you provide any examples of similar high level of concern, proof and justifcation demanded for a source like this?-Cindery 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrington graffiti

Comments

It's not appropriate to remove material which is under discussion, without addressing the discussion. Also, there is a reliable source (and the fact tags were allowed to remain in good faith while the dicussion about the source is ongoing). I will be restoring the deleted material, with the source. Discussion can continue from there. Please do not edit war to make your changes, join the discussion instead.-Cindery 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend not replacing them. The lack of reliable sources aside, WP:NOT tells us that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think we really should be in the business of cataloging graffiti. Also, the murals and graffiti are already adequately covered as a topic of interest in another section. The section is simply unencyclopedic. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this. Also, if you re-insert them then you are re-inserting unsourced material - which is against policy. Someone has removed the material according to our citation and verifiability policies and are in the right. The discussion can continue and material be re-added, with reliable sources, if and when they appear.-Localzuk(talk) 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a new line of discussion, and I think it would help if you read the sources in the article: graffiti was a *particularly* notable phenomenon in Barrington, and many sources address that. Per long ago discussion above, I stated that there was an overemphasis on Barrington in the 80s (although that is when it got most of the press) and that other decades needed expansion. There is clearly no argument that graffiti was notable. I think it would be redundant to state that the collected graffiti was "from the 80s," as the article notes that graffiti was an 80s phenomenon. I don't think the graffiti is given undue weight, but that there is need (and has been for a long time) for research/expansion of Barrington's history from other decades, especially the 30s, the 60s and the 70s--there are sources for those decades; they were especially interesting.-Cindery 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The graffiti does seem like an important part of the history of Barrington Hall. However, cataloging the graffiti is outside of the scope of wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "catalog" of the graffiti--that would take 400 pages. It's examples of the most-remembered/significant, which give an idea of what the place was like. As such, it's valuable to the article because it gives view into the culture/the time/the place. As lists go, it's extremely brief (esp. in comparison to "famous people with uterine cancer," etc.)-Cindery 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that people are having to create new blog entries to try and document them, they seem the very opposite of "most-remembered" or "significant". If they were truly significant, they would be documented somewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2)Maybe Wikiquote would be a better location for such a list of quotes. We can link from here to there. I'm not totally familiar with the standards on wikiquote so I can't say if they will accept self-published secondary sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is the obvious place for a brief list which enhances the article.-Cindery 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict; reply to Milo)I don't think that's helpful or constructive--please assume good faith. Your precept seems to be that the graffiti did not exist; the graffiti noted here is not the most remembered/significant. Again, I did not write or create the graffiti section. Arygiou states that he saw it, and that there are probably records. I think that some is documented in Mahlen's site "Colorful website from the 80s," and I have already stated that I am not sure it isn't documented in press which is not available online. People who lived in Barrington in the 80s are living now (for the most part) and hence can be interviewed. If professional journalists interview them, or note the graffiti, they have indirectly done Wikipedia a favor (by providing an online source which can be checked online).-Cindery 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Mind responding to my sugustion? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What suggestion? If you mean Wikiquote, reply is above. Is there some reason you are failing to reply to repeated requests to discuss janedark@janedark.com?-Cindery 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A document can't be used as evidence of it's own credibility. I'm still waiting for some kind of indication on janedark.com verifying the connection. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
JD sez: connection verified by registered email address. Can you cite policy or guideline to state that a registered email address is insufficient to establish identity? (Milo has already answered the question "Are you saying a regular contributor to the NYT cannot maintain an offshoot of a blog?" The answer was: "No.")-Cindery 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What's all this talk about "identity?" I don't get it. This has nothing to do with identity, it has to do with published sources.
There are many things which are true which are unsuitable for inclusion in WIkipedia. You could have the original of a notarized affidavit from Chief Justice Roberts saying he had seen these graffiti, with another affidavit from a handwriting expert certifying his signature as genuine, but that would be irrelevant.
On the other hand, if they've been published in the Daily Californian or, for that matter, the Berkeley Barb, that would be fine. If you can cite an issue of a local newspaper that a) mentions these graffiti and b) says that they're important or classic or part of the local culture or something like that, I'd support their inclusion.
If they're important, than surely someone, somewhere, has said for publication something like "in the words of the famous Barrington Hall graffiti, 'Only seven more shopping days 'til Armageddon.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
P. S. A Google search on the exact phrases "shopping days till Armageddon" and "shopping days til Armageddon" turn up a few hits mentioning occurrence e.g. in a TV series, but none except this Wikipedia article itself mention Barrington Hall. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrington_Hall_(Berkeley,_California)/Archive_1&oldid=1097322218"