Comments:FBI asks Wikimedia Foundation to remove seal from websites, Wikimedia declines

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
The A is out of proportion.002:03, 9 September 2010
Wikimedia penny wise and pound foolish322:09, 10 August 2010
For reference207:20, 5 August 2010
Aw, man.008:30, 4 August 2010
Well done, Mike!708:12, 4 August 2010
Comments from feedback form - "The article however didn't men..."300:59, 4 August 2010
Comments from feedback form - "In case anybody cares, the Mik..."105:14, 4 August 2010

The A is out of proportion.

The version I saw on Wikipedia is not a good representation. The A in the lettering is out of proportion with the rest of the letters.

76.189.218.124 (talk)02:03, 9 September 2010

Wikimedia penny wise and pound foolish

Wikipedia has no need for an image in excess of 200px, never mind 2000px. The 500px, 1000px, and 2000px versions could be deleted from the Commons without compromising Wikipedia in the slightest and the message would be sent that when a creator releases a huge number of images to the public domain, that openness will not be used against the creator by Wikimedia taking a legalistic stance should the creator want one or two of those images "back". If Wikimedia is going to parse this relevant statute for the "most free" reading, the government is just going to be encouraged to write its statutes tighter such that the amount of material that goes to the Commons in general is more limited. There is no "higher power" here that forces the US govt to release as much material as it does to the public domain. To use the government's general policy of openness against it in a particular, narrow circumstance where Wikipedia has no dog in what is a fight over what is on Wikimedia Commons is to take a litigious and dogmatic stance instead of a nuanced one. Britannica has apparently had an internal discussion over whether to display the logo at any resolution on its FBI article page and decided to delete it. If the Wiki project is neutral I would think it would take its cue from this discretion instead of getting on a high horse and crusading.

Bdell555 (talk)03:09, 5 August 2010

Really? 200px? Thanks for joining 1999. Sure, back then I was only running 1024x768 at the absolute top end. Now in 2010 I run 1680x1050. Many machines start at 1920x1080 or better for "HD". Displays are just going to get better. Deleting everything above 200px is possibly one of the shortest sighted suggestions I've _ever_ heard.

ShakataGaNai ^_^08:51, 6 August 2010

The version isn't pixellated at all, according to its page. It is a vector version that the FBI made available to download, but clearly prefers that others don't distribute.

What did Vanity Fair do? Stand right alongside us!

InfantGorilla (talk)12:42, 6 August 2010
 

What are you talking about? All works of the US government are public domain by law.

NYKevin (talk)22:09, 10 August 2010
 

For reference

Edited by author.
Last edit: 07:19, 5 August 2010

Wikipedia:WP:VPM#Copyrights_are_harmful_to_Wikipedia, which was originally named 'the government blows'.

Kayau (talk · contribs)14:08, 4 August 2010

Guess the Wikimedia-haters can't insinuate that the Foundation is in league with the FBI anymore.

Or maybe this is a poorly-disguised cover for the fact that too many people know the secret now. Nice try, folks. We know the truth... admins are all employed by the FBI and use secret proxies to appear that they edit from all over the world. There is a ring of maybe 1000 people who sockpuppet as admins across all projects, causing carefully-planned controversy and projecting a variety of personas.

Information wants to be free... Wikimedia will keep it free... the FBI keeps control over what's important. Pretty neat deal.

Oh, wait, that means I'm employed by the FBI. Where's my paycheck?

this is what happens when I have a thousand better things to do but can't be bothered.

Sonia (talk)08:30, 4 August 2010

Well done, Mike!

I am glad to see Mr Godwin dig in with his strategy of defending the Foundation's right to host all kinds of legitimate content uploaded by web users. His attitude and his legal acumen are good for Wikinews, and good for society (in my own opinion.)

InfantGorilla (talk)16:43, 3 August 2010

Amen to that!

74.212.26.6 (talk)16:50, 3 August 2010

With its customary dismissal of Wikimedia, The Register teases the FBI by posting a picture of a badge and gun, that it displays with the FBI's permission.

The letter the FBI sent to Wikimedia is a disappointing waste of US taxpayers' money, not to mention that of Wikimedia donors.

But I have to laugh!

InfantGorilla (talk)16:57, 3 August 2010

I heartily agree, It's an absurd situation, that David Larson ought to be sacked from his post for abuse of authority.

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)04:12, 4 August 2010

That is going a bit far, Mr Wilson.

CNN called Mr Godwin's reply "whimsical" in style,[1] and I have to agree.

I think Mr Larson deserved the ribbing he got from Mr Godwin, but not the embarrassment of this week's publicity storm. He must feel terrible right now.

InfantGorilla (talk)04:29, 4 August 2010

Indeed, Mr. Gorilla, perhaps my hyperbolic remarks were a bit too sharp. However I strongly feel that any serious attempt by a law enforcement agency of a major national government to curtail the Internet's free and uncensored access to information that so many of us hold dear, particularly on what are obviously erroneous grounds, should be treated very seriously. I wish no ill whatsoever to Mr. Larson-as counsel to the FBI he is only doing his job-but I sincerely hope that the bad press his agency has received over this has made them think twice about acting upon such authoritarian proclivities

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)08:12, 4 August 2010
 
 
 
 

I wholeheartedly agree, this is a ridiculous excuse to exert control over the wikimedia foundation, setting an example that could be followed by even more absurd complaints. props to wiki.

137.219.252.68 (talk)04:46, 4 August 2010

Smiley4.png Please, for my peace of mind, please don't call the Foundation "wiki". Wikipedia and Wikinews weren't the first wikis. English Wikipedia started in 2001, but Ward's Wiki predates it by seven years.

InfantGorilla (talk)05:22, 4 August 2010
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "The article however didn't men..."

The article however didn't mention more about the other side, their reply or no-reply.

Research2006 (talk)17:08, 3 August 2010

FBI hasn't responded yet. Mikes letter was dated July 30th, so they probably only just got it.

ShakataGaNai ^_^17:13, 3 August 2010
 

According to the New York Times, an FBI spokesperson basically reiterated what Larson already said. [1]

Benny the mascot (talk)17:13, 3 August 2010

Someone has decided that Wiki has to be shutdown and this is the first salvo. Creative interpetation of the law is the first step, next comes minor legal harassment and then some sort of major legal battle. The end result is not to shut down wiki as illegal as to wear out its resources.

Guardianstatue (talk)00:59, 4 August 2010
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "In case anybody cares, the Mik..."

In case anybody cares, the Mike Godwin in this story is the same Mike Godwin who proposed the famous Godwin's Law. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin#Godwin.27s_law

Turtlestack (talk)19:58, 3 August 2010

I care, and so, apparently, does Stephen Fry (or at least the researchers for his BBC TV show QI care.)

InfantGorilla (talk)05:14, 4 August 2010