Talk:Wikinews discusses DRM and DMCA with Richard Stallman after GitHub re-enables public access to youtube-dl

Details

Heh, I had emailed how to find the details for the previous article. And now I have forgotten what was where. Time to git bisect or something like that.
•–• 15:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

OR Notes

I will be emailing the notes soon.
•–• 20:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Email sent to pizero.
103.48.106.2 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Note for reviewer

I don't think "counter notice" is mentioned anywhere, it is a "letter to GitHub". I should have been mindful of that. I am updating the article, but if I missed it somewhere, please update accordingly.
•–• 07:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Status

While it would have been good to have this article published, it is no longer fresh -- so I will see if I can schedule some interviews to have an updated article, but that is not a promise.
•–• 04:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have sent three emails for the media query just now. Let's see what happens now.
•–• 10:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Working on the transcript.
103.48.105.27 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede

Here, the lede should at least touch on the two key things that are both mentioned in the headline. Atm Stallman isn't even mentioned until the very last paragraph of a long intro section. Although we've generally allowed some leeway in the organization of the intro to an interview, we've edged over into "burying the lede" territory. It seems we need to be a bit more careful on this point. (@Acagastya:) --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggest renaming this page

Not everyone knows who "Stallman" is. I recommend using "Richard Stallman". I would only use surname-only in cases of very famous individuals or were this print and we needed to save every possible inch. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. (Done.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

timing

• "After the public access was restored, Sergey M, one of the maintainers of youtube-dl wrote on GitHub"
• "After GitHub restored the public access to the repository, Stoltz tweeted ..."
• In the blog post announcing "youtube-dl is back", GitHub said,

Dates of these two events are missing. Would it be trivial to add for an involved author? --Gryllida (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I have added it now, abut adding "hours after" would indeed be trivial.
•–• 07:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

licensing clarification suggestion

"youtube-dl is used by thousands of people around the world. Multiple Creative Commons-licensed and public domain videos on Wikimedia Commons are uploaded via a tool called video2commons, which relies on youtube-dl to download media."

For an unaware reader this may sound like copyright violations. Perhaps a word or two should be added here to indicate that only properly (freely) licensed videos are approved by this tool.

Gryllida (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Done, @Gryllida:.
•–• 07:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

role clarification

"After this, Wikinews reached out to Richard Stallman, the founder of Free Software Foundation" -- would mentioning GNU and RMS's role in it be relevant here? --Gryllida (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We need to identify and clarify why we contacted a person. That is why, FSF has been mentioned. Further clarification is provided in the same sentence: "who has been highly critical of DRM (digital rights management, the subject of the DMCA) for many years now, to discuss the harms of DRM and DMCA 1201."
•–• 07:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

broken grammar

"So before 1998, companies tried implementing DRM and people who didn't like being handcuffed by DRM implemented ways to break the handcuffs. The DRM the the DMCA made that much more difficult

I presume it was meant to say "The DMCA made that much more difficult" ? --Gryllida (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC) .

similar issue in "Well, if the purpose is to repress, then yes, the DMCA, a part of the DMCA" unless that's intentional. --Gryllida (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Re the first one, @Gryllida:, you know how there are two related things, say FOO and BAR, and you misspeak FOO for BAR, then immediately correct it? That is what happened. "The DRM [internal thought: no, not DRM but actually DMCA] the DMCA made that much more difficult." For the second, the way he was speaking, "if the purpose of DMCA is to repress, then DMCA [no wait, not the whole of DMCA, but a significant part]; a part of DMCA [is necessary for repression]: because DMCA says many different things [including anti-circumvention].
•–• 07:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Audio source

Have checked the interview audio source. The questions written up from it check out. –RockerballAustralia contribs 07:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Email questions

I note there are questions in the inter that look like they've been sent through email. I can't find the corresponding email. Can any one with said email forward it to me please. --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Forwarded to your @wn-reporters, @RockerballAustralia:.
•–• 07:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Recieved and verified. Thanks you. --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Review update and thoughts

I have had a look through this article -- today the pre interview bits -- and am happy that it checks out verification wise. As to the freshness of this article, I think we can treat it as a bit more evergreen than we do most articles. This being because it is more a feature story about a broader subject -- "copyright owners versus the internet" if you will. It would be a shame to lose such a piece as I think it contributes to the wider discussion immensely. I'll do a style check in a moment. I should be done soon. --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4616660 [Passed]

Revision 4616660 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Freshness was looking like a problem given some events were some time ago. But as I mentioned before I think we can treat it as a bit more evergreen than we do most articles. This being because it is more a feature story about a broader subject. In terms of verifying things, it was a lot easier than what I thought it would be. The actual interview portion was probably the longest to verify - an hour long audio recording being the main source for that. All in all a good article. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4616660 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Freshness was looking like a problem given some events were some time ago. But as I mentioned before I think we can treat it as a bit more evergreen than we do most articles. This being because it is more a feature story about a broader subject. In terms of verifying things, it was a lot easier than what I thought it would be. The actual interview portion was probably the longest to verify - an hour long audio recording being the main source for that. All in all a good article. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Thanks for this, @RockerballAustralia:! Really appreciate it! Btw, EzPr only removes {{under review}}, not {{reviewing}} -- so that is why this happened.
•–• 05:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)