User talk:Geni
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6
new comments at the bottem of the page please
[edit] Meta::usurpation::GFDL
I have the same concerns you have over breaking GFDL with the proposed usurpation policy. I think I might have found a solution which could possibly make everyone happy (IANAL tho). My concern is that the identity of a user who had been subject to usurpation would be usurped as well -- obviously a flagrant breach of the license. But what if the usurper was obligated to keep a perpetual, highly visible notice on both their user page and their talk page stating that "this account has been operated by XYZ (usurped) until YYYY-MM-DD"? Do you think that would be acceptable? As much as I have fought against the proposed usurpation policy (before your radical edit), I think this could actually work -- as long as you wear a prominent notice on your forehead, I don't think anyone can accuse you of identity theft or anything similar. What say you? --Gutza T T+ 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean we allow for usurpation as originally proposed, but the usurper has to perpetually identify themselves as an usurper of an account held by somebody else before the usurpation date. --Gutza T T+ 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean, Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Notes reads "When the rename has been completed, your account will have been renamed, and any contributions you have made (including deleted contributions) will be reattributed to your new account as a background process." What am I missing? --Gutza T T+ 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot change the person, and we also cannot change the identity, that far I'm all with you. But what's in a name, really -- apart from an identity? As long as you preserve the identity, the person behind the name, I don't think there are any problems. After all, the GFDL doesn't make any provisions on usernames, it makes provisions related to authorship (and authorship is related to persons, people -- not usernames). --Gutza T T+ 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely: preserve the authors, not the "authors' usernames". --Gutza T T+ 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not a lawyer, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not one either (just kidding). But licenses, as all legal documents, are about people, not usernames. I'm of the opinion that as long as you make an obvious, good faith effort of preserving the identity of the person (again, person, not username) who has indeed been the author of a derivative work, you are very much in the clear -- it's more than a reasonable effort to preserve the true history of the document. Once again, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one -- I'm just running this by you. --Gutza T T+ 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're making me play the Devil's advocate. You seem quite rigid about preserving the History section as if set in stone. What if, in a real world scenario, Ms. John contributes to a GFDL document, gets marries, becomes Mrs. Smith, and asks for the History section to be revised? Does it or doesn't it get revised? Are there legal precedents? (I said I was playing the Devil's advocate because I'm fully aware in case of usurpation poor Ms. John not only doesn't ask for anything, but she's also completely oblivious to the name change -- but hey, what's life without a debate?) --Gutza T T+ 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- That makes perfect sense. But now (please indulge me), what if Ms. John happened to actually be called Ms. Hillary Clinton instead? Hear me out, this really isn't nonsensical: Ms. Hillary Clinton gets married, and she's now Mrs. Hillary Smith. She did have legitimate contributions under the (then) legitimate name Hillary Clinton, and nobody's denying them. But now there's one Hillary Clinton who happens to be a more prominent person (read "contributor"), and at the same time the former Ms. Clinton doesn't in fact use that name any more. Wouldn't it be acceptable for the current Mrs. Hillary Clinton to take over that name -- as a brand, if you wish? That is, as long as Mrs. Clinton bears a visible banner at all times reading "whatever happened before 2007-03-05 under the name Hillary Clinton is belong to Mrs. Hillary Smith"? --Gutza T T+ 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting using a dual account, as Mrs. Hillary Clinton wouldn't if Ms. Clinton were a known pornstar. People are intent on preserving their identities, pornstars or not, politicians or not, private people or not. My point is that we have to preserve the identity, not necessarily the username, as long as ambiguity is not a matter of concern (and I do take that quite seriously). --Gutza T T+ 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
I think we reached the end of our exploratory journey: this is, in my opinion, something which should go straight to the usurpation policy: "The GFDL is only interested in the name the person adds to the history when they release the work under the GFDL." Thank you for taking the time to do this with me, it has really helped me understand this issue a lot better than before this conversation. --Gutza T T+ 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reminder Sunday Lunchtime
Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10 See you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
