Talk:Broadcasters push for new layer of intellectual monopoly at WIPO

NPOV issue

This article does not report facts, but rather innuendo and hearsay.

The sources for this article are not reports. The first is a column on FT, a respectable periodical but an editorial article do not equal reporting. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is specifically organized to oppose IP laws, and is not a viable source except to present an opposition point of view.

In any case, statements such as:

At stake may be the future of the proposal for a WIPO Development Agenda, which would consider the implications of existing and future intellectual monopolies (copyrights, patents, and trademarks) for developing countries, as well as the future of the proposal for a Broadcaster Treaty.

are insupportable conjecture and not events reporting. In its current state there are very few answers to Who is doing What, Where, When, and if possible Why and How? There are, however, unsupported (by reliable sources) factual statements such as "pushed by the United States at the behest of Yahoo! lobbyists", missing facts such as "as are numerous NGOs and public interest advocates", and appears to be an advertisement for a political action event ("sign on letter calling for public hearings" with inline link.) - Amgine/^talk 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The EFF is NOT specifically organized to oppose IP laws; that is not even mentioned in their stated purpose. And they are quite a respectable organization. If you want to balance the article by providing links to material supporting YOUR opposing view please do so. --David Battle 04:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If no further commentary is added here shortly, I am going to remove the disputed tag from the article because I believe it is inappropriate. --David Battle 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove dispute tags without addressing the issues raised on the talk page.

The EFF is specifically organized to act in opposition to IP laws, but that is only one of the issues raised above. The primary issue is not the sources, but the presentation of information which is conjecture or opinion rather than verifiable facts. Presenting opinion is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is verifiably ascribed to an individual or organization. For example, you might say "EFF reports the WIPO initiative is being pushed by the United States, at the behest of Yahoo! lobbyists."

NPOV is a policy on Wikinews; articles which do not yet work within the NPOV should not be published.

Wikinews is not an advocate or an advertiser. We even post disclaimers on articles about the Wikimedia Foundation, and are even more tight on NPOV in those articles. Wikinews does not attempt to generate traffic for another site, or to suade an audience in favor or against one or another political view point. - Amgine/^talk 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a gross exaggeration to say that "The EFF is specifically organized to act in opposition to IP laws", as I doubt the EFF has any issues with IP laws as they existed 100 years ago. The EFF is specifically organized to act in opposition to a number of corporate lobbyists who wish to extend IP laws. Not the same thing at all, but yes the EFF is a POV organization.

I agree that the article is POV, but just needs a little rephrasing. The title is acceptable since patents and copyrights are monopoly powers, as defined by the US constitution. So the phrase intellectual monopoly is historically far more accurate. We should allow this little bit of linguistic excitment in the title.

I've tried to fix it. - Nyarlathotep 10:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is approaching 12 hours since my last edits; anyone who feel npov issues remain should claify their feelings. - Nyarlathotep 20:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the bias of a source is a reason for not including it. EFF certainly has a point of view and a political direction, but one frequently refers to biased and opinionated sources in writing journalistic and other accounts. How, else, indeed, is one to summarize what those points of view are? I can understand a reader's disagreeing with EFF, but I don't think it's reasonable to object to the article because of EFF's inclusion. I only read the article just now, and it now seems relatively balanced. The only criticism I would make is that it is very unclear why the developed countries (and the broadcasters) would want to add these rules at this time. The sponsors of the DMCA had what they believed were sound reasons -- what are the reasons here?--69.60.188.128 05:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion about finding the reasons for supporting it were good, but the problem is that the WIPO and broadcaster lobiests would prefer that this be ignored, and are not saying much about it. Can you find anything? I'm removing the NPOV tag, since no one else has suggestions. - Nyarlathotep 11:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for the article. Karen 07:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Other articles

The Anne Broache articles might deserve its own wikinews articles. The James Boyle article has much more compelling information which should be included in this article.