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

Independent comment

Should we mention that Godwin was once counsel at the EFF? It seems relevant to the EFF quotation. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that... as long as you provide a source, I suppose it's ok. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks?

What do you want to bet that the reason the FBI wants the seal removed is because they're pissed at Wikileaks, and they're so ignorant of the details of the online world that they think that the WMF is affiliated with Wikileaks. I'd bet a fair amount of money that that's the case. Is there anything in any of the sources you've looked at to indicate that? Gopher65_talk 15:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No...I didn't find any sources that indicate that. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Source for number of articles on the Wikipedias:

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm

--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's stint at the EFF

• "Goodwin(sic), Mike to Gosling, James" — Smart Computing, May 2002, Vol. 6 Issue 5

--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1070893 [Passed]

Revision 1070893 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1070893 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Wikimedia template

What's wrong with {{WikimediaMention}}? Benny the mascot (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The grammar was wrong in this case. It uses or, when in this case it is and, or just nothing at all after the word Foundation. Nothing wrong in general. --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

the [sic] in the quote

in "..these restrictions by Wikipedia [sic] users" - why is there a [sic] there? Unless i'm missing something, nothing is misspelled. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The FBI should have said Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguably before we wrote this story, it was only used on wikipedia - [1](Of course that doesn't count non-wikimedia people who use commons for images, but they probably don't use the image either). They probably weren't that concerned with wikimedia non-wikipedia use. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. {{sic}} removed. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bawolff, there is no reason to believe that Larson didn't mean what he wrote "Wikipedia". Thanks for fixing it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate

Britannica does not display the logo. The FBI also suggests in its complaint that the high resolution of the image (on the Commons) is of concern, which would in turn explain why the FBI has an issue with Wikimedia and not Britannica (even before Britannica took down the logo.Bdell555 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)