Talk:RaceFail 09

Internal Links for Blog Post Titles

I thought it would be a good idea for each of the major blog posts (particularly those that have disappeared from the public Internet) to have its own page where we can call out highlights, important threads, and individual comments that sparked other discussions/posts, etc. That will keep the main timeline page pretty clear and straightforward. -KTempest

It's a good idea, though copyright restrictions may apply. --Pleasantville aka Kathryn Cramer16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair use, as these posts have been quoted and responded to and are part of public discourse. I'm not the expert on that though. 8-) --Liz Henry 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb for fair use is quoting 150 words. On my blog, I don't sweat this and on rare occasions when it becomes an issue I either remove the content, pay a fee for use, or both, but Wikis can exist only because of the willingness to put things under a free license (in this case GNU Free Documentation License 1.2), so in general one should adhere to fair use guidelines. (LJ's ToS state the material is copyright by its author, which is as I expected.)--Pleasantville 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that rule of thumb is appropriate here (and I'd be curious of the context from which it is drawn: I'm guessing the publishing industry. "Best practices" frequently become far more normative than they were originally intended to be when it comes to fair use, and don't translate well to other contexts.). Fair use is a defence, not a hard and fast rule, and while this isn't legal advice, I'd suggest that Pleasantville's approach on her own blog is the best: don't sweat it. If someone is upset at being quoted, there are plenty of forms of conciliation that can be used before IP law needs to be invoked. Calling out (linking to) content would be almost certainly fine, copying-and-pasting beyond what's necessary for review and analysis will gradually shade into other issues. Our stuff on Chilling Effects on the [Fair Use factors] may be of use. --Mala 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright attorney / co-admin of the FSFwiki weighing in: 150 is a rule of thumb adopted by some people / organizations, but it is just that -- a voluntary rule of thumb. It in no way reflects the state of the law, which is probably better termed, "as much as needed for a legitimate purpose." Documenting an event and the views, and important language that comes up, is unquestionably important; and so long as individual passages are not unnecessarily included (for instance, to try to or with the effect of supplanting the original) then I think we're okay. In short, it is a fact-specific analysis, and thus we can make our own assessment on a case-by-case basis. No rules of thumb apply. I feel very strongly about this. --LQ 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I envisioned that whole posts would be pasted in when they were no longer available at their original location but were, at one point, public. Like Teresa's post. Otherwise, readers can click to the original to read the whole thing but stay on the page to see important highlights and get the gist of the discussion. Tempest 06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Names and pseudonyms

I'm really not digging this distinction between the pseudonyms and the driver's license names. Is this necessary, and if so, why? - vito excalibur

Yes. Since it is important to know who is speaking, and for half the participants, we don't. --Pleasantville 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This was one the sub-issues raised in the events being documented, and so I personally disagree on the wiki taking a position on it here. --Kate Nepveu

There's really no way not to take a position on it: either we separate the names or we don't. -- vito excalibur

I don't see any point in separating people out under different headings. If the person has, themselves, associated their real name with their screen name or pen name, or if it is common public knowledge (as it is for my screen name of badgerbag), list one with the other(s) right next to it and alphabetize under the name you think people are most commonly known by. If there are pages for both identities, link them to each other or make a redirect page. By the way, to make this nifty name/time stamp, click the signature-looking thing in the little toolbar above the edit text input window, and it will magically appear.. --Liz Henry 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that badly. Let me rephrase: I disagree with Kathryn Cramer that the distinction was necessary or useful. And now I see that it's been changed while I was off. -- Kate Nepveu

I think it sort of speaks for itself anyway.--Pleasantville 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which "we" is this? I don't need to know what name corresponds to a pseudonym in order to address that pseudonym's arguments. One of the central arguments in the debate was whether it was appropriate to use pseudonyms; outing someone who has explicitly chosen to be anonymous is cheap, and assumes a premise that was actually being debated. --Jonquil 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm removing the outings. If you need to know who coffeeandink is, you can look at her *years* of public postings.

In terms of why this is necessary, I ask: Is it widely known, for example, that coffeeandink used to work at Tor, where she reported to pnh? (I presume it's not, since she doesn't include that job on her LinkedIn page.) People don't just spring into existence when they make up pseudonyms. --Pleasantville 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pleasantville, if you think it's so important, why don't you just put that on her wiki page? I don't see why that requires people to be divided into separate categories on this page. --Vito excalibur 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I did already. --Pleasantville 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just deleted the link to the LinkedIn page in your comment because coffeeandink does not want her LJ to be Googleable and connected to her full name. I hope we can respect that wish. --Vito excalibur 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can put that bit in about employment, which Pleasantville wants to be clear to outline some of the complexities of people's relationships. But I would like us to respect people's choices about pseudonymity as best we can. The need for anonymity is one of the reasons that women's history is hard to document. Let's do the best we can here. --Liz Henry 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was formulating an argument along these lines in the car on the way home, but you did it better. Thank you. --Jonquil 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my full name on my LJ because it's unique and I don't want it Google-able. Please remove the redirect and the page account. (request from coffeeandink)

I feel my first name is sufficiently unusual that people who are looking for the connection can draw it on their own.

Uh, yeeeahh. Speaking of which, does this Wiki have an outing policy? (Rather, an anti-outing policy?) Because if it doesn't, I foresee difficulties with outreach to media fannish communities. I did a quick search and didn't find anything.--Veejane 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)