Richard Arthur Norton

Specific discussion about Wikimedia editors and editing of Wikimedia project pages.
Post Reply
Renée Bagslint
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Richard Arthur Norton

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:59 pm

Or Richard Arthur Norton (Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to give him his full name. Has driven a coach and horses through the Wikipedia copyright policy, such as it is, by plagiarism in several thousand articles, leaving the rest of the project with a huge cleanup project.

The reason for posting is that Sitush has delated RAN to the authorities for a ban for finding new and exciting ways of filling the project with rubbish.

This illustrates quite nicely why you simply cannot write an encyclopaedia on a model of unconstrained contribution by random loons. You also cannot write it on the basis of hoping that volunteers will organise themselves to do the necessary chores. The thousands of articles in the cleanup project are being examined at a rate that suggests completion around the year 2030. It's pretty clear that if such a state of affairs is tolerable (and it clearly is, because it is being tolerated), then the Wikipedian culture simply does nor mean what it says about its policy on sources.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Richard Arthur Norton

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:10 am

... and indefinitely blocked by TonyBallioni.

Proabivouac
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Richard Arthur Norton

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:14 pm

The damage to copyright holders is greatly magnified by the choice of a commons license regime, since not only is Wikipedia claiming the work to be its own, but is releasing the rights to it for anyone else to duplicate. Cleaning up after the coyvios won't change the fact that it will have been excerpted elsewhere under the premise of the license.

The main reason for the license isn't so that others can use it freely – why should they care? – but to disenfranchise their contributors under a charitable pretense. Who can be surprised when the materials they are tricking them out of doesn't belong to them to begin with? Put another way, if you'd really sunk your time (and hence money) into creating something of great value, why on earth would you fork it over to Wikipedia? It makes sense only when you're not the creator of the material, or when it helps or satisfies you in some other way.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Richard Arthur Norton

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:29 pm

Indeed, there seem to be several streams of thought that flow together to create the morass that is the Wikipedian view on copyright. There are those who genuinely believe that research, scholarship and so forth, consists entirely of copying material from one place to another. RAN seems to be one of these. All text is grist to his mill, and he simply appropriates it and copy-pastes it because he thinks that's how an article is written. Then there are those who believe that they have a right to the fruits of other peoples' labour and creativity: that the creator's right to be recompensed is inferior to the Wikipedian's right to take what they want whenever they want it. The Foundation has a splendidly dishonest take on this:
The WMF wrote:When volunteers contribute to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects, they become creators themselves and depend on copyright to empower them to collect knowledge online
So they're telling Wikipedians that they too are knowledge creators (which they are not, and should not be under Wikipedia's rules) when they violate the true creators' rights, but then that they are empowered by their own copyright (which they have effectively abandoned as pointed out above). Two lies in one sentence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest