Talk:Mike Godwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News On JUL-04-2007, Mike Godwin was linked from slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mike Godwin, has edited Wikipedia as
Mikegodwin (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Unprotection

Time to unprotect it yet? Duarmtime 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mikegodwin editing this page

Mr. Godwin, it is inappropriate for you to edit an article about yourself. Please do not remove content because you disagree or don't approve of listing it here. This is not your user page. - Tεxτurε 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly not a Wikipedia policy, although creating articles about yourself is discouraged (while not prohibited either). Even members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors seem to edit the articles about themselves[1][2]. Welcome to Wikipedia, Mikegodwin! --Grouse 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Texture apparently has a problem with my correcting the mistaken impression that I hosted a panel at H2K2. I was booked to host that panel, but because of scheduling problems couldn't attend. --Mike
Would it be better if Mike posted suggested corrections to this Talk page and asked somebody else to do the edits for him? I don't have any problem with Mike's edits, but if you allow it to happen then you end up with the current problem of politicians replaced well written articles with their own sickeningly sycophantic drivel. Although I suppose any such policy could draw a distinction between fixing uncontroversial verifiable facts and the politicians just removing uncontroversial verifiable facts that they don't want publicised, such as their voting record. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That's why the wiki-gods created reverts. If for some reason there were a page about you that had out-right factual errors, why should you not fix the errors? I see no difference in a person editing details of his own life and a person editing details of an entry in which they have any other form of interest.--Smallwhitelight 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate editing?

(Copied from User talk:Mikegodwin)

It appears you are claiming to be Mike Godwin and editing Godwin's law. If you are Mike Godwin then it is inappropriate for you to be editing content related to yourself. If you are not, then please cease pretending to be Mr. Godwin. - Tεxτurε 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Texture, would you please cite the Wikipedia policy you are referring to which states that it is inappropriate for a user to edit content to which they are personally related? I was not aware of such a policy. Hall Monitor 15:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe the Wiki guideline he's referring to is Wikipedia:Autobiography. Basically it discourages you from writing or significantly editing articles about yourself, since it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about yourself. Of course, you can edit clear cut mistakes and typos, etc, but otherwise it's better to talk about your suggested changes in your article's talk page and let independent editors handle implementing those suggestions in the actual article itself. Dugwiki 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that it wasn't actually a guideline more than a year ago when that claim was made[3]. Why bring this up now anyway? I think this talk page may need a cleanup. Grouse 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute with Larvatus

This page is being repeatedly vandalized by an anonymous user posting from IP address 68.49.2.164 removing information supported by public Usenet record. Larvatus 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

The article is still being vandalized by the aforementioned anonymous user posting from IP address 68.49.2.164, now extending his or her censorship efforts to this discussion page. Larvatus 05:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Anonymous vandalism is ongoing with no attempts at justifying the removal of documented information. This cowardly behavior pattern is strongly reminiscent of the titular subject in the referenced incident. Administrative assistance is welcome. Larvatus 21:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

If Mike Godwin is notable, his entitlement to public attention is due to his Usenet presence. His career as a tergiversating duellist is well attested in that venue. [4] The referenced public record of his Usenet posts includes notice of Godwin's own escalation of the imbroglio into the pages of The Wall Street Journal. [5] Godwin's effort at promoting himself as an Internet peacekeeper deserves to be commemorated here. Larvatus 02:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

These comments are highly inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks.
As for the substance of your claim, remember that Wikipedia is not for original research. A Google search is not proof of anything. The referenced Wall Street Journal article only contains a quote from Mike Godwin which does not concur with your version of events. Not that Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this he-said, she-said kind of thing. --Grouse 08:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I defer to the notice of impropriety and extend apologies to all concerned parties. I have replaced the offending epithets with a neutral description of the subject matter at issue.
Thanks for making Wikipedia a more civil place. --Grouse 18:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
As to the substance, a Google Groups search is 99% dispositive in matters pertaining to Usenet celebrity. It does not represent original research, but rather comprises the matter at issue. This is owed to the undisputed fact that the article under discussion is predominantly dedicated to Mike Godwin's Usenet persona. I contend that my contribution is an accurate and neutral summary of the referenced events. Nevertheless, in the interests of impartiality, instead of reverting your edits, I am inviting any disinterested third party to evaluate the subject matter objectively. Larvatus 13:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

It's unclear why "larvatus" is trying to turn this biographical stub into a larvatus-centric vanity page. It seems to be the case that there's already a vanity-page entry for "larvatus" on wikipedia, largely dedicated, apparently, to his stalking of his ex-girlfriend. Probably that page should be marked for deletion, since it violates Wikipedia's policies under a range of criteria. In any case, MODERATOR ATTENTION IS INVITED regarding "larvatus" and his frequent attempts to insert himself into this page.

It is a base slur to say that the "larvatus" entry in Wikipedia is a vanity page, given that the discussion of my exploits on that page is an important entry in any relevant encyclopedia. Similarly, it is vile of Godwin and/or his allies to assert that my relationship with Erin Zhu was anything other than holy. Finally, given the baseness of Godwin, I believe I should be exempted from the three-reversion rule. Michael Zeleny

Note: Michael Zeleny is an impersonator of User:Larvatus. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I confirm that the party deceptively registered as Wikipedia User:MichaelZeleny has nothing to do with me, Michael Zeleny. Larvatus 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
If true, this is not appropriate behavior either. You guys need a timeout. --Grouse 08:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Alert

This page has been vandalized by MCB and Calton operating in tandem. They deleted information about Mr. Godwin's elite undergraduate program and his Well membership. (Personal attack removed) --RichardBennett 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unreliable tag

Is there not a large amount of biographical information and claims that are unverified? Yes. So don't remove a tag calling for more citations. VanTucky (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's something you consider problematic, drive-by tagging is far inferior to actually flagging the problems on the talk page (I removed the tag because you hadn't), or even, ooh, looking up stuff on him and adding to the article - David Gerard 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I flagged the entirety of the article because most of it is just the bio section anyway, and there would be so many fact tags it would be absurd. But if that is the way you want it... VanTucky (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
We have some people removing citations and others inserting lots of citation-needed tags. :-) VT, it's best not to add so many tags, as it's very disfiguring. You could have a look around yourself to find references, then let us know if there's anything you can't find support for. Tlesher, it's best to leave that citation in the lead where it's used after the first reference to the Wikimedia appointment, otherwise we'll have another fact tag added shortly; WP:LEAD says nothing about exceptions for leads. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In point, WP:LEAD says 'should be carefully sourced as appropriate'; I suspect this is based on the idea that it 'should be capable of standing alone'; but it's actually encouraged to be cited if needed. --Thespian 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I haven't intentionally removed any citations, so if I did it's my mistake. But I added the inline citation tags (even though I agree they are disfiguring) because David Gerard objected to pointing out that much of the biographical assertions in the article were unreferenced with an {{unreliable}} tag. Whichever we do, it needs to be pointed out that a large amount of factua assertions are uncited in the article, especially in the light of User:Mikegodwin editing his own bio. VanTucky (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear VanTucky, I think it's pretty well-established that the edits to this article about me that were complained about had to do with my removal of a factually inaccurate statement in the original stub. (It was stated that I had attended a conference that in fact I was too ill to attend. My correction of that error was deemed to be consistent with then-current Wikipedia policy. As a Wikipedian myself, it seemed appropriate to remove a false statement of fact.) I did not originate this article. I did not decide whether it was worth of inclusion. Nevertheless, so far as I can tell, what appears in the current article is factually accurate. If there are particular statements that you believe are false, please identify them so that they can be corrected and/or removed. As far as I can tell, literally every sentence in the article is documentable by some source or other, although not all are Web-based sources. I'm looking forward to your constructive criticism and to your personal commitment to improving the quality of this article. I hope to learn a lot from you. MikeGodwin 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably best for people who like to add tags to get some practice doing research. One good place for VanTucky to start would be to actually read the external links and read the actual books and articles cited. This of course might require actual labor.

Please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~).
External links are not properly cited footnotes to specific assertions of biographical facts. Read WP:CITE. There are uncited claims in the article, thus the tag saying so is correct. VanTucky (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably best for you to actually research a subject before making pronouncements about it, VanTucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.160.219 (talk • contribs)

You realize that both of you have violated the three-revert rule, don't you? And no, and I don't want to hear any nonsense about "reverting vandalism" as an excuse, just to head that off.

It so happens that I agree that this is drive-by tagging, given the vagueness of VanTucky's claims and the lack of actionable points, so I've removed the tag. VanTucky, be specific about what you find wrong and how your qualms can be addressed, or you're just edit-warring for no good reason. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking simple. Too many uncited facts exist in the article for inline fact tags, so a banner tag calling for citations needs to be in place. I looked for references (external links to blogs and interviews are not references) for the following facts, and I could not find any. Thus, the article or the specific facts (inline tags were objected to by SlimVirgin bc of the quantity required) that uncited should be tagged as such. It has nothing to do with thinking any already cited facts are "wrong", but that many facts are simply uncited.
From education,

Godwin graduated in 1980 from the University of Texas at Austin with a Bachelor of Arts degree in the Plan II Honors program. Godwin later attended the University of Texas School of Law, graduating with a Juris Doctor degree in 1990. While in law school, Godwin served as editor of The Daily Texan, the student newspaper, from 1988 to 1989.

From Career,

Godwin's early involvement in the Steve Jackson Games affair led to his being hired by the EFF in November 1990, when the organization was new. Shortly afterwards, as the first EFF in-house lawyer, he supervised its sponsorship of the Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service case. Steve Jackson Games won the case in 1993.

As a lawyer for EFF, Godwin was one of the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the case challenging the Communications Decency Act in 1996. The Supreme Court decided the case for the plaintiffs on First Amendment grounds in 1997 in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. Godwin's work on this and other First Amendment cases in the 1990s is documented in his book Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age (1998), which was reissued in a revised, expanded edition by MIT Press in 2003.

From 2003 to 2005 Godwin was staff attorney and later legal director of Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based non-governmental organization concerned with intellectual property law. In recent years, Godwin has worked on copyright and technology policy, including the relationship between digital rights management and American copyright law. While at Public Knowledge, he supervised litigation that successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commission's broadcast flag regulation that would have imposed DRM restrictions on television broadcasting.

From October 2005 to April 2007, Godwin was a research fellow at Yale University, holding dual positions in the Internet and Society Project at Yale Law School and at Yale's computer science department. He was hired as general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation in July 2007.

All of this needs citing, thus it needs a tag pointing that out. It's not an attack on the veracity of the facts. VanTucky (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, have you read my book, CYBER RIGHTS? Or Bruce Sterling's book, THE HACKER CRACKDOWN? Or any of the other articles or books documenting cyberliberties work in the 1990s? Have you looked at the Public Knowledge website? The EFF website? The CDT website? It seems clear that most of the material you're trying to cast doubt on here is also available in any reasonably sized library. There are other books and articles that source this material as well, including many of the ones listed as external links in the article before your decision to engage in drive-by tagging. See for example this one: <http://web.archive.org/web/19970803111550/www.texasmonthly.com/archive/tex20/godwin.html>. MikeGodwin 03:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so suspicious. They are almost certainly true. But according to simple Wikipedia citation style guidelines, these facts are not cited properly. One of the books you speak of are not even in the References section, and even for the one that is the above facts aren't cited at all. If you want to make it clear that these books prove what the article says, then cite them properly. But don't just say on the talk page that they do and assume it's okay to ignore the proper citation format. That's what I care about. The article has large chunks of facts that need proper citing according to the WP:CITE style guidelines. It's not that they are lies or nonsense, they just need simple citing. As I couldn't just run out to the library and quickly cite something on the fucking 4th of July immediately, I could only tag the article to make it clear that they do need it. VanTucky (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

VT, if you think the material is "almost certainly true," then you're engaged in a WP:POINT by continuing to add tags. We can track citations down in the course of time if necessary; you could even help with that effort. And please, no more 3RR violations. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me make this clear again. I. AM. NOT. TRYING. TO. MAKE. ANY. POINT. ABOUT. THE. TRUTH. OF. THE. FACTS. All I am saying is that if the books are good references to those currently uncited facts, them a footnote or Harvard reference to those books needs to be made according to the style guidelines of WP:CITE. It's not a content issue in terms of real verification, it's that the facts are not properly cited stylistically VanTucky (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, since I take you to be sincere at wanting to improve this article, I'd be happy to arrange to have a copy of CYBER RIGHTS sent to you so you could provide any footnotes you think are necessary. Thanks for volunteering. MikeGodwin 03:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And I'm sure references will be added in due course, perhaps by you. In the meantime, we don't need citation tags, because the material isn't contentious. WP:V says that citations are needed for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. But you're not challenging it; you agree it's probably correct. So please leave things as they are, or find citations. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing, VanTucky, is engaging in a sterile edit war over a trivial point. If you're going to stop, fine, but I've already filed a 3RR, so someone else may wish to deal with that. --Calton | Talk 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If everyone but me is in consensus that major uncited facts in a biography of a living person do not at least need a single tag, then by all means I will desist. I don't understand why there was such a backlash against a simple tag requesting proper citations that goes uncontested on uncited articles all over Wikipedia. VanTucky (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent, as I'm replying to the thread as a whole) I agree with SlimVirgin that over-peppering an article with inline tags is a bit annoying and a major readability problem. I also understand the strong negative reaction to "unreliable" - that's a pretty harsh tag to put on a well-done-so-far, long-standing article. It is much more suitable for a suspicious one, where you are fairly certain that some of it is utter rubbish. A far more suitable template in this case would be {{Refimprove}}. If anyone still finds it onerous at the top, then put it at the top of the "References" section. Simple solution either way, and I think that would probably chill everyone out a bit. I hope. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Lawyer

This is silly, but.

American Lawyer has a seriously broken website, and eventually, I just went outside and searched their site from google, producing this.

It proves that he did columns for American Lawyer, but it's actually pretty useless, as both of those pages just give a Title and 2 lines, and the one that says 'read online' leads to a horrendously broken page. So while the proof that he was a columnist is there, it'd actually be a serious disservice to link to that. Opinions? --Thespian 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

...on being chosen as new general counsel. Bearian 23:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto the above congratulatory remarks, Mike. I know Steve Jackson well also. Wrote for him when he was editor of the student newspaper at Rice University in the early 1970s, and then again when he was CEO of the Austin-based ISP Illuminati Online in the late 1990s and early 21st century. An unattributed source 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well I have some respect for you

Now that you got my account restored on the Wikipedia I decided to come here to thank you for what you tried to do. I have spoken with the Administrators on the Wikipedia and it seems that they just don't understand where I'm coming from. I know now that I'm not alone after doing some research and finding several people out there that don't think the Wikipedia is open at all. Now I can see why (if you have the beliefs and morals people say you have) you said you respect what I'm trying to do with PediaOpeness.org. Under the About US section on our page I mentioned you and put your picture there for people to see. I tried to be respectful. I read the article written up on you here: and I must say they make some good points. Why would a man with your character and standards work with this company? Are you trying to help them overcome their non-openess and acceptance? (you don't have to answer that) These are the thoughts I have. Your currently signed up to openwikipedia.wetpaint.com and not pediaopeness.wetpaint.com. Just wanted to make sure you knew. Neutral777 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condolences

Mr. Godwin, I'm so sorry you had to get dragged into the debacle with that Moller character. You're someone genuinely devoted to the ideals of free speech, and also to free speech on the Internet, and I know you gave up some very good opportunities because you believe in what Wikipedia is trying to be. But please, you have so much potential, don't let the people behind Wikipedia take you down with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)