| bnj |
This user plays the banjo. |
| bnj |
This user plays the banjo. |
 |
This user is interested in law. |
 |
This user enjoys playing chess. |
|
|
This user is interested in maps. |
 |
This user is a committed advocate of democracy. |
|
[edit] Generally
Take it sleazy (or, take the mud)
[edit] About Me
-
- Fredric G. Levin College of Law, Cuban Legal System, Socialist Legality, Cuban Law, Cuban Legal History, Agriculture of Cuba, UBPC, CPA (Agriculture), National Institute of Agrarian Reform, Agrarian Reform Laws of Cuba, ANAP (Cuba), Healthcare of Cuba, Arturo Fuente (cigar brand), He Was a Friend of Mine, Arthur McBride, Mrs. McGrath, WSKY (Radio), List of Taco Bell items, Lake Alice (Gainesville, Florida), Hyperion (tree), and Talpiot Tomb.
- Portal:Cuba & Portal:Florida
- I've created other articles which didn't make the grade and were deleted, merged, or redirected.
- I've spent lots of time working on the Montgomery Burns, Kang and Kodos, and Moe Szyslak articles. Since I've stopped working on the Mr. Burns article, its quality has declined.
- My edit summary
- My Contributions
[edit] Inclusion v. Exclusion
-
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "It would be dangerous for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. . . If they command the interest of any public, they have value and the taste of any public is not to be greeted with contempt." (paraphrased)
When asking whether something should be included in a Wikipedia article, we should follow Mr. Holmes' advice and always err on the side of inclusion.
[edit] The Problem of Hierarchy and Wikipedia
Mr Aaron Swartz notes [2]:
- If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit. Unfortunately, precisely because such people are only occasional contributors, their opinions aren't heard by the current Wikipedia process. They don't get involved in policy debates, they don't go to meetups, and they don't hang out with Jimbo Wales. And so things that might help them get pushed on the backburner, assuming they're even proposed. Out of sight is out of mind, so it's a short hop to thinking these invisible people aren't particularly important. Thus Wales's belief that 500 people wrote half an encyclopedia. Thus his assumption that outsiders contribute mostly vandalism and nonsense. And thus the comments you sometimes hear that making it hard to edit the site might be a good thing. "I'm not a wiki person who happened to go into encyclopedias," Wales told the crowd at Oxford. "I'm an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki." So perhaps his belief that Wikipedia was written in the traditional way isn't surprising. Unfortunately, it is dangerous. If Wikipedia continues down this path of focusing on the encyclopedia at the expense of the wiki, it might end up not being much of either."
I tend to agree with Mr Swartz. Some who have written about it [3]. But, the problem is not limited to admins. It's one of
[edit] Is Use of Cartoon Images on Wikipedia Fair use - My opinion
-
In response to a query about whether using a cartoon image was fair use, I made a lengthy post on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons. Below is the text I post when I upload cartoon images to Wikipedia. Anybody should feel free to use what I've prepared to justify cartoon images being fair use on wikipedia if they agree with it. If you'd like to see the full reasoning behind the paragraph written below read this page for my reasoning. It's important for you to note this isn't meant to be legal advice. It may also be incorrect. Use it at your own peril:
"Use of this picture in Wikipedia is Fair Use. It is being used for critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching. Evaluating its use further using the statutory factors in 17 USC § 107, I find the following: The use here is not-for-profit, which favors fair use; the original work is neither factual nor fictional for fair use analysis and that favors fair use; that a substantial portion of the work was used is inevitable due to its being an image and is therefore of little consequence for fair use analysis; and there is no adverse effect upon a potential market for the protected work, which favors for use. Furthermore, use of this image is productive as it enhances the benefit the work provides to the public, and it encourages creative expression on Wikipedia. Together, these factors support the assertion that use of this image is fair use."
[edit] The "Substantial Role" test for the Simpsons
On April 28, 2006, in the Mr. Burns article, I created a section about episodes which star Mr. Burns and wrote the following at the beginning of the section: "This is a list of episodes in which Mr. Burns plays a substantial role in driving the plot, not simply a supporting role" [4]. Little did I know that that "test" of whether a supporting Simpsons character starred in an episode would catch on. But catch on it did. In reading other Simpsons articles, I've seen this sentence appear numerous times (with the character's name changed). Articles about Nelson Muntz, Moe Szyslak, and Seymour Skinner all feature the test. After seeing that, I added a few more personally. Hopefully this helps Simpsons fans like myself quickly track down the episodes that feature their favorite characters.
[edit] My Sandbox
