sashi wrote:CrowsNest wrote:sashi wrote:I don't think the
MediaWatch story makes DM (or Google) look too good.
Because........?
they -- like Wikipedia -- seem to be getting google juice for free by swiping people's work.
As a recognised newspaper with mass readership, they are perfectly entitled to be listed very highly in a search engine. Wikipedia has no such claim to deserve such recognition, and we know out of the two of them, which one gets financial assistance from Google, which one is seen as more of a direct benefit to Google's future existence.
As for whether this is really "swiping" or not (read:theft, right?) that is rather the point, is it not? Where you see theft, I, and that ABC source, eventually, begrudgingly, sees a possibly legal exploitation of a market opportunity, being exploited so well it is simply making their competitors mad and inducing them to look to wholly disreputable means to unfairly level the playing field.
The Mail argues that what they are doing is legal. Unless or until it's critics find the backbone to challenge that assumption, their efforts to otherwise damage their reputation can be seen as nothing more than the same sour grapes that drives the Wikipedians.
If the WMF wants to see itself as more than just an encyclopedia now, if they want to get into the business of information morality, then how about they use a tiny proportion of their massive cash pile to help get this issue resolved in the courts, once and for all?
The WMF are simply not that interested, because they have always been rather disinterested passengers in this whole crusade against the Mail, which is being driven wholly by the lying scum that makes up their volunteer community. Even the PR opportunities that have dropped in their lap as a result, were tainted with having to explain (or rather dodge) what actually went down. They want no part of a truthful presentation of what happened, while the Wikipedians who did it carry on actively lying, all on the WMF's servers.
Not to mention this is all rather besides the point. The Mail could be the biggest thieves going, their entire business model could be one of explicit theft, and yet that would tell us nothing about whether their content is reliable, behind a rather simplistic moral case. That would be very bizarre if the suggestion is they are stealing from people who the Wikipedians consider reliable. Their copy may be stolen, but it would be reliable, no? Thus, it is obviously the case the Wikipedians are not remotely concerned with the Mail's relability.
Guy Macon illustrated the problem quite well. He has has said somehere that Wikipedia should not use reliable sources of it is clear they are simply reusing a Mail exclusive, i.e. where they have just changed a word or two (he didn't seem to realise this would be an example of the same "theft" he accuses them of doing, putting aside the issue of Fair Dealing). He went on to argue however, that if the reliable source changes the wording sufficiently to not be a copyright violation, then Wikipedia can and should use it.
How does that work? The mere fact that Mail originated copy is just reworded, to morons like Macon, who clearly has absolutely not one clue about how the media works, is somehow a reassurance to them it has also been fact checked. Normal people can see this is categorically not the case. This is not now the media works. All of this was covered in the original RfC, but was seemingly completely ignored by its incompetent (corrupt?) closers. They never did release the record of their deliberations......