Talk:Pamela Jones

message: I removed the following sentence because it doesn't seem to make sense "The contract was terminated by her after SCO tried to make an argument that it proves she believed Linux was at risk of being rightfully litigated over copyright or patents." --LeeHunter 17:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I removed

message: Incidentally, I guarantee that very few Groklaw regulars post on ip-wars, considering it is an anti Groklaw site.
:I've only glanced briefly at ip-wars, but I don't see how it can be called an "anti-Groklaw propaganda site". I'm reverting this change pending more information. --Lee Hunter 20:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP-wars

message: We all know that Pamela Jones /claims/ to be a journalist.  However, does anyone have any reason to believe that she has any experience or training as a journalist?  At the beginning of Groklaw, she was a paralegal.  She left that to work for, essentially, an insurance company to do legal analysis.  Is there anyone who can substaniate that she has ever worked as a journalist at any newspaper or other periodical that would qualify her of that title?  Groklaw is merely a blog and certainly does not qualify as "legitimate press" in the traditional sense.
:It seems to me that PJ _is_ a journalist due to the fact that she reports on events, rather than simply opines upon them. That's journalism in a nutshell. I think those that feel that one must be paid by a newspaper or meatworld media outlet to be a "journalist" is clinging to an outmoded paradigm. Docrailgun 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merely a blog, not ... legitimate ... traditional sense.  What a stooge.  Do you actually have anything to say?  Her prior training and job history is irrelevant.  Jayson Blair has both training and experience as a journalist.  Does that make him legitimate?.Funkyj 07:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay civil, Funkyj.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If not suffering fools is being uncivil that I am guilty as accused.  First point: Can the original commentor (unsigned?) please provide a quote from PJ where she claims that she has traditional journalism training (e.g. a degree in journalism)?  I read Groklaw a lot and I've never seen such a claim.  Second point: If someone who has been reporting on SCO vs IBM in a popular blog for several years calls themself a journalist I fail to see how that would be inaccurate considering that Groklaw's prediction of various court outcomes has been spectacularly accurate when compared with the likes of real journalists at Forbes et. al. (echoing Docrailgun's point...) Funkyj 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DRAMA! Hissy fit... Good grief, Funky. Get a hold on yourself. Proxy User (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: No but the Publications section of the article (monthly columns for magazines, etcetera) make her a journalist. Also, there's a difference between OWN and consensus. SirFozzie 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me see Pamela Jones has a monthly column at LinuxUser http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=14&Itemid=60 THAT makes her a consistent journalist. --Kebron 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: SCO executives call Groklaw a "mouthpiece"for IBM, though IBM says it isn't involved with Jones in any way. Jones' blog published an IBM legal document two days before the court made it public, a sign that it likely was leaked by lawyers involved in the case.
Not the actions of a "journalist". I think “Open Source advocate” is a much more honest description of Jones. But journalist? Only if journalists have, by definition, an ax to grind. Be honest, people. Proxy User (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Journalist?

message: It was claimed that O'Gara posted her personal info, but it has never been substantiated that the PJ O'Gara wrote about was this PJ, so I'd advice changing that to supposed or alleged personal information.
:Hope the current version fixes both this and the previous comment. // OlofE 13:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal info

message: Instead of doing an edit war, I ask "Should a link to a COPY of an attack article that was published on the internet remain?"
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=188&mode=nested&cid=12476453
This article was a discusting attack on Pamela Jones and completely innacurate. But the article WAS published and removed and now only copies of said article remain. Should we keep the link or make a copy of a copy ourselves or just remove it? --Kebron 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be reluctant to link to it - it's a personal attack, even though it's relevant to the controversy. Autarch 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to COPY of article that was removed

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/128sidebara_print.html
** In Pamela Jones on Sun Jul 16 21:30:11 2006, HTTP Error: 
** In Pamela Jones on Mon Jul 17 17:43:51 2006, HTTP Error: 
** In Pamela Jones on Thu Jul 27 01:24:20 2006, HTTP Error: 
----maru   (talk)  contribs 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.grokline.net/
** In Pamela Jones on Sun Jul 16 21:30:13 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
** In Pamela Jones on Mon Jul 17 17:44:32 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
** In Pamela Jones on Thu Jul 27 01:24:32 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
----maru   (talk)  contribs 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: It appears she may be back, starting on or around March 11, 2007.  This seems to support it.  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  --SilverhandTalk 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is back, in a limited capacity. she is not going as gung ho as she was. :) SirFozzie 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I've just read this heading as "Is She Black?" :DDD Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is She Back?

message: From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought:
* "6.  News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source."
From Wikipedia:News articles:
* "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact."
I hope this helps.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's not what we were looking for. But thank you for looking.  The paragraphs in question detail a recent hiatus that the subject of the article took (which, combined with other things going on at the time) was covered in other sources, like The Inquirer and Forbes. Gronky believes that the subject's desire for privacy should be granted and the section removed from the article, while I believe the section, rigorously cited from publically available information (not only articles, but linking directly to HER OWN WORDS on the public site Groklaw mean the information is Notable and should be in the article.  SirFozzie 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not what you were looking for.  It is a matter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  I don't yet see Gronky's response, which is certainly pertinent as well.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, if you look at the discussion and the question, it's two different things entirely. But if Gronkly's happy with it, I can look for something else. (as you can see, we had one outside view already, and it was continued to be argued.) SirFozzie 09:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to back up my initial suggestion that "this section should be removed until the WP:DUST settles". Gronky 11:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly right.   — Æ. </font>  ✉  13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the section at issue is about events over a month old, just how long does it take for the dust to settle?  I don't see how this third opinion (actually, fifth opinion by my count) applies.  Nothing in the section violates PJ's privacy at all, which I thought was the objection being raised and for which an outside opinion was being asked. --MediaMangler 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Look at the Daniel Brandt issue that is going on, If the information is A) Notable (and the fact that it was covered in Forbes, Inquirer, covers that well) and B) VERIFIABLE (again, the articles, PLUS HER OWN WORDS verify it), then it should be in. SirFozzie 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of Daniel Brandt, so I can't comment there, but what Wikipedia says about Daniel Brandt is irrelevent to what Wikipedia should say about PJ.  Wikipedia has policies, articles follow the policies, not other articles. Gronky 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, it says that BLP doesn't apply just because someone wants privacy. If it's notable and verifiable, then it deserves to be in the article, despite the subject's desires. That is policy, in a nutshell. (Forgot to sign) SirFozzie 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone taking some sick leave from their work is not notable.  Gronky 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone taking sick leave from their work under the circumstances and gets the coverage that this did is. SirFozzie 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with SirFozzie. Being a proponent of free software I didn't think I would have an interest in "turning over stones" regarding Ms. Jones' identity or hypothetical dealings with IBM but in my opinion the timing of her sick leave seems "interesting" — some could say a bit too convenient to be ignored. Clearly enough both critical and sympathetic voices have been uttered by the press (see The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/15/sco_foe/, Linux-Watch http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7032422646.html http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9820982240.html) that one can say there's a legitimate interest in her situation so that it has also become a notable one. Additionally one should consider that issues dealt by Groklaw are political by nature (and not mere neutral interpretations of law) so that one can argue that there is a certain standard of transparency and accountability that should be expected from such a public persona as Pamela Jones. Basically she is an NGO activist/politician for the open-source/free-software community; one should then acknowledge that such a public role is by definition at odds with the the need for her privacy. Ms. Jones can't have the cake and eat it, too, I'm afraid. Wikipedia should also aspire to the higher standard of transparency and not use WP:BLP (or even WP:DUST) as pretext for self-censorship. —jibun≈παντα ρει≈ (keskustele!) 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is appropriate, and the speculation is well referenced. I've returned the section. Proxy User (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Could we add something to the effect that she was never served with the subpoenaThePilgrim (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The entire Critics section was removed on the grounds that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."  However, some of the information was actually sourced, and much of the rest could be.  I do think the article needs some sort of criticism section to be put back. Superm401 - Talk 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. I've put it back. Basically, this artical has turned into a Fan Page, ignoring and deleting relevent material in favor of a glowing positive view that does not address alturnate views even when well documented by acceptable Wikipedia sources. Historical revision, one might say. Proxy User (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As of 18-May-2009, most of the criticism section is now uncited.  You and I know it's accurate but it's not provably so.  Seriously, if it can't be referenced, it should be elided.  I'll give it a week, then I'll chop out all the uncited weasel words, and see if any Grokbots want to actually do 2 minutes of Googling to find the sources. Rogerborg (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: I added :File:Replace this image female.svg to the beginning of the article because I felt a picture would add to the article but did not have one myself.  I was reverted without explanation.  Would the person who reverted me please explain what they disagree with?  --NYKevin @121, i.e. 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no picture available of Pamela.. she's an intensely private person. (I' m not the person who reverted). SirFozzie (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't think to explain fully.. I don't think she's ever been photographed.. There's not much chance that any picture (free or fair use) will be available to be added, so not really much reason to add the opportunity for a photo :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is Jones I think. That image is CC BY-NC 2.0, taken by Quinn Norton. Norton may be willing to change that to CC-BY or whatever, as Randall Munroe did for this image after being requested to do so. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's not her. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I have tracked down the dead link currently at #12.  I got a spam blacklist error when I tried to save the correction.  I requested whitelisting at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Request_a_CBR_Online_URL_whitelisted.  The corrected URL is:
* www.cbronline.com/news/sco_blames_groklaw_for_ip_licensing_disappointment
/me goes off to take meds and back on wikibreak.
—Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference currently at #12 CBR Online blacklisted

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Pamela Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216055920/http://www.linux.org/people/pj_groklaw.html to http://www.linux.org/people/pj_groklaw.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720102142/http://www.grokdoc.net/ to http://grokdoc.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024191134/http://www.grokline.net/ to http://www.grokline.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705163814/http://grokdoc.net/ to http://www.grokdoc.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified