Wikipedia talk:Keyspam

message: Feel free to revise this and post it places. I'd rather not see it drift too far from my core points.. That people are spamming us, that distributing the key isn't really helping freedom it's just a fad, and that Wikipedia's mission *is* something that helps freedom by offering an alternative.  If you think I'm full of it I'd rather you copy and paste fork the document. But it's a wiki, and I don't own it... so have fun. --Gmaxwell 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <<catmacro license=GFDL>I agree with this page.</catmacro> - David Gerard 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Where the essay says "making our work harder to accomplish", it would be good to have a link to a mission statement or something that describes what "our work" is.  That seems to be the crux of the problem, as many are assuming that this number is suitable for Wikipedia as it has been widely reported in RS, and is now notable.  Maybe Welcome:About, m:Mission or m:Vision?  John Vandenberg 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And our work is ... self evident? 

message: You may consider working in the EFF's summary of the legal issues at hand.  I'm willing to bet that a lot of people are so caught up in the quixotic fight against the Man that they don't realize just what a perilous legal position Wikipedia is in if it knowingly publishes information that is part of a circumvention technology.  It doesn't help that there's an angry 800 lb. legal gorilla on the loose, either. -- mattb 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful link 

message: I think this essay itself is fine, as the disclaimer explicitly notes that it is not official policy, but unfortunately many admins and other users have been linking to it in support of their actions as if it were official policy.  Please be responsible in how you represent this essay when you link to it in other discussions!Konekoniku 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's written in bold letters across the top that this is an essay - Alison ☺ 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is precisely what I noted.Konekoniku 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an essay ... but, y'know, most of the admins agree with it. I've taken some stuff out that I think is less universally considered. The real problem is not so much the key's legal status as that we're getting SPAMMED TO HECK AND BACK WITH IT - David Gerard 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but it is still misleading to represent it as official policy.  Moreover, it should be noted that even with majority support from admins, the policy does not necessarily have majority support from the Wikipedia community at large.Konekoniku 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there isn't any evidence that it doesn't have such support. None of our official policies necessarily have the support of the majority of the Wikipedia community, since we're not constantly conducting polls we don't know what most people think about them... Further, this is not a policy and it wouldn't even look like one with the essay box removed: it doesn't tell people to do anything... it doesn't even say if we should really host the number or not.. it talks a lot about spamming, and I think that is a point about which just about everyone in our community would agree. --Gmaxwell 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be careful not to misrepresent this essay! 

message: What I don't understand is this:  If Wired.com has had the full text of the key available on the Web since February 13; if Digg.com has surrendered to its users and is now defending the key; if Google.com continues to provide hits if you know the first few hex digits which so far as I know can legally be posted in and of themselves, and at least were posted on the talk page; if the key is revoked and no longer valid anyway; if the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to weigh in with anything but "no opinion" on the topic; and if Wikipedia has received no "take-down" notices despite postings of the key that have occurred - then what grounds is there for continued concern?  Admittedly, I see now that the EFF says this is neither the world's best-known trade secret nor the world's shortest copyrighted number, but some kind of "Para-copyright" from the legal Twilight Zone, where even mentioning that something exists can hypothetically lead you to penalties without warning - but does the law truly stop for no barricade of common sense at all?  If I'm to believe everything I'm told by the nay-sayers, even the mass media news stories that say digg.com is allowing the posts (which allowed me to find the code) are illegal (as is this comment, then!).
Nor do I think the spamming argument holds water (at least if the key is posted to relevant articles), because for every "spamming" of the key by one user there has been an equal but opposite spamming of deletion commands by someone else.  The fact is that there is a very real difference of opinion to be discussed. Mike Serfas 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, deleting the key is spamming? DRM is freedom? Sony is your friend? Up is down? Britannica is Wikipedia? You've lost me here - David Gerard 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The DMCA was upheld in Universal v. Reimerdes, so precedence is not in our favour if we are publishing this knowingly.  It is prudent to let Wired and Digg tackle this as the freedom of the press is vital to their ability to continue to pump out new stories unhindered; OTOH, the exclusion of the number from Wikipedia's article has little bearing on the quality of the article, and definitely doesn't affect our ability to keep creating a free content encyclopedia. John Vandenberg 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree - it pretty clearly would be detrimental to the article to have an oddly MacGuffin-shaped space in it. But we can wait a few weeks. And this isn't the venue - David Gerard 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit surprised, given these comments, that you've added a link to the key itself (at Wired) to this essay.  I thought posting a link was supposed to be the same as posting the key, legally speaking?  Anyway, I'd better bring up something else, which is, how does this affect the fair use policy?  Because I had put up a fair use image I requested a fair use review on for an edit near the beginning of all this.  I haven't otherwise linked to it pending having someone review it so as to avoid any improper use, but nobody's reviewed it and I don't want it sitting there unevaluated endlessly. Mike Serfas 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it to a footnote, referenced from within the text. This gives more of an indication of intent, IMO (it's just a reference) - Alison ☺ 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I like that change. --Gmaxwell 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far on the side of caution is Wikipedia supposed to err? 

message: I've commented out some paras that I don't think the community members concerned about the keyspam agree with necessarily. Keep it focused. (I commented them out to facilitate restoring them if needed.) - David Gerard 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: >Radiant< 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well said 

message: The essay criticized those who want to disclose the key because we might make Internet users look like anarchists in the eyes of congress.  Well, the fact is many Internet users really ARE anarchists.  In the virtual world we exist without race or class or national boarders.  Many of us love this freedom and will do whatever we can to defend it.  Why would any sane ethical person support exploitation and unjust hierarchy?  You may already be an anarchist...It’s true. If your idea of healthy human relations is a dinner with friends, where everyone enjoys everyone else’s company, responsibilities are divided up voluntarily and informally, and no one gives orders or sells anything, then you are an anarchist, plain and simple. The only question that remains is how you can arrange for more of your interactions to resemble this model.  Whenever you act without waiting for instructions or official permission, you are an anarchist. Any time you bypass a ridiculous regulation when no one’s looking, you are an anarchist. If you don’t trust the government, the school system, Hollywood, or the management to know better than you when it comes to things that affect your life, that’s anarchism, too. And you are especially an anarchist when you come up with your own ideas and initiatives and solutions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delirium of disorder (talk • contribs) 02:24, May 5, 2007  (UTC)
:It was intended in same sense as "The prohibition against murder is an unjust restriction on my freedom to kill" or "the prohibition against theft is an unjust restriction on my freedom to drive any car I wish". I hope you do not think that internet users are anarchists in this sense... I used the word anarchists specifically because it was the same word used by one of the justices during the oral arguments portion of Eldred v. Ashcroft when he was making the point that it sounded like the Eldred side was promoting an extreme form of freedom which ignored the important social compromises. The US congress has already shown that they think limiting the trafficking of components of circumvention devices is an acceptable abridgment for the common interest.  I don't agree with them, but they are likely to hold anyone who contemptuously ignores the law, rather than making reasoned arguments, in low esteem.  --Gmaxwell 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically the law has been used to further the interests of those who own the means of production (capitalists), not the "common interest" of the majority of the population.  The law says that we must do things like support an unjust illegal war for profit through federal income taxes (the majority of which go to the pentagon).  Any ethical person must simply disobey the law and not pay tax.  I don't care if I'm held in low esteem; sometimes the law is so wrong that participating in it means complicity in mass murder.  Reasoned arguments are fine, but civil disobedience is necessary immediately.   Laws like the DMCA are just the latest in a long succession of unjust laws made for the profiteers and plutocrats.  The stakes of copyright law are much lower than in international law, but we should be no less willing to disobey them.  No one can own culture or math or algorithms.  While I understand that wikipedia is not anarchist, you must be willing to acknowledge that many of it's users are, as are many Internet users in general.  We are a part of a powerful historical movement against all forms of unjust hierarchy be it social, economic, political, or religious.  The extreme form of freedom that we are advocating with regard to the DMCA is simply free speech.  Don't censor us.  Anyone who uses force (the law) to restrict expression is a tyrant. Anyone who uses wikipedia edits to censor is just a coward.  Delirium of disorder 07:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must also understand that while many of the Wikipedia editors, users, and admins migh tbe anarchists, by the same measure many of them are not. And this is an important point: civil disobedience requires a consesual agreement of the participants, and trying to drag people into risking the wikipedia project to make a political point -however one might agree with it- is not consensus, but tyranny. To respect this differences is to understand consensus. --Cerejota 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above is a fantastic comment. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The key has been published. If being mature is being a pussie, then I am a proud feline. Buenaventura Durruti must be turning in his grave at your childish chest-humping disguised as anarchism!--Cerejota 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchists?

message: Besides, what's your point for NOT letting it be? You haven't made it. 
The picture of Digg show's the key many times, yet you don't want to post it? Calling us spammers and etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We aren't spamming. We'd just like for it to be posted once on the AACS page. 

message: I've adjusted the language of the page somewhat to make it less specifically related to the AACS controversy as there have been other keyspamming incidents and I expect that there will be many more in the future. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making it more generic 

message: Essentially, my problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of non-notable numbers on wikipedia. Thus the argument that crypto keys are deleted 'becasue they are not enycylopedic' is unconvincing. 
*Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#unecyclopedic_argument_is_unconvincing
Thank you
Decora (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find this argument unconvincing