Talk:Don't Copy That Floppy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Don't Copy That Floppy article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Peer review Don't Copy That Floppy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] What was this?

Was this a television commercial or what? The article doesn't specify. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 22:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly... It was a directed advertisement on behalf of AOL and several other software companies (produced by the SPA) to send to schools to educate children about the dangers of software piracy. While it is technically a public service announcement, in actuality it is also an indirect advertisement for AOL and the early Neverwinter Nights MMORPG, as well as Carmen Sandiego products, Tetris, and The Oregon Trail. I do not believe this ever aired on a primetime/major network, but it may have aired on public broadcast tv.  ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Association, not Alliance

In the first paragraph, the "A" in "SPA" is defined as "Association." But, later in that paragraph it is defined as "Alliance." I changed them to be consistent with the description here. Uriah923 21:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, that was my bad... I get SPA/BSA confused sometimes.  ALKIVAR™ 03:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler??

Are you kidding? Does this really need a spoiler warning?

Its common practice on WP to include the spoiler warning template when a page goes on to describe plot/content of a video. I agree this is probably a poor example... but it is typical per Manual of Style.  ALKIVAR™ 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

I don't agree. Spoiler warnings should be reserved for stuff like "Darth vader is Luke's vather". If it's used too often, people will start automatically reading over a spoiler warning, defying its actual purpose. Sergeyy 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Should what you just said not have a spoiler warning? There is a link at the bottom to the video, so I would suppose the spoiler warning is somewhat justified. Cronos12390 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Bias

What does that fact that Oregan Trail and Carmen San Diego were hits have anything to do with this?

Pointing out they were hit seems to imply that somehow the anti-piracy talk is unjustified. I don't see how that logically follows.

Per references, I've noted they were all widely copied, which makes the point obvious - David Gerard 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tetris - educational?

Although I'm sure Tetris is beneficial for coordination and such, but is it really defined as an "educational game"? --Syxed 20:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

When I bought my original copy in 1987 (I think it was 87?) it was amongst other "edutainment" software. It does help with geometric spatial relations and hand eye coordination...  ALKIVAR™ 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyviolation?

Is this article a copyright violation? The paragraph which begins "opening scene" seems to be liften almost directly from this link listed in the references. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 07:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Call in the Page Protector!
Uhm... how the hell else do you describe the same action in the scene?  ALKIVAR™ 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marja Allen?

Is the IMDB link really the same Marja Allen? I'd be amazed if it were. It appears as though Marja lost weight and became Asian. 68.105.250.206 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I removed the link. -Caudax 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagreed. I re-added the link. I think it's definitely her. Also, check out her IMDb message board. A couple of people claim to know her.

[edit] Dressing Room

Does no one else think the caption to the 'dressing room' photo is extremely questionable? And I am almost certain that is a doctored photo, and not a very good one at that. Chachilongbow 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep reverting the addition of that photo, but I'm only on so much of the day. :) - BalthCat 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh man that kmage is so fake it hurnts. In any case it fails to follow wikipedia's copyright policy.Geni 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Guys, it is the same Marja. Her husband has re-vamped her from head to toe. She appears more asian now. She is part Asian. Her mom is half asian half black and her dad is black. Now she is claiming to only be a quarter black and mostly asian. Fascinating, but thats the same Marja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.9.213 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

I've watched the film and this is just the most stupidest commericial ever made. I mean, the rap was too over-cliche and the whole thing was dragging along. I don't think this was very effective against piracy... --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what, i agreed for the most part until it got to the end - the teenage girl really hit home when she said something like "if i was a computer programmer and spent a year making a program, i wouldnt want a couple of kids making a free copy". Before that i was like "so you think it'll keep multiplying copies... so one copy is ok then, sweet" until the boy argued that point. I think it kinda hit home similar to the "do the right thing.. put it in the bin" anti-litter campaign. I mean i could easily litter but i almost always use a bin, why? its just the right thing to do, even if no one is there to judge me. So this anti-piracy message kinda has the same effect on me.. i'll see if it will make me think twice next time lol

You bet it was very effective against piracy. Don't forget, at the times the video games industry was nearly collapsing, because of all the little kids copying floppy. But they watch this clip and deciding stop copying floppies and nowadays, the industry is still there, stronger than ever.
kidding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.172.66 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre SPA version of this video for Apple 2, or was it C64?

I was shown a movie at Los Altos Jr High similar to this one, but with a youth who spends much time creating a game. One of his friends gets a copy, and passes along a copy to another friend. Etc. When it comes time to sell the game, it isn't selling. Eventually they discover an ad in the paper for a place where it's selling dirt cheap, and it turns out someone is selling bootlegs out of a home, or some such. My memory of this is very vague because the mid eighties (87) were a loooonng time ago, but it was unquestionably this era, unquestionably the junker converted bathroom-sized closet computer lab that Los Altos of Camarillo CA had where I saw it. Also, there wasn't any rap video. Anyone have any idea what movie this is, and to what extent its plot might have influenced the development of "Dont Copy That Floppy"?

[edit] "Hand" picture

The image was removed [1] I removed the entire section, and it came back a couple of days later with the text but not the image. I seek agreement as to the best state of this section.

  • text only?
  • image+text?
  • nothing at all?*
That section appears to be factual and is, more importantly, a masterpiece of straight-faced silliness. Why can't Wikipedia crack ahem a smile once in a while? If it were vandalism, it would have no place, but it definitely appears to be real. What is the sin of providing some weird, yet true material, in a scholarly fashion? Wikipedia is all the greater for its scholarly coverage of exploding whales and Cardrona Bra Fences.--Father Goose 08:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is totally non-notable. Beyond that, the fact that somebody thinks it looks like a butt fails WP:V flat out. I've re-removed it. --Cheeser1 04:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OMG

I cannot believe how unbelievably corny and pointless this campaign was. And congratulations to all the Wiki enthusiasts who made such a rare glimpse of history possible My Condolences

121.45.239.175 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, oh my generic diety. Way to waste God's name on something so stupid. 209.55.80.148 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god I agree.

...oh my god! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.158.181 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCmedia list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Although the use of words like "propaganda" may suggest otherwise (which I also have issues with that I won't go into here), I feel this is written (on the whole) in a tone that is pro SPA and does not explore both sides of the issues. Rackabello (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article on file-sharing or the ethics thereof. It is about a specific piece of advertising. Unless there is well-documented criticism related to this video, it should not be in this article. Please see the relevant policy, which does not (for example) require that both sides of file-sharing be presented in every article that might relate to file-sharing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I belive the segment is "propaganda" as opposed to "advertisement" because it isn't selling anything. Anti-smoking messages on TV may be called "ads" but they aren't selling, and don't qualify. (In my humble opinion...) —ScouterSig 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I protected the page. But why not just use "Don’t Copy That Floppy was an anti-copyright infringement campaign". That is true, and uses neither word. Any objections, comments, thoughts? Prodego talk 01:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Because propaganda is the correct word. It's targeted advertising that informs the viewer only from a particular side of an issue (notice that the complaining editor made note of this two-sidedness himself). Propaganda is not a bad word, it's not a slanderous word, it's not a biased word, it is a type of advertising. It is the correct type here. People might want to clean up Wikipedia to sound fluffy and fun, but that's not how we write an encyclopedia. We can say "penis," "propaganda," and even "fuck" (although that last one probably only in a quotation). If propaganda is the right word (and it is, undoubtedly and definitively), then we should use it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda has a strong negative connotation that violates WP:NPOV. Prodego talk 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "propaganda" has negative connotations (so do "ad", in my book) - but that should not mean we have to stay clear of it when it is the most accurate word for the job. Based on reading this article, I don't see a better alternative which does not skirt the issue: this campaign tried to convince people of their side of the issue, without even mentioning the other sides legitimate concerns. This is not educational, it is not advertising, it is "pushing a viewpoint" - a campaign for doing so is called propaganda.
I know of no synonyms, and the negative connotations are inherent in what the thing is. I am wracking my brain for another example, and please do not take this the wrong way, but... we are not changing the Holocaust article because that word is NPOV (apologies to Godwin). Lundse (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I protected the page, and shouldn't be arguing. Secondly, I think no word ("anti-copyright infringement campaign") is the best option. Does anyone else have any input? Prodego talk 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when does WP:NPOV tell us not to use words that have negative connotations to some people? Particularly when those people generally misunderstand or incorrectly interpret the meaning of the word? If anything, NPOV tells us not to dance around and mince words. If a reader (or an editor) has the non-neutral opinion that "propaganda" is "bad" (or whatever), why should that be affecting our choice of words? The subject of the article is clearly and by definition propaganda. Saying so is not a value judgment, and assuming it is reflects a non-NPOV. --Cheeser1 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It think it actually meets the definition of a Public service announcement more closely then propaganda. Sure it will influence their opinion, but you could call any advertisement that: is Smokey Bear a propaganda campaign? It is designed to influence opinion. This gives it a positive spin, which I don't want to do either, so I think that "anti-copyright infringement campaign", which is correct and completely neutral should be used. Basically, I can see how it is propaganda, but that is a negative word, that adds nothing to the article. What does it add? Prodego talk 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right that your two suggestions would be correct. I believe, however, that propaganda is more accurate. Whether it has negative connotations is not an issue if it is the right word, just as telling the truth cannot be libel. We could also rightly call it "something seen on TV", it would be correct, but miss the point entirely. This was propaganda, it tried to instill a certain viewpoint about moral/social/legal issues. If it simply tried to sell a product, it would be an ad. If it tried to inform people, it would be a public service announcement. But it tried to convince people to see the world and their society and its laws in a certain way - this is propaganda. But yes, it is also an "anti-copyright infringement campaign" and I have no problem with that wording - I do have a problem with us steering away from the (ugly) truth that this is a deliberate attempt designed to convince people to believe certain things; not inform, but convince. Campaign does not signifigantly capture that... Lundse 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would we ever want to use a less accurate word? Furthermore, "campaign" is not correct - a campaign is a broad set of actions (e.g. flyers + TV ads + public speaking + etc). This is a single television clip. It may be part of some campaign, but it is not itself a campaign. And, once again, it is still propaganda. Most PSAs are. Why should we mince words to make things sound nice? Like I said, non-NPOV tells us not to change the wording just to suit our own misconceptions, preconceptions, biases, or connotations that we see. --Cheeser1 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice a lot of people in this debate are applying their own personal opinion as a source -- it isn't our job to determine what this is, it's our job to relay information already published and accepted by experts (or, if you prefer, by reliable sources. If experts disagree on the subject, the article may as well reflect that. With that in mind, what is it referred to as, elsewhere? We could use that as a starting point. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need a reliable source for the definition of the word "propaganda"? (If so, there's always a dictionary.) The guiding principle here is verifiability. As I see it, no one has challenged the fact that this is propaganda, by definition. I mean, would we require a reliable source to "prove" that it's a "campaign" or an "advertisement"? The only complaint is that to some people, that word seems "negative." That complaint stems from a nonNPOV, and is thus irrelevant. --Cheeser1 07:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is in fact a Public service announcement by definition.
It's not encyclopedic to describe it as propaganda. You can't compare it to Nazi propaganda. Go to the propaganda talk page if you want to argue the word is not pejorative. It's a PSA even if you don't agree with the message. Those opposed are defending copywrite law violations and software piracy. You can cite objections in the body of the article. Don't use use a negative point of view in the introduction when a neutral point of view is called for. Especially since this is now being played for laughs! The articles on propaganda and software piracy aren't generating this much rancor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.71.247 (talk • contribs)
Well, your word that it is a PSA is not the final say so. I think it is propaganda by definition.
Re. "not encyclopedic", then it would be more unencyclopedic to "mince words" as Cheeser puts it. And using the same word as one uses for nazi propaganda is not making a comparison in itself. And the reason I think PSA is inaccurate is not that i disagree, but that this is not being done to inform (as a PSA is), but to change peoples viewpoints (as propaganda is). Claiming propaganda is a "negative point of view" is begging the question, me and Cheeser are both arguing that the word propaganda is not necesarilly negative - and even if it were, there is no suggestions for reasonable synonyms.
And a note on "Those opposed..." - this is simply wrong, bordering on slander. I can certainly be against current copyright/patent laws without practising or defending violations of said laws! Systems where citizens are not allowed to disagree with the laws, and where government/industry-sponsored inducement of belief into the public are accepted as a "public service" are called fascist states. Lundse 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See Click It or Ticket for example. And Home Taping is Killing Music.
The issue is settled. It's time to remove the protected lock on the article.
75.33.71.247 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Do we really need a reliable source for the definition of the word 'propaganda'?" -- That's missing the point. It's not up to us to decide what this video is or isn't -- any attempt on our part to do so is inherently original research. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So we cannot decide anything, then? This leaves us with no choice but to either delete the article or simly have an article not saying what it is. And it is being silly... Lundse 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't use terms that introduce a perceived bias when they add absolutely nothing to the article. Prodego talk 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when? I don't appreciate that George W. Bush is called "president" - that is biased because it legitimizes his election, which was controversial and suspicious. But wait a minute, he is president, regardless. --Cheeser1 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are begging the question. You are 100% right that we should not "introduce bias", especially when it adds nothing to the article. Nobody would argue against that. But there is no agreement that propaganda introduces bias, and it has been specifically stated that propaganda carries no inaccurate connotations and that it is the exact word we need. Please argue against these points, instead of assuming you are right and sprinting for the (in that case ) obvious conclusion. Lundse 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're proposing that original research trumps reliable sources. It doesn't. Adding a little more content to this post, I'm looking for something I'd consider highly reliable, but so far Google searches are somewhat revealing: pair "don't copy that floppy" with "propaganda", you get 4,170 ghits; pair it with "campaign" and you get only 713 ghits. The Google test is hardly the most reliable tool we have, but it's something to take into account. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I see 4,920 hits for campaign, not 713. But more importantly: Only propaganda(2,530)| Only campaign( 3,240)Prodego talk 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"you're proposing that original research trumps reliable sources" - this is strawmanning and, quite frankly, borders on a personal attack. I have never argued for that viewpoint, and if you want to base your criticism and arguments on this assumption, then I would kindly ask you to find another name for your opponent - it is not me.
If you do have a good source for "campaign" and there are no sources for "propaganda", then we have to use campaign, for now. Even if it is wrong - this is the nature of the wikipedia and it may be for the best in the long run. So instead of lying about what I believe, just present your sources. Until we have sources for either claim, though, we should go by common sense (ormaybe you prefer simply deleting the article?). So far, I have not seen any alternatives to "propaganda" which were not inherently flawed, nor sources for any. Lundse 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think that I had a specific source or conclusion in mind, when I came over here -- neither is the case, I'm afraid. My putting words in your mouth isn't any more an attack than the two times so far you've put words in mine, either. I'm sorry that you consider WP:NOR to be a straw man, but if you can't provide sources for your assertions, how can those assertions possibly be anything but your own opinion, recollection, or original research? In any case, the quick Google comparison I made above seems to suggest that "propaganda" is more popularly associated than "campaign," at least on the web; if somebody wants to point out a contradicting factoid, feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
To Prodego, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why our numbers aren't lining up. Double-checked, I'm still getting 713. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Luna, I am at a loss here. You have not specified how I "put words in your mouth" - I would really like to know how I have mis-understood and -represented you... And again, you are strawmanning - how can I explain to you that I do not consider NOR to be "strawmanning" me? You are misrepresenting me, and I have no clue about how you got that idea. Please refer to the person you imagine has those ideas as "John" or something else that suits your fancy. He has nothing to do with me... I was actually quite specific about what statement of yours was strawmanning me - please read my last post again and try to understand that your claim "you're proposing that original research trumps reliable sources" is simply wrong. Moreover, I am quite aware that my unsourced opinion is not the final say so, just as yours is not. But I am afraid Cheesers points about the google search still stand - so we still have no good sources. Only a dictionary definition about what propaganda is - which fits this article perfectly, while nothing else anyone else has brought up as possible alternatives seems to do. Lundse 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdent to start a sub-thread about "original research." To use a non-technical word like propoganda when it's appropriate is not original research. Furthermore, the google test above is more original research than anything, and involves making a claim about which word to use when there is but a 2:3 ratio. We have no clue about repeated pages / mirrored content, no idea if any of those pages are reliable, correct, or independent of Wikipedia, and it's a 2:3 ratio - that's not exactly overwhelming. 1:10 or 1:20 I might be at least slightly persuaded by, but this is ridiculous. Once again I'll direct everyone to the article on propaganda, which would be linked to. If any reader has the misconception that propaganda = bad, they (like you editors with the same misconception) can go read it and clear things up. We're not hear to affirm misconceptions, where here to be a resource. Using the correct terminology is not original research. And like I already said, why not demand a source for "campaign"? I see no source that substantiates the claim that this was a "campaign." --Cheeser1 17:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As english is commonly spoken propaganda is generaly considered to be a negative description (incerdently the item could be fairly well described as a morality play).Geni 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it has negative connotations. But that does not mean we cannot use the word, just as we can call a convicted murderer a murderer without being slanderous. The simple fact remains that this is propaganda, and wikipedia is not served by ignoring that. It is not OR to apply a dictionary definition, if it was, we would have to delete 90% of the content on wikipedia as unsourced. NPOV does not require us to weasel out of calling murderers murderers, criminals criminals or propaganda propaganda. Lundse 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still confused. If it's not sourced, how is it anything but original research? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we do not source the use of every word. Do we have a source stating that John Mayer is a person? No, but the disambig line seems to assert he is and I want proof! And it says he has a career! I don't believe it! I demand a source that states "John Mayer has a career and is a person." We do not source every single word in the encyclopedia. It is what it is: propaganda. WP:V requires that we include verifiable information, and that sources may be required if someone contests the content. Now, no one disagrees that it fits the definition of the word propaganda. We're only discussing whether or not we can use the word, because some people's non-neutral understanding of the word make it seem like "propaganda" = "bad." That's not how we write an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I will remark that I believe this is why Lundse thinks you are strawmanning - OMG ORIGINAL RESEARCH cannot be used to object to everything on Wikipedia, only cases where original research is truly being inserted into the article. You yourself haven't explained how calling it what it is somehow constitutes original research. It's not a substantive or analytical claim, just the correct use of the word "propaganda." --Cheeser1 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Except that several editors have expressed a concern that the statement is both substantive and analytical, which in turn brings up neutrality concerns. That's one advantage of looking to see what reliable sources have to say -- by taking the decision out of our own hands, we're more likely to be playing a neutral role. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? So why can we call it an "ad campaign"? That's just as "substantive and analytical." Once again, "taking [it] out of our own hands" is just pandering to non-neutral biases in our own opinions, and demanding citations for things that do not, and cannot, require citations. --Cheeser1 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm troubled that people seem to think I'm inherently advocating for or against any particular phrasing -- I don't cherry-pick my principles based on which conclusion I want to reach, doing so defeats the entire purpose of having principles. Now, to answer your question, there's a question of degree. "Tim has red hair" is easy enough to tell from a picture, but "Tim is thus probably Irish" would be a bigger step, probably inappropriate. As far as it being "impossible" to cite this being referred to as propaganda, that strikes me as errant -- to wit, if no sources have ever referred to the segment as propaganda, it's pretty clear this is your own synthesis, is it not? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You can't cite sources for something that isn't a substantive or analytical claim because there's no such thing as a source for such a "claim." Find me a source asserting that Abraham Lincoln was human, and not some sort of general humanoid from this region of space. He's human. It's a fact. We use the word "human" because we know how to speak English. No one disputes the fact that this is propaganda, only that it's a "mean" word or something. Irrelevant POV concerns. --Cheeser1 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
So no sources describe this as a propaganda film? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one who googled up thousands of sources (perhaps unreliable) that call this propaganda. Furthermore, WP:V does not require us to source the correct use of every single word in the English language. Verifiable is not the same as "source every possible thing you can or else delete it." What you have there is a red herring. --Cheeser1 08:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, but can you think of any reason why sourcing would be a bad idea, damaging to your argument? I can see "doesn't need to be sourced," but to be openly hostile to sourcing contentious material seems bewildering. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If all else fails, what about looking for compromised wording? Say, "Don’t Copy That Floppy was a short film, described by some as propaganda, with the aim of discouraging copyright infringement, and run by the Software Publishers Association (SPA)..." or something akin to it? Any other ideas? Just looking to get some ideas on the table. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words are not the answer. --Cheeser1 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If the classification is controversial, why shouldn't the article reflect that? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Because those are weasel words. "Some people think ____" suggests far more in the way of synthesis than anything we've suggested, since what we suggested makes no assertion about what "some people" might "think" and does no more than use English properly. No reliable source is necessary to make use of a word correctly. --Cheeser1 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends. Some editors have expressed concern about the particular word being used. "(Some bloke/s) said this is a..." is a less authoritative statement than "This is a...". Seems the page will be protected until some compromise is reached. You're welcome to approach this as a siege, but it's only going to prolong the protection an keep everybody from working on the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We can't do that, since there doesn't appear to be any source for that controversy existing. This is a very simple wording issue, and it comes down to whether the word "propaganda" biases the article. If it does, we should avoiding it, using any alternative, and seeing that if it is used it is unquestionably true and sourced. For example, you can say John Doe is a criminal, you have sources. You wouldn't say the American Revolution was an insurgency, would you? It meets the definition, but that would introduce bias. The article is worded much more neutrally. That is what we want to go for. Prodego talk 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The only bias here is that which exists in the heads of particular people who choose to ignore the definition of propaganda and let their own nonNPOV decide which words are "bad" and which are "good." --Cheeser1 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I refer back to my Smokey the Bear argument. It too is propaganda. Prodego talk 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, your straw-bear argument holds no water. There is only one "side" to the (nonexistant) forest-arson debate. --Cheeser1 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You can't make that argument, it deals with the content of the page, and we are talking about neutrality. Even so, you don't need multiple sides to create propaganda. Simply changing someones mind from not caring about an issue to caring about it would do it. In the same way this article deals with a crime, and making people care about it. Whether that should be illegal or not is completely beside the point! Prodego talk 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Everything we're talking about "deals with the content of the page." Neutrality is a part of how we build that content. None of this changes the fact that you're strawmanning. This is an irrelevant example, make your argument on its own merits, or don't. The fact is that there is no precedent, policy, or guideline asking us to whitewash language because some people (in their infinite non-neutrality) misunderstand, misinterpret, or skew the meaning of a perfectly appropriate world. Smokey the Bear be damned, it's irrelevant, as are much of what's been discussed here. I've put the question several times: do you disagree that this is, by definition, propaganda? No. Then we call it propaganda. It's the correct word. The biases that you or others may have concerning how "propaganda" = "bad" are totally irrelevant. --Cheeser1 03:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could explain how this is propaganda, and that isn't. Frankly, I see the 'it just is' argument as a weak one, that is original research, violates NPOV, and overall introduces bias, while adding absolutely nothing to the article. Perhaps I do not understand your reasoning, could you explain how the page gains from the word propaganda, and how if this is propaganda, how my example isn't. Prodego talk 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to: 1. take "propaganda" out of the first sentence and refer to it instead by the media in which it appeared (I gather this was a television/video campaign); 2. find a notable and reliable independent source which charcterizes the campaign as "propaganda"; and 3. put in something to the effect of "This campaign has been characterized as "propaganda" by [notable and reliable independent source]. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I did explain, but I can repeat it more precisely - propaganda is targeted media of some sort (posters, television, etc) that is intended to influence, change, or stir public opinion on a particular issue, in which there is a particular interest (or "side") that has influenced (impartially or at least with a blatant conflict of interest at stake) the content of the media. Smokey the bear is not such a thing. As for a reliable source, the fact that it fits the definition of a simple, everyday word is enough (unless you dispute that fact). And as for "This campaign has been characterized as _____" - we don't normally do that when we present the findings of reliable/independent sources, unless the source of such a finding is important (e.g. "AIDS is transmitted in breast milk" requires no mention in text of who says so, but "_____ claims that tears transmit AIDS" probably does since it's widely disputed). I mean, why not start every sentence with "So-and-so says that ____"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The existence of the dispute taking some forty paragraphs above me indicates that the characterization in question is "disputed". bd2412 T 04:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, disputed by Wikipedians who are advocating a change based on the biases of a nonNPOV. By disputed I meant disputed by someone with authority. Let's not use misinterpretation as a way to rebut each other's points. Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just trying to help achieve a consensus as to the content of the article - no need to bite! bd2412 T 06:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say -- just use the word "advertising" instead of "propaganda." --Nlu (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertising? You mean The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media? Funny, since that's not what this is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, unless there is anything else you want to say, before I request unprotection and that the wording be changed. I have asked many of these users for their input, and there seems to be consensus against the usage of propaganda. Prodego talk 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall several users on both sides of this issue. What "consensus" are you referring to? And is that consensus simply a plurality? --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is going on too long. Why don't we move this thing up the dispute resolution ladder? Prodego talk 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. You feel free to do so. This whitewashing is too absurd for me anymore, everyone is clearly talking past each other. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


As a completely neutral party I have removed the term "propaganda" from the article. I don't see any evidence that this is such, at least under the definition that wikipedia uses, which indicates misdirection. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, since when is anyone completely neutral? Self-declarations of neutrality are exceedingly dubious. Furthermore, since when is misdirection required of propaganda? That word doesn't even occur in, say, this article or the dictionary]. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotect

{{editprotected}} Can someone subst the AFD template onto the page? (I am totally neutral in the above discussion). Will (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Prodego talk 22:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License Issues

"The Software Publishers Association gives you permission to copy this video for the non-profit purpose of promoting the ethical and legal use of software"

This states very clearly that reproduction is only permitted within the scope of non-commercial use (i.e. used by a not for profit 501 (c) 3 organization, educational institution, or other similar organization.) This is not a free license because derivitaves and replication on for profit websites (i.e. Wikipedia's mirrors) are not permitted, in fact the link on the internet archive shows a creative commons license that confirms this see here.

In reality, the video probabally shouldn't even be on archive.org. Despite being a 501 (c) 3 organization, IA's material is also mirrored on commercial websites, just like Wikipedia's content is. I feel linking to it on Archive.org, or even worse Google video or Youtube (which is a much clearer violation of the license as Google and Youtube are blatantly commerical websites) shows Wikipedia as endosering the violation of the copyright license. If a reader really wants to see Don't Copy That Floppy, they'll be able to find it easily enough without us linking to it. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Greetings! Friendly neighborhood IP lawyer weighing in. It is best not to use the full video. The images are clearly covered by fair use; the whole work is not. The license is ambiguous, but it is hard to reconcile the terms of the license with the tone of the article, which seems to be critical of the work at issue, and is certainly not particularly directed towards "promoting the ethical and legal use of software". Cheers! bd2412 T 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The video on archive.org is legit. That other people copy it isn't our problem.Geni 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you about the link, but I'll let it go for the time being. Mr Senseless (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)