Talk:Intellectual property education/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Shaheen Lakhan - I as copyright holder give permission to post such material.

This article is not written from NPOV, and it would be hard to make it neutral. It does not take into account that alternative positions to the ones supporting the existence of "intellectual property" exists -- see anti-copyright etc. Within such a mindset, so-called "intellectual property education" becomes indoctrination of a useless and dangerous concept into impressionable minds. The article presents as fact claims which are highly questionable, such as so-called "losses" to so-called "piracy", and defines moral imperatives ("wrongdoing" etc.) without attributing them to their adherents.

After rewriting it, probably not much more than a stub would remain. Does anyone want to have a go at it? Otherwise this may be a candidate for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Eloquence 04:37 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In its current state, it is definately VFD material. Edit it to be somewhere within 20 miles of a NPOV or lose it. Tannin 04:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the content of this article, if it is not a copyright violation, could be added to a page on the Harvard researcher proposing the idea. Right now, however, this article is an advocacy piece, more typical of the content you find in an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia. Wenteng 04:37, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Don't delete -- I'll rewrite ASAP. Topic is too important to ignore.—Eloquence 04:43, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll edit and add something to this, too, in a few hours after Eloquence has had a turn. There are many different views on this, which should be properly ventilated - David Stewart 04:49, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Please go first, David. Might be a few days until I get on it.—Eloquence 04:50, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Before you do, have you considered what is specifically relevant to the idea of intellectual property education and what belongs on articles on intellectual property, copyright, patents, and so on. We should definitely have an excerpt of Don't Copy That Floppy here though...--Robert Merkel 05:00, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The "educational" aspect I perceive as being very close to the philosophy behind views on intellectual property, a contentious issue amongst academics (I'm not being disparaging, I used to teach this subject once upon a time!). I think it naturally leads into efforts of industry groups to educate the public on the wrongs of intellectual property infringement, and thus into social paradigms of property. Thinking about it further, I suspect this will be a big task: I might have to edit the entry on a piecemeal basis. - David Stewart 06:46, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
But isn't that a subject for discussion on intellectual property? That's certainly where I'd look for it first. --Robert Merkel 08:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Maybe it should be confined to efforts by IP companies, lobby groups and governments to educate people on IP infringement, and reactions to that attempted education process. Is that more striaghtforward and on target? - David Stewart 09:27, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yep. IMO you should also probably mention the free software movement and its evangelism. --Robert Merkel 12:09, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The word "education" is not NPOV.—Eloquence

Sure, because in this context we can use it to refer to academia (a fairly droll topic, I'd guess), or the dichotomy between the two schools of thought and their efforts to proselytise the public. - David Stewart 04:19, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the bottom section of the article. Before I do, though, I'd like to know if anyone thinks that some of its points should be incorporated into the new text? Shaheen's article will, of course, stay in the references.

-- Pde 07:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have reservations about just deleting it. It does pretty accurately portray the beliefs of the copyright is an inherent property right camp about what IP educaton should do. We can try to neutrally describe the views of that camp as one part of what IP education is about and that item is a good part of such a description. The original isn't neutral, of course, but it is part of a neutral description of the debate. We just need to avoid neglecting the other side of IP education: educating the copyright industry to respect the copying rights they aren't granted but which belong to other people and to avoid seeking a one-sided benefit instead of a balance. I'd say that the whole of the Shaheen article belongs, verbatim, in the part of the article describing that branch of thought. Of course, the other branch will... well, you saw my descriptions in the article, so you have one possible outline for it already.:) JamesDay 22:39, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. It's an argumentative piece. We can cite it, of course -- or even quote from it -- but if we want to include material in the article, it should be an NPOV summary of the key beliefs and claims of "IPE" proponents. -- Pde 00:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)