- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
DeCSS haiku
edit... that the 2001 DeCSS haiku containing alleged trade secrets was written as an act of civil disobedience to argue that code is speech, and should be protected as such?
- Reviewed: Daisy Voog
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 09:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
The article exceeds 1,500 characters. The hook is sourced within the article, and confirmed as verified per this link (be sure to scroll up in the source regarding the poem's writing relative to trade secrets). The article is less than 5 days old relative to the time it was nominated for DYK here. Spot checking for copy vios revealed no problems. This is just about good to go, but per the suggestion above regarding the hook, I propose ALT1, which I have devised below. NorthAmerica1000 10:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)- ALT1:
... that the DeCSS haiku contained alleged trade secrets included as an act of civil disobedience to argue that computer code is a protected freedom of speech?
- Nice improved hook, User:Northamerica1000. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support for ALT1. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
At this time, appears to be good to go using ALT1.
Provided ref does not appear to state the haiku was written as an act of civil disobedience or free speech test. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:ThaddeusB: You're onto something there. When I was reading the source, I missed that the content above in the source was not about the haiku itself. See ALT2 below. NorthAmerica1000 04:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Struck my comment above about ALT1. NorthAmerica1000 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was wondering whether using inline external links (there are two at the end of the second Historical significance paragraph) is allowed in Wikipedia articles; I thought they weren't. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is certainly discouraged, although I wouldn't say it is disallowed completely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have reformatted the inline external links: they are now inline citations within the article. NorthAmerica1000 04:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here's an alt2 below, supported in the article by this source. This is referenced in the article after the sentence within it that states, "Seth Schoen's goal was to provide tangible proof for the argument that "source code is speech" and hence should be given the same legal protections as free speech." NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that the DeCSS haiku was written in part to demonstrate the notion of computer code being considered as free speech?
- As a disclaimer: I've written some stuff about DeCSS on Wikipedia before, as well as elsewhere. I think I prefer alt1 over alt2 currently abstractly, since it *was* written as an intentional act of civil disobedience about the specific issue in question. I'll pop back in tomorrow and try to get a better set of sources set u to support alt1. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer ALT1, but if the sourcing only supports ALT2, I don't see there's much choice in the matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have provided a ref that uses the term "civil disobedience" in the context of redistributing of DeCSS works like this one. I hope that sourcing issues with ALT1 are now clear? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- In the source added, it mentions civil disobedience but it appears to only be in relation to DeCSS, rather than the DeCSS haiku itself. In that source, it states, "Within this flurry of political mobilization, another trend soon emerged: the call to re-circulate DeCSS as an act of civil disobedience. Again, the rhetoric accompanying the call tended to be rooted in the language of Free Software..." This doesn't appear to qualify the ALT 1 hook, because ALT1 is about the haiku poem itself. NorthAmerica1000 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- In the wider context as discussed in this article, the recirculation of DeCSS also means recilculation in other versions, such as DeCSS encoded in pictures, printed on t-shirts, and so on. In this context I believe this clearly qualifies. See also [1] for more examples. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be more comfortable going with ALT2 at this time, which is absolutely verified. NorthAmerica1000 08:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's been two weeks since the above. I agree that unless there is a source that says Schoen himself wrote the haiku intending it as an act of civil disobedience, then ALT1 can't be used: the hook isn't about a wider context, but about a specific haiku. I checked back with Kevin Gorman, but he couldn't find sourcing that would support ALT1. Piotrus, unless you can find such sourcing, you'll need to either propose a new hook or go with ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine, let's go with ALT2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 supported in article and inline source citation. The rest of the review per NorthAmerica1000 at the top. Struck ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)