Talk:Brian Camelio

I've moved the "patent dispute" material to the talk page so that we can sort this out. We can do additional editing here, reach consensus and, if appropriate, move it to the article.--Nowa (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC) -

Patent dispute (draft updated 19 October 2011)

On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887, entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They say that Brian Camelio is negotiating on behalf of the companies that own the patent, Fan Funded LLC and ArtistShare, and demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was filed in 2003.^[1][2]

I think the first thing we need to reach agreement on is whether or not the fact that a person is listed as an inventor on an issued patent is appropriate material for his/her biography. I think the answer is yes.

I agree Jamesrand (talk)

The next issue is whether or not the fact a person is involved in legal dispute related to their patent is also appropriate material for his/her biography. I say that it is, especially if that person's business career is important to his/her biography and that person has made public comments related to the dispute that are covered by reliable sources.

I disagree. Maybe after the suit plays out but not until then. It is contentious material otherwise and violates the guidelines of Wiki entries for Bio of Living Persons. Jamesrand (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is the fact that a person is involved in a legal dispute "contentious"?--Nowa (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If a lawsuit is in progress it is by nature contentious. On top of that, this issue has been so poorly reported that all of the available resources are useless. Wikipedia is not the forum for following how this plays out. Let's wait and see how it resolves and then add it if appropriate. Jamesrand (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A lawsuit certainly is contentious, but that's not the "contentiousness" that the BLP guidelines are referring to. They are referring to whether or not the existence of the lawsuit is contentious. If there was significant uncertainty as to whether or not the lawsuit was filed, then yes, placing it in the article as a significant event in Brian Camelio's life would be contentious and the material should stay out. But I don't think you are questioning whether or not the lawsuit has been filed, are you?--Nowa (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the lawsuit was not filed by Brian Camelio nor is it targeting Brian Camelio personally. He is the inventor on the patent and his company ArtistShare is named on the lawsuit but does not hold the rights to the patent. The company that does is called Fan Funded and it is unclear as to who actually controls it. It is too far removed and speculative at this point to add to Wiki. As I suggested previously this may be appropriate material once it plays out. I also must disagree with your interpretation of Wiki's meaning of contentious material. I am quite certain that it was meant to stay out of the litigious zone. Jamesrand (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that it's Wikipedia policy to stay out of the litigious zone when when it comes to BLP. It's been my experience that whenever a BLP person is involved in litigation, it's always added to said person's article. See for example the archived versions of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from shortly after his arrest on May 16, 2011. Can you point to counter examples where mention of ongoing litigation is being left out of an article pending the outcome of the litigation?--Nowa (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I will search for some and will also discuss with some other editors with regards to the interpretation of the guidelines. After looking at the Strauss-Kahn article I would say that it probably should not have been played out like that on Wiki. There are major differences here either way. First of all, there are no reliable sources which makes the whole thing rather suspect, secondly, it only marginally involves this person. Jamesrand (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have found Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons to be a good place to vet these types of issues.--Nowa (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The final issue is whether or not the sources presented so far in this draft section are reliable. At this point, give the flub on Journey, I think we can discount the BBC reference. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll delete it from the draft. That leaves PCWorld, Hollywood Reporter, TechCrunch, and the PatentExaminer blog. Blogs aren't normally considered reliable sources, so I think it would be worthwhile to find an alternative source for the Camelio quote.--Nowa (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Counterpoints?

I think that any of the sources that mention the Journey inaccuracy should be deemed unreliable as they clearly did not do proper fact checking. I do not see any other reliable sources for this as there are even discrepancies between the source (the claim filed) and the information printed (in addition to the Journey issue) in all the articles referenced. If and how this story plays out it may be appropriate for historical biographical data however at this point it is clearly pre-mature and bordering on tabloid material. I say leave it out for now. Once again, it is contentious and poorly sourced which violates wiki policy for biographies of living persons. Jamesrand (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nowa, James, thanks for the good work in trying to reach a consensus on this matter. As far as I can see, the issue now is whether the PCWorld, Hollywood Reporter , TechCrunch references are sufficient to insert information about the patent dispute. If it is not sufficient, then the matter would be poorly sourced and could not be inserted in the article. It seems to me that these three two sources are reliable. Do you agree? --Edcolins (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree except that Techcrunch mentions Journey. I removed all of the Journey references from the draft. I also removed material solely supported by said references. Are there any remaining issues with the references? --Nowa (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok for removing the Techcrunch reference. No remaining issue from my side. --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this additional reliable source (in Dutch): ? A machine translation can be obtained here: "Crowd Funding sites involved in patent fight". NU.nl is apparently "since 2007 the most visited news site in the Netherlands" (the Dutch wikipedia provides some references to support that claim). --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed. The language is completely mangled by the computer translation. It is a major stretch even if it could be deemed as reliable. I think we have reached the end of the options on this one for now, don't you? Jamesrand (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Great find! It seems like a suitable source, but it doesn't appear to add any new information. My personal style is to keep the number of references to just what is necessary. Otherwise, subsequent editing gets difficult with all of the text taken up by the references. So I would say leave it out. --Nowa (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion that the patent dispute section is not well referenced is totally ludicrous. One error about an unrelated fact does not make a source unreliable. The BBC News article is reliable. End of story. I have added it back in. The claims that it need to be removed because it is "contentious material" are also totally ludicrous and smack of policy-baiting. GDallimore (Talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It hardly matters, but I have removed the only statemet about the patent dispute which anyone could even remotely suggest is contentious. GDallimore (Talk) 23:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry GDallimore but you can't just come in and steamroll this. That is destructive editing. We have deemed these sources unreliable thus far as they clearly did not fact check and the others are blogs. Undoing your change. If you destruct this article again we will asked that you be blocked. Jamesrand (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC are a reliable source. One minor and irrelevant error does not change that. The patent dispute is fact and well-referenced. I've reported your positive-POV pushing behaviour to the BLP noticeboard for further input. GDallimore (Talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is not a reliable source in this case. Sorry. I see that you feel strongly that this information get up there but as you can see by our discussion it is poorly sourced. Jamesrand (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you've bullied two other editors around, don't think you can do the same to me. You're talking bollocks. I won't revert you again, as I would be in danger of WP:3RR, but I will continue to counter your whitewashing of facts. GDallimore (Talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is paidcontent.org a reliable source? Here is how they cover the patent dispute

Here's how Time magazine covers it

Both unreliable. Paid content references Journey and Time says he was a former member of PHISH. Complete rubbish. These are blogs clearly written with an agenda to sway public opinion and sensationalize this situation. We need to steer clear of this one folks. Jamesrand (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you want to retract the comment related to Phish? It seems pretty well established that he played for them, and it is now part of the article.--Nowa (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Camelio never was a member of PHISH. He may have worked for them but was never a member of the band. I am sure of that. TBeckham (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Worked with...PHISH" seems like the best description per Brian's New School bio.--Nowa (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is how it is stated on the page. I do not wish to retract the statement as it is incorrect. Are we all in agreement that the Time Magazine blog got it wrong? See http://phish.com/#/band as well. Jamesrand (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes--Nowa (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to mark every source in this article as "non-primary source needed". It was previously requested that these facts be verified, which they all were with links to prove they were correct and true. To tag them as in need of non-primary sourcing doesn't make any sense. For example if it says he was a speaker at Judge Business School it is OK to put a link to the Judge Business School website to verify it. Common sense dictates this. Please see Wiki guidelines for sourcing.

Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

I am removing these tags for now as this article is just getting completely cluttered with nonsensical and excessive requests for sourcing. It is overkill and counterproductive. If there is a specific source anyone would like to discuss let's do it here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. There is one I would like to discuss first. The Celebrity Access reference. It seems to me that this is a self-published source, as far as I can understand the "Website Use Agreement" . That reference is used in the article for promoting the subject. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons dictates that such a reference cannot be used to support such positive material ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Any objection to removing all the material based solely on this reference? --Edcolins (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you further explain your position on this site being poorly sourced? It contains third party articles and interviews. I am not seeing what you are gleaning from the user agreement. Confused... Jamesrand (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Access appears to be a promotional web site with self-published material. The source cannot be used in a BLP. --Edcolins (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I don't see that anywhere. Where does it say that it is self published material? It is an interview. Jamesrand (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

James, that this is an interview does not mean it is a reliable source. CelebrityAccess is not a reliable source usable in a BLP in my opinion. It is a business directory and these industry profiles should be considered self-published material. The subject of the interview is likely to have full control on the content of the page. I have requested a third opinion here. --Edcolins (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I send a note to the author of the paidcontent article to see if he could confirm his source for Brian Camelio having played with Journey. He said he’s not quite sure where he got if from but he thought it might have been from…….……………………………………….(wait for it)…………………….………………….…..Wikipedia.

So I checked the Brian Camelio page as of October 4, 2011, when the paidcontent article was posted, and sure enough, it listed Brian as having “worked as a studio musician for Journey”. There was no reference.

So I took a look to see who added it when and why. It turns out it was added at the conclusion of an AfD. See this edit, which occurred on July 13, 2007.

So I looked at the AfD, and one of the editors mentioned it at the time.

So I sent a note to the editor to ask where he got it from, and he’s not quite sure but suspected it was listed on Brian’s allmusic credits page. This editor added allmusic as a reference. The listing is not there now.

So I now would like to apologize to Jamesrand. I agree that any reference related to the current patent dispute that states that Brian Camelio played with Journey is prima facie unreliable and should not be used as a reference in this article.--Nowa (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This does NOT make the BBC article as a whole unreliable. That is a ludicrous conclusion. GDallimore (Talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

GD: I appreciate your support on Brian Camelio, but I actually disagree with a number of your edits and choices of references. Yes, a certain editor is being overly picky, but there is actually some merit to his points. The articles with circular references to wikipedia, for example, really shouldn't be used, especially if they are not needed. I also think that it's important to include the fact that Brian Camelio is leading the negotiation on behalf of Fan Funded. That's the key tie in to having the material in his biography and not simply on the kickstarter page. We'll get there, but I think it would be more productive to work everything out on the talk page first. So, no offense, but I am going to have to support the position that the patent material is not yet ready for inclusion on the article page.--Nowa (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No. As far as I'm concerned, you're letting yourself be bullied by a zealous editor who is twisting policy to his own ends. The BBC News article is reliable on the facts of the patent dispute. End of story. I will not see indisputable, referenced facts removed from the article by some bully. The finer details might need some discussion, but not the main facts. GDallimore (Talk) 23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

GD - No one is bullying anyone. These are logical and informative discussions and debates. I am very sorry you are upset about it but we are working this all out here on the talk page. The BBC article has been deemed a poor source. Jamesrand (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding GD’s methods, I think he has a good point that it’s probably time to wrap this up and reach a decision on whether or not to include the patent material in the article. I’d like to propose an essentially AfD approach where interested editors express a “Keep” or “Delete” and then a decision is made. I’ll reproduce the draft as it stands now and get the ball rolling with my opinion.

Patent dispute (draft updated 19 October 2011)

On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887, entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They say that Brian Camelio is negotiating on behalf of the companies that own the patent, Fan Funded LLC and ArtistShare, and demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was filed in 2003.^[1][2]

Keep: It describes a notable event in the person’s life. It is well referenced. The references are secondary and reliable with respect to the cited material. It has a neutral tone. It is consistent with the references (No original research, no synthesis). It is current.--Nowa (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: We are at the same spot we were yesterday. In disagree that it is a notable event. If they were suing him then maybe it would be, even then the sources are not there. I say we see how it plays out, wait for some credible journalism and then see if it is relevant enough to post. Frankly I am not sure why everyone is so eager to get this in here. Jamesrand (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I fully agree with Nowa. There are no remaining issues with the references. The paragraph must be reinserted and kept under WP:NPOV. The third reference could also be added. Nowa, any objection against the third reference (as explained here)? --Edcolins (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworded the Canadian Cpyright reference. EdColins was right it does not specifically state that he advised but he clearly was interviewed. Jamesrand (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

From the reference , I cannot even see that he was interviewed... His name is mentioned twice in the whole study, and in page 96, there is one paragraph reading:

"artistShare is the only viable solution that I can see," says Camelio. "With the advent of the latest technology, it is becoming increasingly clear that there needs to be a fundamental shift in how artists do business. That shift involves the expansion of the product offered and a completely different payment schedule. artistShare will provide the platform."

Cathy Allison, the author of the study, might just be reporting something she heard at a talk by Camelio, not in an interview. Furthermore, Cathy Allison is not the same as "researcherS from the Copyright Policy Branch of the Government of Canada". She is a single person. Finally, the words "Copyright Modernization Act" do not appear in the study at all. I am removing this again. This does not belong in the lead. I have also reworded the paragraph in the body of the article. --Edcolins (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we make clearer that the two first awards appear to have been given to recordings, so not to Brian Camelio or at least only indirectly to Brian Camelio? This reference even seems to say that the recipient was Jim Hall: "This is the second Choc de L'ane'e Award in a row for Jim", rather than Brian Camelio. Any comment? --Edcolins (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Camelio was the producer and the album got the award. That is considered an award In the music business. --TBeckham (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of editors (maybe more) have traded what they consider to be accusations about agendas and conflict of interest. Initially, I reverted a deletion thinking that the concerns raised about an editor's COI were valid. In the end, however, I figured that the discussion page was for discussing the article and NOT editor's motives or agendas. If the editors involved have concerns, there are more appropriate places for them to make their cases. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipelli. I just reviewed the post and I agree however a contested decision on a posting was "voted" on by a certain editor whom appears to have a COI. I am going to put that section back into the talk page as it seems as if the decision to post was possibly influenced by a COI by one or more editors. Thanks for your attention to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.129.52 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipelli, where are those places if I might ask? I think it is definitely worth vetting since the majority of this article was based on the assumption of good faith which one of the editors may not have been acting in. It is an important question and should be dealt with properly in order to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. 69.86.129.52 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is all just getting out of order. I was totally correct in my assessment that certain single purpose, POV-pushing editors (who probably actually have a REAL conflict of interest rather than a manufactured one, just like the manufactured "contentious" nature of a verifiable patent dispute) are going around bullying long-term editors (such as Nowa) in an effort to remove anything negative. I'm glad this has now come out for everyone to see clearly, rather than just being the previous (not so) subtle long-term wearing down of any opposition. Please, PLEASE start a COI check and maybe we'll be able to get rid of some of the dross hanging around this article. I make no apologies whatsoever for attacking people who are blatantly attempting to manipulate this article. Be aware that you don't fool me for a moment, and I hope people with more patience and tolerance than me manage to deal with you in the manner you deserve. There, I've said my piece and, other than reverting the "anon" editor's totally unfounded removal of content, don't want the stress of dealing with a bunch of trolls.

As an aside, since I've been away for a few days and missed the dicussion above, the patent news is well-referenced, to multiple reliable sources, and it stays. GDallimore (Talk) 16:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, it is perfectly reasonable to move this back to talk as there was clearly a COI involved. Other complaints can be disputed elsewhere but for now that section is reverting back to discussion. 69.86.129.52 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My involvement stems simply from deciding that the allegation of COI was posted, then removed, then replaced (by me), and then removed again. My suggestion was that if someone believed that another editor was not acting in good faith and that there was a conflict of interest, then this talk page was not the place to decide that or investigate that. Though initially I mentioned wp:ani, I'm inclined to suggest wp:dr as the avenue to explore - all the more so because I'm reading more about bullying and other allegations. Conflict of interest doesn't mean that the editing is done in bad faith necessarily. If I was employed by XYZ company I could still edit an article about that company (though it's not recommended). Someone might say that there is an inherent COI in my doing so but they would have to show that my edits were bad because of that COI. Wikipelli ^Talk 16:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

compare and contrast. Please log in rather than hiding behind your IP address. GDallimore (Talk) 17:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW... I don't think that it can be said that there was "clearly a COI involved". Again, it's not the fact that an editor has an interest in the subject, the main thing is whether or not the edits are good or not.. are they in violation of Wikipedia policies? From WP:COI:

"Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." Wikipelli ^Talk 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

May I remind 69.86.129.52 that using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban (from WP:COI). I won't hesitate to block any editor making any further allegations of this type. --Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The history here shows that this section has been pretty contentious, therefore I tread trepidly. For such a short component of the article it was a confusing mess, so I've been bold and corrected and tweaked and added refs. I also removed the amazingly trivial mention of Camelio unsuccessfully attempting to discuss the issue with Kickstarter. So what? What's notable or abnormal about that? It happens zillions of times where there are disputes. Such piddling minutiae has no justification here . Moriori (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100%. I have been completely puzzled by the insistence of including such irrelevant information in this article. Thank you for your edit. I think it is very good. Jamesrand (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The following paragraph was added as it is relevant to the section. The main reference is from the Hollywood reporter that has been deemed a credible source. It also references a document from DocStoc that was uploaded by the author of the Hollywood reporter article. Admin EdColins removed it on the basis that it referenced a blog and was "original research". I respectfully disagree as the main facts stated below are from a credible source and its reference.

"In 2006, founder Perry Chen filed two patent applications that focused on Kickstarter's own method for fundraising.^[1][2][3] But both of these patent applications were later abandoned after being rejected.^[2] During the prosecution of these patent applications, Kickstarter cited the ArtistShare patent as known prior art.^[4]" Jamesrand (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources provided for the content of this paragraph are reliable, secondary sources. There are two patent documents, a blog entry, and a document from scribd.com. The Hollywood reporter source, which I think is a reliable source, does not constitute a source for this paragraph. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and especially: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" (from WP:PRIMARY). The idea that Kickstarter filed two patent applications and that those may have been abandoned are not as such problematic claims, but the idea that these facts are relevant in relation to the patent dispute seems to constitute an analysis of primary sources, the analysis being not based on a reliable, published secondary source. Further, the fact that a document may have been uploaded by the author of the Hollywood reporter article is not relevant in my opinion.

I am deleting this paragraph again. Please do not add it again. If you wish to dispute my interpretation of Wikipedia:No original research, please create a report on WP:NORN. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Thanks for the comment. I am a bit confused though. Are you deleting this as editor or as an admin? Anyone and everyone has the right to edit this article as they see fit within the guidelines of wikipedia. From what I understand this is something that should be worked out and modified rather than struck in such a draconian way. I think you are wrong about this as the information can be found by following a link to a page that the author created. An example of original research would be direct links to the patents. The document that it is referencing was posted by the author and was authored by another person. Not original research. Either way, if we remove the reference to the blog we can still add this information based on the secondary source. I am however finding many articles that reference blogs including the Kickstarter article. Are some OK and some not? I will be happy to go through those and eliminate blog references as well. Thanks Jamesrand (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, yes, some blog entries are acceptable, and others are not, per WP:BLPSPS. --Edcolins (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me also point out that a reliable source that you had advocated for and included in this very article is in fact a blog.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/241160/kickstarter_faces_patent_suit_over_funding_idea.html Jamesrand (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The PCWorld blog entry is in my opinion acceptable ("Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" from WP:BLPSPS). --Edcolins (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Just to clarify, it is your opinion but not based on any evidence or background that you can point to. I got the impression that you had more information on that as you seem to have very strong opinions about what is an acceptable "blog" and what is not, to the point of deleting entries based on these opinion. Since you are an admin it is sometimes hard to tell if you are enforcing wiki "rules" or your opinion and I am looking for clarity on that. Jamesrand (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

James, thanks for your question. I am not acting as administrator here, just as an editor (with no special powers or privileges). It is my opinion based on the following. The "Today @ PCWorld" blog is acceptable because the blog is written by the PCWorld staff, see: "Today @ PCWorld By PCWorld staff News, opinion and links from the PCWorld staff", as explicitly mentioned on this page (on the right-hand side of the page). It is not a sponsored blog. Thus, the writers are professionals (the PCWorld staff), who are certainly subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. I have no doubt that the author of that particular post is bound by the newspaper's code of conduct. --Edcolins (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, a couple of points.

• The sentence “During the prosecution of these patent applications, Kickstarter cited the ArtistShare patent as known prior art.” is a direct quote from the papers filed by ArtistShare in the court case, so on that basis alone, it doesn't belong in the article.
• The statement is also incorrect. Kickstarter did not admit that the Camelio application was “known prior art”. On the contrary they stated that their submission of it in an information disclosure statement was NOT to be construed as admitting it was prior art. Nor did the examiner cite the Camelio application in his rejection. This is based on my own inspection of the file wrapper of one of the Kickstarter applications, 11/501,427.
• I think we should avoid burdening the article with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit. If there is a development that is covered by the media, then sure. These cases can go on for years, however, and almost always wind up in a settlement usually for undisclosed terms. So all the article really needs to say is that there is an ongoing lawsuit. Anyone that has a real interest in it can examine the court documents themselves.--Nowa (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nowa. From what I understand it is a direct quote from a document that the author linked directly to in his article and is definitely a valid source. I cannot speak to the second point you are making. Are you disagreeing with the document? I'm not sure how that is relevant to this discussion. I agree with not going into all sorts of detail and back and forth about the case. I do think that the point of previous patents was mentioned in more than one place and is relevant factual information not based on anyone's opinion or allegation. It should stay in. Lastly, I am awaiting a clarification about the reliable source cited that is a blog. Ed, can you speak to that? Thanks. Jamesrand (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Are you disagreeing with the document?" Yes, the document is factually wrong. Kickstarter made no such admission. Even if it was factually correct, it has nothing to do with the merits of either party's position in the case. --Nowa (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowa, thanks for the clarification. What we are talking about though is whether it is categorized as original research, which it is not. It was posted by and referenced directly with a link in the author's article. It is not original research as I did not find it on my own. It was clearly posted and referenced by link in the article of a valid source. Jamesrand (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 69.86.129.52 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the entire quote from Hollywood reporter:

Last October, we reported that KickStarter, the burgeoning online forum that allows filmmakers, musicians, and other artists to raise independent financing for projects, had gone to court after facing a patent threat. The defendant -- KickStarter's alleged aggressor -- now says there isn't a controvery and that the lawsuit should be dismissed. ArtistShare told a judge in legal papers filed earlier this month that patent infringement litigation was never threatened; that ArtistShare merely approached KickStarter about licensing their platform, including patent rights."Rather than responding to ArtistShare‟s request for a counter-proposal, Kickstarter filed this lawsuit," the company says.

To put anything more into the article not found in this or any other secondary reference is original research. When you consult the same primary source they did but extract different information, that's original research.--Nowa (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nowa. According to the wiki definition you are incorrect about this. The article itself is by definition a secondary source and the document a primary source. This cannot be argued as the author has linked directly to it within the text of the article and actually posted the document to his doc stoc account for review/reference. It is perfectly legal to reference this primary source as it was clearly offered by the author and pertains directly to the subject matter of the article in its entirety.

Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

There is no question in this case that it is a valid, reliable and verifiable resource that can be used as described in the wiki guidelines.

I am also going to remove the reference the PC World blog as EdColins has stated time and time again that a blog cannot be a reliable reference. I have asked him to comment but he has not yet. Would you like to speak to that as well? Why are some blogs OK and others not? How is this distinction made and by whom? Thanks! Jamesrand (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

James, I have replied above. I was not online for a while. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nowa that "we should avoid burdening the article with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit". The second paragraph of the section seems to go in too many details about the arguments of one of the parties, thus likely to be biased per WP:NPOV. I'll ask Moriori's opinion as well since, James, you seemed to like his edit last year (see Talk:Brian Camelio#Patent dispute section is was pretty shabby.).--Edcolins (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I have to disagree. You and Nowa fought hard and made a good argument to have the information about Kickstarter filing the suit and their accusations included here (see above). It is only fitting to balance it out with ArtistShare/Fan Funded response. To not do so would demonstrate bias and we need to keep NPOV on all of this. Jamesrand (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither I nor Nowa (I presume) are willing to remove the complete paragraph. In other words, I agree with this edit by Nowa because these removed sentences go into too much details about some arguments of one of the parties. --Edcolins (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I'm sorry but I disagree and we will leave it in. Jamesrand (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop acting abruptly and on your own motion, disregarding the fact that both Nowa and I agree that this should be removed, and that you are alone in thinking that it should be in there. As I wrote, these removed sentences go into too much details about some arguments of one of the parties. If you reinsert it again, you may be blocked under WP:3RR. --Edcolins (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I have every right to include this information as I feel that it is just as relevant as anything you or Nowa have added. It is only your opinion that it goes into too much detail. I do not think it does. It completes a neutral view of the situation based on the other information added. Are you threatening to block me using your Admin privileges for editing this article? Please advise. Jamesrand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Upon further exmination I have concluded that the information refers directly to the request to invalidate the patent made by Kickstarter and is therefore not excessive language at all. I did not undo an edit but once again added to it. I feel like I am getting ganged up on here for putting in valid and relevant information. Jamesrand (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, lastly why are you threatening to block me when Nowa has been undoing my work as well. Come to think of it, you have been too. I'm not sure if that is fair. Jamesrand (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't have every right to include the information if other editors think that the information is not appropriate, and you are alone into thinking that the information should be in there. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making (Wikipedia:Consensus). --Edcolins (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the reference to study by Cathy Allison. The document clearly states the purpose of the study. The original reference was incorrect. Please do not undo this again as it is destructive editing. Thanks! Jamesrand (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

......and on that basis I have been bold and edited the contentious patent section, by removing information that adds nothing to the article. I can't for the life of me see how adding verbiage which ex post facto is irrelevant can improve the encyclopedia.

The section now states the facts -- Camelio owned a patent, Kickstarter asked a court to invalidate his patent, the court ruled for Camello.

Why Kickstarer's arguments are being given so much mileage is beyond me, especially considering the court clearly stated "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement".

Enough!. Moriori (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moriori. Yes I agree with you on this. However, the court did not rule on this yet. Information is being added to tell the story from both sides. Jamesrand (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So you have no objection to the addition of the following referenced information -- The court said "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement". Moriori (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No objection at all. As long as no one in "interpreting" the source and it is a literal excerpt it is acceptable. Jamesrand (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

James, you have no objection against that (?). The court did not say anything like "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement". This is an argument of one of the parties. --Edcolins (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I have no objection to him adding facts from that document as long as it was literal and not interpreted as per wiki rules. I did not fact check his statement. It looks like he didn't end up adding it though. Jamesrand (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowa, the reference you cited clearly states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". It is being used to refer to a company and a patent dispute. It is a valid use and it is not being interpreted. Please do not delete it again without discussion here. thank you. Jamesrand (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is not about Brian Camelio, then why are you putting it in this article?--Nowa (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The patent dispute section has to to with Brian Camelio according to you and EdColins. Look at the history here as proof. You two guys fought like crazy to include this information. It seems now that you are not happy with additional information that neutralizes the information you have posted. I'm sorry but there is not much I can do about that. The point in question though has to do with use of a court document as a primary resource and it is valid since it is not being used here to support assertions about Brian Camelio but moreso about Kickstarter. Jamesrand (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The section was originally moved by GDallimore from ArtistShare to Brian Camelio. --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have informed GDallimore as he may want to comment on the original reasons for that move. --Edcolins (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I just moved it here because someone objected to it being on the Artist Share page because it didn't appear to be about Artist share: the patents were in Camelio's name and it was him bringing the action. At least, that was how it appeared at the time. That may have changed. I considered it sufficiently well noted information that it should go into an article somewhere and this was the best choice at the time. GDallimore (Talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In view of the recent edit warring in these articles, let's discuss and modify these sections here on the talk page before making changes to the article(s) (following the guideline "Consensus-building in talk pages"). --Edcolins (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The debate has been dragging for weeks now. I am closing it based on the comment from uninvolved contributor, and admin, User:DGG . Namely, I have removed the whole section from the article about Brian Camelio and I have moved the respective proposed sections in the articles about both companies. If there is anything further to discuss, please start a new section on the relevant talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Three sections, each entitled "Patent dispute", are proposed above for inclusion in the articles Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter respectively, either as a new section or to replace an existing section. Is the content of these sections relevant to the articles? If so, does the content meet our core Wikipedia policies? --Edcolins (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

it's relevant to the articles on the companies, certainly, but I'm not sure about the individual. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I have just removed the "Patent dispute" section from the article about Brian Camelio, and I have moved the respective proposed sections in the articles about both companies. --Edcolins (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The recent deletion of the entire further reading section was restored. There is nothing in violation of the wiki policy and everything is well referenced. Please discuss such drastic measures before deleting entire sections. 64.131.184.113 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed advert claim: read guidelines:

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so

The article is comprised almost exclusively of references from verifiable, independent, third-party sources. 64.131.184.113 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the facts are otherwise: Too many of the sources are not independent, and too much weight is being put on them.

"External links to commercial organizations are acceptable..." I'm afraid the related policies and guidelines say otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz, but you need to be more specific as there are so many credible and verifiable references here your comment just doesn't make any sense. Specific examples please. Please do not tag again until this is worked out here on the talk page. 74.71.160.119 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are not even going to address the links, then the issue is closed as far as I see it. Please stop your edit warring over them.

This is a BLP, and as such it is the responsibility of the editor arguing for inclusion to make a case and get consensus.

All the references need to be credible. Most need to be independent. We're no where close, but pick the best section you feel is best, if you don't want to look at everything at once. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz. All references from what I can tell are 100% credible. I am sensing a COI here with all of your other edits. I am removing your tag. It is unfounded and quite absurd based on the abundance of references in this article. 64.131.184.113 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. COI. Stop wasting our time here, as it only makes you look very bad indeed.

from what I can tell are 100% credible" But they are not. I just removed a press release and content promoting it. So much for "credible". --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I note you still have not addressed the linkfarm problems. Please make some attempt. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." Can this just be discussed before deleting? What are your reasons? Is there text that can be added to balance from that source? What exactly is wrong about a quote from one of the business partners about another (complimentary or not)? In addition, what exactly is your issue with the linkfarm problem? Too many links? In biographical articles it is quite common to link to external sources that further demonstrate what is discussed in the article. Thanks for your response 74.71.160.119 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So are you withdrawing your COI accusations?

I'm sorry, but this is a BLP. Disputed content, especially the puffery in dispute, is removed by policy. If you want to attempt to get consensus for restoration of the material, make a case and see if anyone agrees. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You read it wrong Ronz "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" It is neither unsourced or poorly sourced. It's going back up per wiki policy. 74.71.160.119 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So you have unilaterally dictated it is not contentious and are not interested in achieving consensus? --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brian Camelio. 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/20120406173247/http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/nouvelles/200701/22/01-12355-midem-nouveau-modele-economique-recherche.php to http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/nouvelles/200701/22/01-12355-midem-nouveau-modele-economique-recherche.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news_print.php?id=13398
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406212833/http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__students__student_organizations__the_commentator/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063349.pdf to http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__students__student_organizations__the_commentator/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063349.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425071850/http://overflowlegal.com/story.php?title=All-day_event_coming_up_in_New_York_City_on_October_6th_Whats_the_Future_for_Musicians to http://overflowlegal.com/story.php?title=All-day_event_coming_up_in_New_York_City_on_October_6th_Whats_the_Future_for_Musicians
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newschool.edu/jazz/faculty.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303161349/http://www.allaboutjazz.com:80/php/contrib.php?id=32773 to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/contrib.php?id=32773
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Phish/Phish/p/9780793572373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329034054/http://learn.ssc.edu/fhanzelin/course_pdf_files_s00/mus102gu.pdf to http://learn.ssc.edu/fhanzelin/course_pdf_files_s00/mus102gu.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811231858/http://www.newschool.edu/jazz/faculty.aspx?id=37556 to http://www.newschool.edu/jazz/faculty.aspx?id=37556

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Camelio. 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/20111028205515/http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2008/02/02122008-addend.html to http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2008/02/02122008-addend.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Camelio. 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/20110427175549/http://www.statesman.com/business/crowdfunding-is-the-new-creative-way-to-finance-1389119.html to http://www.statesman.com/business/crowdfunding-is-the-new-creative-way-to-finance-1389119.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/%40nyu_law_website__students__student_organizations__the_commentator/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063349.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)