Talk:Tim Berners-Lee

Add discussion
Active discussions

CriticismsEdit

I have some concerns the current and recent criticisms section wording is not supported by the sources and may even be being used to push an anti-DRM agenda. A statement of criticism is justified ... I'm not sure it is currently supported by my reading of the current sources. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this comment (I think it's partially adressed to me because I'm the last person who edited the section, even though it was a stylistic edit). Thanks for your comment, I will expand this section, add citations (from EFF and other organizations) and the other side of controversy (pro-EME, e.g. statement from Firefox on EME). Anton.bersh (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: I rewrote the section, however I'm not sure whether it is balanced because all sources I found online were critical of EME, I could not find a single article in support of EME (I left out articles by publications clearly biased against "big tech", e.g. by Techdirt). Anton.bersh (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anton.bersh Following my concerns raised over your last edit you seem to have done albeit perhaps good faith further edits which appears to me to increase the prominence of the DRM/Encrypted Media Extensions issue with WP:UNDUE and making it even more about DRM than TimBL. On a non-WP:BLP article I would leave that in place while a discussion is raised; because of WP:BLP will revert the Criticisms section to 23 May 2019 which still may I believe have a problem. At this point I need to point out I cannot remember meeting TimBL however I do recall some roundabout connection which makes me reluctant to edit the article .. though pragmatically not connected to DRM. I think a discussion and consensus is now needed for this as it may be being used for a Digital rights management soapbox.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
To re-iterate my concern here is WP:UNDUE and possibly an element of WP:SOAPBOX over the Encrypted Media Extensions issue and possible over-emphasis on TimBL's role and it possibly being given undue weight in the context of the article; one possible solution might be to remove the Criticisms section and put the content in the Policy section which would help avoid over excessive prominence. TimBL's role in this needs to be given correct weight including delegation of the decision to the W3C Advisory Committee in 2016. I personally find In 2017 Berners-Lee was criticized by prominent defenders of Internet freedom for approving Encrypted Media Extensions that standardizes Digital Rights Management technology, thus restricting digital freedom.[71][72] Critics include Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation. to be unbalanced use of sources. I don't have a current forma of words myself.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC) After some thinking I believe removal of the criticisms section and preplacing with an entry such as the following in the Policy section would allow the matter to be recorded and giving approximate weight to TimBL's role using the existing two sources:

"In October 2016 in his position as chief arbiter of Web standards TimBL chose not exercise his power to again extend the development timeline for the controversial Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposals but instead to delegate the decision to the to the W3C's general decision-making body, the Advisory Committee. It was revealed in July 2017 as W3C's director TimBL had chosen to approve the EME specification leaving two weeks for opponents such as the Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation to campaign the W3C advisory commision to raise an appeal before the EME specification became ratified to a full W3C recommendation."

This can (especially given my prose incapabilities) probably be improved. It may slightly under-criticise TimBL but that is probably the correct side to be.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC) I have a revised version I am more happy with; though I need to re-check which sources best support it and add them and re-tweak (I'll do that in situ). If there are no concerns raised I may at any time after that raise the edit request.

Request edit May 30Edit

Change x to y using z
x Remove the current Criticisms section completely including the title:
Criticism

In 2017 Berners-Lee was criticized by prominent defenders of Internet freedom for approving Encrypted Media Extensions that standardizes Digital Rights Management technology, thus restricting digital freedom.[71][72] Critics include Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

y Add to the Policy work section immediately above the paragraph On 30 September 2018, Berners-Lee announced...:

In March 2017 Berners-Lee decided, after several years of remaining neutral on the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposals with its controversial Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications, indicated he felt the situation required him to make a decision and that he had concluded he would back the EME proposals. The decision provoked a strong critical response particularly as his position as director of the W3C meant his rulings ultimately determined if a specification progressed to become a W3C recommendation. In July 2017 Berners-Lee chose to approve the developed EME specification; a decision that would by default lead to its ratification as a W3C recommendation in two weeks. Joining others in criticism of the decision and its implications the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFE) raised an appeal, the first in the W3C's history. W3C members went on to vote and ratify the EFE recommendation in September 2017.

z

[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (6 March 2017). "Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Cardoza, Christina (7 July 2017). "DRM concerns arise as W3C's Tim Berners-Lee approves the EME specification". SD Times. BZ Media LLC. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (18 September 2017). "DRM now a formal Web recommendation after protest vote fails". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talkcontribs) 22:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 30-MAY-2019Edit

   Unable to review  

  • Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear which references are connected to which claim statements in the text of your proposal. When proposing edit requests it is important to highlight in the text, through the use of ref tags, which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. The point of these inline ref tags is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point will be lost if the ref tags are not clearly placed. Note the examples below:
Examples
INCORRECT

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.

[1][2][3]

References


      1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
      2. Harinath, Paramjit. "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
      3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the first example above there are three references provided, but the claim statements do not contain ref tags indicating which reference applies where. The ref tags instead have been placed outside of the text, bundled together towards the bottom. Your edit request similarly bundles the ref tags together outside of the area of the text. These links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below:

CORRECT

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]

References


  1. ^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
  2. ^ Harinath, Paramjit. "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
  3. ^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
  • In the second example above, the links between the provided references and their claim statement ref tags are perfectly clear. Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  01:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


ReqEdit Attempt2Edit

Change x to y using z
x Remove the current Criticisms section completely including the title:
Criticism

In 2017 Berners-Lee was criticized by prominent defenders of Internet freedom for approving Encrypted Media Extensions that standardizes Digital Rights Management technology, thus restricting digital freedom.[71][72] Critics include Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

y Add to the Policy work section immediately above the paragraph On 30 September 2018, Berners-Lee announced...:

In March 2017 Berners-Lee decided, after several years of remaining neutral on the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposals with its controversial Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications, indicated he felt the situation required him to make a decision and that he had concluded he would back the EME proposals. The decision provoked a strong critical response particularly as his position as director of the W3C meant his rulings ultimately determined if a specification progressed to become a W3C recommendation.[1] In July 2017 Berners-Lee chose to approve the developed EME specification; a decision that would by default lead to its ratification as a W3C recommendation in two weeks. Joining others in criticism of the decision and its implications the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFE) raised an appeal, the first in the W3C's history. W3C members went on to vote and ratify the EFE recommendation in September 2017.[2][3]

z

References

  1. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (6 March 2017). "Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Cardoza, Christina (7 July 2017). "DRM concerns arise as W3C's Tim Berners-Lee approves the EME specification". SD Times. BZ Media LLC. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (18 September 2017). "DRM now a formal Web recommendation after protest vote fails". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Thankyou: Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 30-MAY-2019Edit

The prose in the edit request is not grammatical. Some of the issues:

Grammatical issue examples
1. In March 2017 Berners-Lee decided, after several years of remaining neutral on the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposals with its controversial Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications, indicated he felt the situation required him to make a decision and that he had concluded he would back the EME proposals.
  • The above sentence contains three adjectives: decided, indicated, and concluded all within the same sentence.
2. The decision provoked a strong critical response particularly as his position as director of the W3C meant his rulings ultimately determined if a specification progressed to become a W3C recommendation.
  • The above sentence mis-uses two different adverbs, particular and ultimately. It implies that the decision provoked a strong response (underlined in blue) particularly because of his position as director (underlined in green). However, his position as director (green) ultimately means his rulings may cause a specification to progress to a recommendation (blue) only if they choose to do so. The position's particular ruling (orange) is ostensibly what the response was to (blue), and not the position's ultimate ability to make those rulings (green). This can be seen when one switches the positions of the words ultimately and particular in the sentence:

    "This particular decision provoked a strong critical response because ultimately his position as director of the W3C means his rulings determine if a specification progresses to become a W3C recommendation."

3. Joining others in criticism of the decision and its implications the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFE) raised an appeal, the first in the W3C's history.
  • This sentence has to main parts to it but no comma connecting the two.

Regards,  Spintendo  04:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ReqEdit Attempt3Edit

Change x to y using z
x Remove the current Criticisms section completely including the title:
Criticism

In 2017 Berners-Lee was criticized by prominent defenders of Internet freedom for approving Encrypted Media Extensions that standardizes Digital Rights Management technology, thus restricting digital freedom.[71][72] Critics include Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

y Add to the Policy work section immediately above the paragraph On 30 September 2018, Berners-Lee announced...:

Berners-Lee's position as director of the W3C meant his final approval was required before a specification progressed to become a W3C recommendation. He had for several years maintained neutrality on the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal with its controversial Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications. In March 2017 he indicated he felt the situation required him to state a position on the matter and he had chosen to support the EME proposal.[1] Widespread criticism arose from his decision, its implications, and his stated reasoning for coming to his position.[1] There were claims the position was "defeatist" and not supportive of the internet's open philosophy against commercial interests.[2] In July 2017 Berners-Lee chose to approve the developed EME specification; a decision that would by default lead to its ratification as a W3C recommendation in two weeks.[3] There was significant opposition to his decision and its implications with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFE) raising a formal appeal. W3C members went on to vote and ratify the EFE specification as a W3C recommendation in September 2017.[2]

z

References

  1. ^ a b McCarthy, Kieren (6 March 2017). "Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b McCarthy, Kieren (18 September 2017). "DRM now a formal Web recommendation after protest vote fails". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Cardoza, Christina (7 July 2017). "DRM concerns arise as W3C's Tim Berners-Lee approves the EME specification". SD Times. BZ Media LLC. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Taking into account the accepted rejection above I have reworked into smaller sentences; this has also involved some movements of phrases. The note about the first W3C appeal was not sourced in the given references and I choose to remove it rather than trying to source it. I have expanded somewhat reasoning for the criticism. In doing these things it is of course possible I have cleared some issues but introduced others. I believe I have indicated Berners-Lee's role in this reasonably accurately. While the size of this contribution is larger than I originally planned I am minded that it is overly WP:UNDUE but further expansion might me. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked the paragraph a bit. Let me know how this reads:

Berners-Lee's position as director of the W3C meant that his final approval was required before a specification progressed to become a W3C recommendation. With its controversial Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications, he had for several years maintained neutrality on the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal.[citation needed] However, by March 2017 he indicated that he felt the situation required him to finally state his position on the matter, which was to support the EME proposal. Widespread criticism of his decision and its implications arose, a portion of it centered on Berners-Lee's stated reasoning for coming to the position.[1] There were claims[from whom?] that his position was "defeatist" and not supportive of the internet's open philosophy against commercial interests.[2] In July 2017 Berners-Lee chose to approve the developed EME specification, a decision that would by default lead to its ratification as a W3C recommendation two weeks later.[3] Despite the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFE) raising a formal appeal, W3C members went on to vote and ratify the EFE specification as a W3C recommendation in September 2017.[2]

Regards,  Spintendo  11:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (6 March 2017). "Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b McCarthy, Kieren (18 September 2017). "DRM now a formal Web recommendation after protest vote fails". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Cardoza, Christina (7 July 2017). "DRM concerns arise as W3C's Tim Berners-Lee approves the EME specification". SD Times. BZ Media LLC. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

@Spintendo That tweak looks good. I hope to fill in the blanks a correct EFE to EME typo I made and I'll submit a further edit request hopefully shortly. The second pair of eyes is really helpful for me on this. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


ReqEdit Attempt4Edit

Change x to y using z
x Remove the current Criticisms section completely including the title:
Criticism

In 2017 Berners-Lee was criticized by prominent defenders of Internet freedom for approving Encrypted Media Extensions that standardizes Digital Rights Management technology, thus restricting digital freedom.[71][72] Critics include Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

y Add to the Policy work section immediately above the paragraph On 30 September 2018, Berners-Lee announced...:

Berners-Lee's position as director of the W3C meant that his final approval was required before a specification progressed to become a W3C recommendation. With its controversial Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications, he had for several years maintained neutrality on the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal.[1] However, by March 2017 he indicated that he felt the situation required him to finally state his position on the matter, which was to support the EME proposal. Widespread criticism of his decision and its implications arose, a portion of it centered on Berners-Lee's stated reasoning for coming to the position.[2] A number of opponents of DRM felt he was not being not supportive of the internet's open philosophy against commercial interests.[1] In July 2017 Berners-Lee chose to approve the developed EME specification, a decision that would by default lead to its ratification as a W3C recommendation two weeks later.[3] Despite the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) raising a formal appeal, W3C members went on to vote and ratify the EME specification as a W3C recommendation in September 2017.[1]
z

References

  1. ^ a b c McCarthy, Kieren (18 September 2017). "DRM now a formal Web recommendation after protest vote fails". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (6 March 2017). "Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard". The Register. Situation Publishing. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Cardoza, Christina (7 July 2017). "DRM concerns arise as W3C's Tim Berners-Lee approves the EME specification". SD Times. BZ Media LLC. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
I need to look at the criticisms section and see if I need to weave in part of "Many of the comments on Berners-Lee's post are also strongly critical of his position. Most of the arguments put forward are ideological rather than pragmatic, and do not address his counter-points about DRM being a simple reality with EME offering a standard that ultimately provides better protection for the Web as a whole.". But I need to do other things for a bit and then I'll rework the above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"Prominent defenders of internet freedom" and "thus restricted internet freedom" needs to be re-worded. Those claims shouldn't be phrased using Wikipedia's voice. Also, if this is the same criticism which is mentioned in the other section, then it can be merged. Please advise.  Spintendo  03:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree ... and that was my start point ... sorry I've been caught up or just trying to over improve a solution. I hope to look at this in the next two hours. Thank you.
Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I had put forward a revised edit proposal above. I have found myself struggling on the issue of how to accurately handle There were claims which probably requires an expansion here and actually probably also means Berners-Lee's position needs also to be expanded. Removing "defeastist" which really requires the "Canute" reasoning to balance it helps ease some the issue. I have therefore updated and requested the version above. I agree the priority is to remove Prominent defenders of internet freedom. I am happy for any reasonable modification to my request; or for the criticisms section to be modified, reverted to an early revision if one exists, or to be removed completely. Further modifications/requests can always be made later. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The article has a very significant problem with sharing its text with other websites such as stratford.edu, w3.org, acm.org, birchills.net, and computinghistory.org among many others. I've never seen a Wikipedia article having its text used on so many other websites quite as much as this article's text is. And not just on Wikipedia mirrors — almost the entirety of this story in The Sun by Phoebe Cooke for example, has been plagiarized from Wikipedia, while large portions of text are also shared by w3.org — so much so that it begs the classic chicken and egg question asking which website the text first appeared on. Who's to say that text which I rewrite here using my own phrasing is not going to end up on w3.org or in one of Ms. Cooke's articles for The Sun 3 months from now. As I see it, the article is better off without that assistance. Regards,  Spintendo  16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Spintendo. Fair enough. Hopefully your OK with any suggestions you've made so far being incorporated. I myself have sort of been a bit edgy about the several years maintained neutrality on as I may have inadvertently plagarised around that. Given any coi I have is arguably hairbreadth and certainly doesn't apply 2010+ of the EME/DRM period and given you've agreed Prominent defenders of internet freedom needs to go its time for me to be WP:BOLD and make the edit myself ... peoples can sort out any issues in normal editing. Again if I do this with any suggestions to date to you require any attribution? I'm happy with no/yes/(whichever-you-think). I've set request to declined. Thanks again for your comments. (This is a quick answer which I'm am doing in passing while having a coffee). I might look at copyvio stuff later.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC) I hope to review particularly Wikipedia:BACKWARDSCOPY later (my last experience trying to follow that was not great).Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added three backwards copyies to the specific articles in your links (EARWIG across the web shows more I havn't touched). I view the Sun article as the most serious. I've not seen as much of problem with acm, W3C and computinghistory.org but hands up I could have missed stuff. Unfortunately EARWIG's tool can miss quotes and I've seen a little of that with ACM. I dont think I've going any further with this today but I do wonder if the issue with the Sun article should be escalated? Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Content added to articleEdit

  • Under the cirsumstances I'm been a bit WP:BOLD] and I've added content back into the article about the EME interactions in the Policy section. I've tried to focus on Berner-lee's involvement. While I have a COI on the article this more relates to pre-1990 (and even then very slight to neglible) than EME/DRM 2010s. In retospect I probably made a bad choice of revert point and not sure my criticism of Bersh's second edit was correct ... though it probably went too far away from Berner-Lee. It's probably possible to bring out more of Berner-Lee's quotes on this from the provided sources as the may be significant in terms of W3C role but I leave that for others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

grammatical correctionEdit

[63] The EFF raised a formal appeal with did not succeed and the EME specification became a formal W3C recommendation in September 2017.[65] the word with seems has been used wrongly and should be which--Arash73p (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)   Done

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021Edit

Could "Professor" please be removed from the honorific prefix in the infobox per MOS:CREDENTIAL? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)