Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-05 Magic copyright

= Case closed on 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC) due to lack of will by parties = Due to zero activity on behalf of the parties in this mediation, I am closing and archiving this case. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: 2006-05-05 Magic copyright
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Savvas.dimitriou 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * King levitation (among other places: Sooperman, Elevator_levitation, Balducci_levitation)


 * Who's involved?
 * 24.153.169.142, Ihateexposure, Savvas.dimitriou


 * What's going on?
 * 24.153.169.142 and Ihateexposure are removing the sections of various magic articles that describe the method used to perform the trick, largely due to a misunderstanding of the nature of copyright and also to protect the potential income of the magicians who sell DVDs detailing the methods they're deleting. -- Savvas.dimitriou 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I believe goes against the nature of this site to self-censor in order to help someone's sales, so I would like these two to stop vandalising magic articles. -- Savvas.dimitriou 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Via email. -- Savvas.dimitriou 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * Not until I understand the process better. -- Savvas.dimitriou 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
This appears to be the case: some editors wish to include specifics about how magic tricks are performed and others take a variety of positions to the contrary: from citing ethical obligations in the magic community to not reveal the tricks of the trade to claims of "tortious interference with business" surrounding exposing the details of a trick that some magicians make money off of selling in books, devices or kits.

I would like both parties to respond to the following questions:


 * 1) Are the descriptions of how to do these magic tricks published (verifiable WP:V) in reliable sources  WP:RS?
 * 2) Is there any reason to exclude this information from an encyclopedia like Wikipedia?
 * 3) Are there other cases you could point to in which content was removed / censored from Wikipedia because it being widely known would hurt the livelihood of a third-party?

-- Joebeone (Talk) 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As is the case, it is sometimes hard to mediate with anonymous editors. If the parties don't respond or involve themselves in this mediation effort in 24 hours, I will close this case due to lack of will. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

 * Evidence of reverts based on economic deprival claims or without comment:
 * King levitation: ,
 * Sooperman:
 * Elevator_levitation:
 * Balducci levitation:

Please view the edit histories of the articles linked at the top. -- Savvas.dimitriou 16:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Savvas.dimitriou, I'll be your mediator. Could you list evidence here? That is, it would help me to understand more of the case if you could list specific diffs where the behavior you talk about above is apparent.  Like I've started above. -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others

 * It doesn't seem reasonable to attempt to censor material because someone else sells the information. Certainly there are thousands of DVDs on the history of WW2 that share a great deal of common information with the simalarly themed wiki articles.  This is not a reason to delete those articles however.  With this case the information is not as well known, however the same thought would apply.  ProductofPublicEducation 17:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly haven't seen any evidence, guideline or policy that would counsel towards excluding such information based on a theory that it's the support for someone's livelihood. Trade secrecy (as understood in the US) could be grounds for deletion of the information, however, there's a strong case to be made that any information that makes its way onto wikipedia is far from secret.  This case would be a bit easier if the descriptions of how these tricks were performed were available in verifiable, reliable sources. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods is a pretty good overview of the copyright situation for magic. It would be very difficult for someone to argue that a magic trick is a trade secret unless other magicians are unable to explain how it is done when they see it. Nloth 07:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)