Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Moves To Delete the Free Speech Flag

Comments Filter:
  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:21PM (#35419740) Homepage Journal
    This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

    this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.
    • by Necroloth (1512791) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:29PM (#35419824)

      this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

      didn't you know? Jar Jar Binks is copyrighted.

    • by OverlordQ (264228) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:32PM (#35419870) Journal

      This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

      No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by vlm (69642)

        No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

        It would be interesting to survey those whom leave. In comparison, most of the people I know whom left, hated the deletionist griefers. They are why I refuse to participate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jimktrains (838227) *

          Ditto, the deletionists are why I have such mixed feelings about wikipedia. I don't see any good reason a legit article shouldn't be deleted based on some persons definition of fame.

      • by idontgno (624372) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:05PM (#35420322) Journal

        Too bad they can't arrange to lose the right editors.

        Wikipedia appears to be the Web 2.0 equivalent of urban flight and blight: anyone with a clue is ditching fast, and pretty soon, the only ones left in the "inner city" will be criminals and psychos

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by vlm (69642)

          Wikipedia appears to be the Web 2.0 equivalent of urban flight and blight: anyone with a clue is ditching fast, and pretty soon, the only ones left in the "inner city" will be criminals and psychos

          And the politicians and paid corporate astroturfers. Oh wait, redundant.

      • No, this is Wikipedia wp:process-wankery and why they're losing editors[[opinion]] in droves[[citation needed]].

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Sony is just testing the waters to see how far they can go in their "California" matter and Wikipedia just doesn't want to waste resources in the eventual court battle. While I'm not going to applaud Wikipedia, I can't throw too many rocks at them either.

      Soon someone big is going to have to deal with it and I get the feeling that it isn't going to be favorable for Sony, who has been pretty reckless since they don't have a wold conquering media format to rest their laurels on. Until then it is probably bette

      • by unity100 (970058)
        eff can jump in, mount a campaign for the particular case, and get donations. im sure a lot of people will donate to them.

        then sony can get their ass straightened out and properly compliant with modern standards of liberty and freedom of knowledge and information.
    • by DCram (459805)

      I am unsure how I feel about this. While I believe that IP and copyright are getting way out of hand I ask myself how would I react to a company flying my countries flag, family crest, company logo. How would you feel if Walmart changed its logo to the American flag? Would you want them to be seen as directly representing the US.

      I don't know..I can see both sides. Not sure I agree with either.

    • by commodore6502 (1981532) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:38PM (#35419970)

      Wikipedia doesn't challenge copyright.

      For example they removed the List of 210 Television designated market areas (DMAs), because Nielsen complained it was copyrighted. Even after I provided a *public domain* version from the Federal Communications Commission (they call them 'television markets' for purposes of regulation), wikipedia still refused to allow it to be posted.

      Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

      • by Joe U (443617) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:42PM (#35420026) Homepage Journal

        Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

        Well, that's 2 things they're not good for now:

        1. Reliable information.
        2. Challenging corporations.

        However, they do excel at wasting my time and deleting things. So, it does make up for it in some way, I think.

        • And even if they do present reliable information they present it in the driest most boring tone ever created. They suck the fun out of learning. When I was a child I used to get excited when I saw a shelf of encyclopedias. I can't imagine wikipedia does the same for kids these days.

          • The big problem with Wikipedia articles on anything remotely technical is that they aren't written to be read by a layman, but rather are written by a bunch of specialists in the field all having a big circle-jerk with their collective knowledge. If you need the information that's present in the article, then chances are you can't make heads or tails of it - likewise, if you can actually understand what's in the article, then you probably already know most of what it's about.
        • by Jay L (74152) <jay+slash&jay,fm> on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:43PM (#35420792) Homepage

          You forgot solemnly looking at you. They're good at solemnly looking at you.

        • by lgw (121541)

          Wikipedia is great, truly great, for one thing:

          1. Funding Jimmy Wales' junkets.

          He's a constant source of comedy gold for gossip rags like Vallywag.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by unity100 (970058)
        nielsen can still sue wikipedia even if you put up a public domain version of something.

        thats the fault of american system - the one with the money wins the court.
      • by vlm (69642) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:09PM (#35420372)

        ... blah ... For example they removed ... blah ...

        The deletionist griefers at wikipedia enjoy filling their empty lives by destroying others work. Thats why its gone, because you cared, and they wanted the rush of destroying something you wanted. If you expressed deep desire for a table of American Morse Code letters or perhaps semaphone signals, they would delete them. Everything else is rationalization and story telling. On both sides.

        • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:31PM (#35420636)

          tl;dr version: some people just want to watch the world burn.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Thats why its gone, because you cared, and they wanted the rush of destroying something you wanted. If you expressed deep desire for a table of American Morse Code letters or perhaps semaphone signals, they would delete them. Everything else is rationalization and story telling. On both sides.

          I'd like to officially express my deep desire for the deletionistas to live long and healthy lives. With any luck, they'll get right to work figuring out how to die in a fire.

        • by Steauengeglase (512315) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @02:25PM (#35421340)

          At least they haven't removed this one yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionpedia [wikipedia.org]

        • by crossmr (957846)

          and there is just as a big a problem with people who don't seem to understand what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not and has never been a record of all human knowledge. Yet, there are plenty who want to use it to promote their special snowflake because they know how popular it is and it deserves such an audience!

          They'll make all kinds of arguments about this and that, and about how their cousin Bob was searching for that very topic just that morning and he has cancer, so it was his last internet search and tha

          • by mxs (42717)

            That is where it started. It has since gotten out of hand. Plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of good, useful, encyclopedic articles have been deleted. Most by people who have no idea what the fuck the articles were even about. Find something in the "community" rules (=cabal rules) to hang the article with and do it. It's a sport to them.

            I have stopped contributing to Wikipedia for this and some other reasons (among which the senseless timewasting in "discussion" pages with sockpuppetry, cabal-mentality, and inane

          • by AlXtreme (223728)

            en cy clo pe di a

            1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge.

            The only reason encyclopedias didn't add more information was because it wasn't feasible. Wikipedia was doing great, why would you want to limit it to only a subset of human knowledge? Information that I find trivial might interest my neighbor, so why would I delete an article about his precious snowflake? Why should my article about belly button lint have to be relevant?

            Storage is cheap. Compared to wiki articles storage is insanely cheap. Someone can add articles about every flower in his local park and i

      • by DrXym (126579)

        Wikipedia doesn't challenge copyright.

        For example they removed the List of 210 Television designated market areas (DMAs), because Nielsen complained it was copyrighted. Even after I provided a *public domain* version from the Federal Communications Commission (they call them 'television markets' for purposes of regulation), wikipedia still refused to allow it to be posted.

        Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

        They'd probably let you keep your submission assuming you put the money in escrow to cover any potential court battle. Otherwise, are you surprised they choose to take potentially infringing things down?

        • by eyrieowl (881195)
          Yes. Everything is potentially infringing by that rubric. If you can demonstrate a public-domain source for the information, I'd say you've done a lot more legwork than most submitters do to prove that the information they're adding to the site isn't infringing a copyright, so if they're going to delete that out of potential infringement, literally nothing is safe from that protectionist red-herring.
    • by nospam007 (722110) * on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:40PM (#35419998)

      "This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated. "

      Arrangements of the 7 existing (western) musical notes are much worse.

    • by Haedrian (1676506) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:48PM (#35420108)

      You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.

      Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:

      1. Colours
      2. Strings
      3. Numbers
      4. Music

      So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.

      • You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.

        Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:

        1. Colours 2. Strings 3. Numbers 4. Music

        So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.

        Isn't copyright supposed to cover a particular expression? You can't tell me that this flag and that number can be considered the same expression.

        • by Haedrian (1676506)

          So you're telling me that if you write a song, and I copy it to a wav file, a mp3,mp4 file, a wmv file, a [whatever format they use for writing notes], a flash file with the music in it, a graphical representation of the music (either as a waveform or its notes), a video of how the song can be played on a particular instrument...

          You only own one of these expressions?

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        How?
        This means you own the copyright on your song of these numbers if anything.

        How is this even a copyright issue? These numbers are not a creative work, they are just facts.

      • Godel's Revenge! Come on kids, let's encode!

        Take the 100 million digits of Pi - I bet somewhere in there is the decimal version of the key. Then all you need is a marker and off you go!

        Convert it to Base 4 and I garner it's in our genetic code! Can they stop you from having a copy of your genetic code? Or will they make "placeholders" illegal?

        Go to a grocery store and buy stuff in a certain order! Can they stop you from shopping for food?

    • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:52PM (#35420164) Journal

      This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

      The funny thing is that the flag is MORE worthy of copyright protection than the original key. If you pick 5 random colors and put them on a flag, that's creative work worthy of copyright protection. An arbitrary encryption key is the result of a purely mechanical process and should not meet the threshold of originality [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

      Not if there's prior fart.

    • by marcansoft (727665) <hector@ma r c a nsoft.com> on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:27PM (#35420582) Homepage

      It's not the key that lets you sign your own code. It's not the key that lets you decrypt the OS. It's not the key that lets you decrypt games. It doesn't let you do anything interesting. Huh? What? Yes, you heard me.

      It's a useless key that is used to authenticate factory service dongles (which will only let you run signed executables anyway, and those signing keys are secure as of the latest firmware and will never be obtained). Its only purpose so far was to perform downgrades (as released in a commercial product using stolen service executables) in order to use another commercial product (by ostensibly the same company) which used an exploit to enable game piracy (using a whole bunch of other methods unrelated to it). All of this predated the 27c3 presentation and geohot's release. It's useless now and has never served any "master" key purpose. It was called the "master key used to generate service dongle keys", then of course the clueless news websites just shortened that to "master key".

      The PS3 has tons of keys and you can't "do everything" with one key. You need three or four to run stuff via metldr, that's why geohot released a whole bunch of keys, not just one (none of which are the one that was used here). But if you must pick one "representative" key to obfuscate and post and distribute and make an icon out of, at least pick Da from geohot's keyset (starts with C5). That's the metldr private key, originally stored at some vault at Sony's HQ, calculated thanks to their massive signing screwup, and which can be used to sign code that all existing PS3s will execute, forever (you still need to encrypt it, but signing is ideologically more important). And for fuck's sake, please let go of the "46 DC" dongle key already. Please.

      • by Ksevio (865461)
        However the key in question allows you to decrypt HD DVDs...if you can find any that is.
    • This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit.
      this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

      Why are the keys copyrighted? Are they an expression of artistic creation?

      Aren't they rather a "trade secret"?

  • There's only one question here that needs answered: Has the current copyright owner released the flag for use under a compatible license?
  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:30PM (#35419846)

    This controversy is a metaphor of the beautiful paradox that is the USA.

    We have a flag for free speech, yet the flag is legally unavailable unless a contract with the owner of the flag is secured.

  • Is this a joke? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:31PM (#35419852)

    This can't be for serious. They're deleting an image that represents free speech because it violates copyright law?

    Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

    This is on par with that whole debacle of 1984 getting remotely recalled from kindle's.

    • Re:Is this a joke? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by andrea.sartori (1603543) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:33PM (#35419892) Journal

      Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

      I'm afraid it really is this stupid.
      Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia. [citation needed]

    • by mxs (42717)

      This can't be for serious. They're deleting an image that represents free speech because it violates copyright law?

      Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

      This is on par with that whole debacle of 1984 getting remotely recalled from kindle's.

      It's an excellent expression of art. I'd go so far as to say that the intent of the author was for precisely this to happen. The key is meaningless, the flag is meaningless, the fact that it's being taken down is a very powerful message and comment on where free speech is at.

  • the MPAA has asserted they own all rights to the number under the DMCA

    It still astounds me that the (current interpretation of the) law allows someone to own all the rights to a number

    • by sqlrob (173498) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:38PM (#35419978)

      In some ways it makes sense, but there needs to be better defined limits.

      Everything is representable as a number. Software, this post, a scan of the Mona Lisa. Where do you draw the line?

      • Even drawing the line at a creative work is problematic. For the next super-secret encryption key, they will make the flag first, claim they chose the colors for the aesthetics, and then use the number.

        • by Zerth (26112)

          And we'll just use a different colorspace. Invent one, if we have to. Scarlet, Orange, Navy, Yellow or something.

      • by Lord_Byron (13168)

        In general, the line is drawn at the threshold of originality. [wikipedia.org]

      • by crhylove (205956)

        You should not draw the line. Ever. That's the whole point. Hindering the progress of humanity for selfish or covet means is wrong. Or in the words of Ben Franklin, a genius, founding father of the greatest democracy yet made, prolific inventor, and scientific discoverer, "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

        You can disagree with Ben Franklin if you want to,

    • by boristdog (133725)

      Fine. I'm patenting "1".

      Now you and I can sue everyone who uses a binary computer.

    • If you get to patent "0", then I get to patent "O".

    • by Haedrian (1676506)

      Software is a string of binary - number
      Music can be digitised - string of binary - number
      Images can be digitised - string of binary - number
      Top Secret Military files - string of binary - number

      Its a question of encoding.

    • This has nothing to do with patents. It has to do with the concept that the key, under the DMCA, "effectively controls access to a protected work".

      So you don't even have to spend money on a patent. You just have to use a public domain cryptosystem (or roll your own, if you can avoid the patent minefield) and hand it a frequently-used-on-the-internet number as a symmetric key. Then go around demanding that people remove that number from various websites, because publishing it violates the DMCA.

  • by iluvcapra (782887) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:36PM (#35419940)
    How many of you were aware there was such a thing AS the "Free Speeg Flag"? I wasn't (I was half expecting to see an article about a bitfield struct.). How many of us have actually seen one, and not some SVG but an actual cloth banner on a pole, in an actual context in the RL? Does the Important Movement of Our Time, AKA ripping movies and posting them on a torrent, really need a flag?

    This thing looks like it was invented by some self-aggrandizing dweeb who is now trying to get a slashdot flash mob to save his "original research."

    • The hex HTML color codes for the colors in the flag represent the encryption key. It's a way to publish the key without actually publishing the key. Pretty clever if you ask me.
    • Presumably it can only exist online or in digital format. As soon as you display it, print it or make a flag out of it any mismatch from fading, dye inconsistencies, LED spec variation etc. would mean that the colors no longer have that exact hexadecimal representation.
    • by SethThresher (1958152) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:55PM (#35420208)
      I was aware of it before today, but this is the first time I've ever really seen it mentioned outside of the HD-DVD encryption, or since that time. Back then folks were doing anything to keep the basics of that key from being suppressed or deleted, so the flag ended up emerging as another end for this goal. It's quite clever, really. The fact that wikipedia is moving to delete it speaks volumes for wikipedia's current attitude towards notability and their ability to mold information as a few select editors see fit.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not to mention that once I read up on the "Free Speech Flag", I completely failed to see how it was about Free Speech at all. I could see how it was a 'clever' encoding of some decryption key, and now that's all it seems to represent to me.. somebody's idea of sneaking-in-plain-sight a decryption key past some manner of perceived Big Brother that comes down hard on those who dare publish it 'as is'.

      Free Speech would be just publishing the key, in relevant articles, period. Not hiding it behind 'flag color

  • ... unless you're not one of the handful of pre-approved mods who require no justification for cutting out larger swaths of knowledge than the 1984 Ministry of Truth.
  • Wikipolice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by margeman2k3 (1933034) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:44PM (#35420054)
    I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins).
    It's like those pages just never existed.

    It makes you wonder what else is going on inside Wikipedia.
    • I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins).
      It's like those pages just never existed.

      I always wondered what type of chaos there would be if everyone who has ever had an article deleted on Wikipedia just went and added them back in. All at the same time.

  • Why the surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chas (5144) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @12:51PM (#35420152) Homepage Journal

    Wikipedia hasn't been about free speech since about thirty seconds after inception.

    It's about control of information by a cabal (admittedly a very LOOSELY affiliated cabal, but a cabal nonetheless) of editors. All of whom have their own particular agendas and axes to grind. And it's not about what you know, but whom.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dachannien (617929)

      Oh, Wikipedia? Okay. For a second there, I thought you were talking about Anonymous.

      • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:36PM (#35420716)

        or, just life, in general.

        who do these kids, today, think they are? the world is just as broken as it was years ago. why do they expect justice and fairness when the world was NEVER supposed to be like that?

        in life, it has always been about 'who you know'. in a way, wiki helps teach that. ugly lesson but no one (other than your pastor and some stupid disney movie) said life was fair or just.

    • Where exactly can you find an objective collection of information? It doesn't exist.

  • Wikiwho? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Isn't Wikipedia that website that deletes knowledge in a time where 2TB drives cost less than 100 bucks?

    Super Aspergers who control nothing in real-life but shoot milk out of their male breasts when they can label something they are not interested in "not noteworthy" and delete it then?

    That place is an asshole... full of assholes...

  • The courts are going to use "good faith" in determining what violates copyright law. Part of the purpose of this flag is to encode Sony's copyrighted number sequence. The flag is for this reason not in good faith. If I published a list of every possible 10 byte number in a random order the courts would not find it violating copyright law. If however, someone said look at number 78654321 on my list, and it happened to be Sony's number, the courts would find that document, not mine infringing, as it is just e
    • You shouldn't be able to copyright or trademark a number. That is just absurd. In your example you mention a list of numbers and a math equation, sure you are in good faith but if Sony has a copyright or a trademark on that number it still doesn't stop them from taking you to court and making you fold simply because they have the resources to tie you up in court for years. So you might be in right but because you don't have millions of dollars to spend to defend yourself, you'll lose. Since we use numbers t

  • As long as your getting ready to jump the shark anyway, could you be so kind as to delete all reference to the number 5? I fancy that number, so I'm claiming it as mine now in any and all manifestations.

    Thanks

  • In related news, the Flag Of Japan Inc. is suing all websites that contain any red circles.
  • Was this actually initiated by Sony? Or was this a deletionist getting his rocks off?

  • ...but this is the first time I've seen rainbow flags used in this manner.

    Fabulous idea :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:47PM (#35420852)

    Just in case anyone's wondering what the fuss is about.

    erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
    riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
    pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
        R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
        n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
        K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
      Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70

  • OK then, never mind a flag, and never mind Wikipedia and its ilk.

    How about writing some legitimate political commentary with the key threaded through it? Design it so that there is no way to remove any of the key material without detracting in a significant way from the content of the political commentary.

    It would be interesting to see a court trying to justify itself if it orders that taken down.

  • Check the talk page (Score:4, Informative)

    by KahabutDieDrake (1515139) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @01:50PM (#35420896)
    No one bothered to look at the talk page? There are NO arguments for deletion. Meaning that unless things are different now at wiki, this flag isn't going anywhere. There are also some very good points about the relevant (or not) legal standing of the image. In short, wiki has no reason to delete this image, other than fear mongering. That won't actually stop them from doing it, but it's worth noting. OH, and what's to stop the /. community from reinstating the copyright flag in every wiki article on the site? Nothing. Don't mess with free speech modmins, you don't have the balls to play the game. Next thing you know you'll be drowning in Perl shaped like a camel, or ponies or something.
  • For all the people who are complaining about the deletionist asshats download Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and provide a *fork*. Tell people it's better - spread the word.

    If you care, make the effort.

  • by salesgeek (263995) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @03:06PM (#35421866) Homepage

    falls on deaf ears when people invest time and knowledge in Wikipedia only to have the content deleted.

  • by Y-Crate (540566) on Tuesday March 08, 2011 @03:07PM (#35421882)

    Come on people. The Wikipedia process provides solutions for situations like this.

    1) Find a cell phone. But it's gotta be from 2002/2003. This is a must. Serious business and all.

    2) Take a photo of the screen with the Free Speech Flag on it. Make sure you cut off like half the image, blow it out and dutch it too.

    3) Delete the image already on Wikipedia

    4) Post your new image.

    5) Add an anime reference to the bottom of the article.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...