Talk:International Hotel (San Francisco)

SFGTV video on YouTube

Q: What is the problem with linking to a TAX-PAID video that shows you what this article is about? In contrast, the other external link that remains untouched is to a DVD sales page. Using a 'bot to search and destroy YouTube links is a poor replacement for making your own critical judgments about the value of content. I understand the Wikipedia benchmark (of wanting the content to be uploaded to Wikimedia), but you are making "Perfect" the enemy of "Good". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.80.217 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've examined the YouTube link and since the video it was posted by an authorized person (from SFGTV), is not a copyright violation, and is not a commercial film, as well as being a relevant addition to the article, it meets Wikipedia external link guidelines and I'll restore it and add a note. Hopefully XLinkBot will not revert it; if so, I'll file an override for it. --MCB (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, SFGTV says "Programs containing copyrighted materials will be used only if copyright clearance has been obtained. The ownership and copyright for any program produced by the City and County of San Francisco shall be held by the City." .. are we sure it is not copyrighted, even if it was uploaded by someone from SFGTV themselves? I have removed the video for now, pending further discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand the copyright policy involved. WP:EL says that we should avoid external links to copyright violations, not to copyrighted material. ("Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work.") The video is unquestionably copyrighted by the City & County of San Francisco, but an authorized staff member of SFGTV posted it to YouTube for public distribution. (Basically, the SFGTV web site only hosts archives of city meetings and some ceremonies; they don't have the disk space and bandwidth to host everything they've produced for video-on-demand streaming.) While much of the copyrighted content on YouTube is an infringement, there is also a lot of material there that is posted with the copyright holder's knowledge & permission, and this is the case here. Assuming this makes sense, I'll leave it to you to restore the link. Best, MCB (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true, WP:EL indeed says avoid, Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works says it stronger. If it is as you say, that you believe that SFGTV posted the movie with permission (is there an easy way to verify?) then it is fine with me. I'll put it back. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rich here. Tax-created work by SFGTV is treated like NASA photos. They are copyright NASA, but you can use them for non-commercial purposes because your tax dollars paid for them. As shorthand, we usually say to people "they are copyright, but not copy-protected." You can make as many copies as you want, as long as it is non-profit. Not every local PEG channel works this way. It depends on the funding model of the agency. SFGTV, however, is a city department and we are city employees. (Side note- we do have all of this stuff on city web-servers, but the website is impossible to search or randomly find through Google. We can't really use tags effectively with our CMS. Putting highlights on YouTube is the easiest way for Grandma in Iowa to find a video.) Thanks for the efforts and the conversation about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.80.217 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Activism At It's Finest

In response to the evictions of the I-Hotel, many Asian American individuals (especially young college students) came to fight what they believed in. They felt that it was wrong to get rid of small, family owned shops. They felt that it was wrong that the community was breaking apart because the city wanted to make more money. There is a fine line between the city attempting to help the people residing in it and the city tearing the people apart. Many of the individuals that lived in Manilatown during the urban renewal of the 1960s were suffering from poverty and their community was all that they had left. We can't even go into the discussion of the people not trying hard enough to make a decent living because the city did not give equal opportunities to everyone living in San Francisco. People who new what they believed in stepped up to the plate when the evictions at the I-Hotel started and did not give up. There are times in each one of our lives that we wish we could go back to in order for us to make things right. Although I was not around at the time of this incident, I would in a heartbeat stand in front of that hotel and fight for what is right. Let's not add to the corporate world where just a handful of powerful corporations hold the majority of the wealth. Let's promote local farmers, small family shops, and biking. Don't give in to what THEY want, do what YOU want.

Lordpetezilla (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM & WP:SOAPBOX. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Hotel (San Francisco). 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/20070621234647/http://www.chonkmoonhunter.com/The_Fall_of_the_I-Hotel.html to http://www.chonkmoonhunter.com/The_Fall_of_the_I-Hotel.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) 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)