Wikipedia

Talk:Lawrence Lessig/Archive 1

< Talk:Lawrence Lessig
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Satresrook in topic Minor error
Archive 1

West Wing episode

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Christopher Lloyd played Lawrence Lessig in the February 09, 2005 episode of The West Wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricio00 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 February 2005 (UTC)

picture move to wiki commons

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

whould please anybody do that? i would like to use this piv in de:wp too. thanks.Lichtkind 23:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

His Books

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is 'Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity' the same book as 'Free Culture: Big media etc..'?? --FluteyFlakes88 06:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Harvard faculty page for Lessig shows all his publications.

Quote

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The "war" that has been waged against the technologies of the Internet [...] has been framed as a battle about the rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to take in this war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for property or against it.
If those really were the choices, then I would be with Jack Valenti and the content industry. I, too, am a believer in property, and especially in the importance of what Mr. Valenti nicely calls "creative property." I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the law, property tuned, should punish "piracy," whether on or off the Internet.

- Lessig, Free Culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.12.72 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource does not have a page with this exact name.

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Lawrence_Lessig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.166.2 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Section merge

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know enough about Lawrence Lessig and his activities to complete this change myself (can't think of a way to integrate well as prose) but realize that the "wiki-related activities" section is probably a violation of WP:SELF unless merged into the "Free Culture" section. I've made the Wiki-section a subsection of the "free culture" section, but would someone please merge the wiki-section completely? Thanks, Nihiltres 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dude, don't know if you read your article talk page, but was just cruising the donations roll and wanted to say thanks for putting your money where your mouth is. ;) Best, jengod 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Code

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The single sentence that comprises the "code" paragraph/section is so short and so ... well I have almost no idea what idea it is trying to express. Can someone expand on this? 74.103.98.163 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I rewrote what was there to express itself a little more clearly, but it's central to Lessig's net-world-view, so could use expansion. It's better to title it "Code is law" because that's what he said. The entire article could use some cleanup and reorganization, though, so it isn't just that bit. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not entirely necessary to elaborate about Code here, since there's already an article on the book; I tightened up that section a bit and linked to the article. SparsityProblem 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the new text is an improvement. Sander123 08:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence_Lessig#Attitudes: Problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Lessig refuses to embrace the usual libertarianism. While Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention, he favors judicial activism and regulation by calling himself "a constitutionalist." " -- We need to tweak this, to avoid the appearance of problems with WP:WEASEL or POV.

  • "the usual libertarianism typical of Internet culture" -- WP:WEASEL or POV
  • "judicial activism": (from the article) "a speaker may use the term "activist judge" to mean that a judge has simply made an important decision that the accusing speaker disagrees with. When used in this way, the term "activist judge" is little more than a term of political criticism. This is the most common context in which the general public is exposed to the term."

-- Writtenonsand 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Richard Posner "strongly conservative"?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Although Posner's economic approach to law may co-inside with conservative jurisprudence at times, I really wouldn't say Posner is 'strongly conservative.' First of all, his law-and-economic theory often times strongly disagrees with typically conservative opinions, if not only in reasoning, but also in final decision as well. Second, Posner is openly pragmatic and, thus, does not necessarily agree with 'originalism' or other conservative theories of statutory interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.240.76 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

--Posner may not be a "typical" conservative, but he's no liberal. I'm editing the sentence to clarify. Rebekah Zinn 19:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

--Posner is a libertarian (and, as observed above, a pragmatist), rather than a conservative. Although he is certainly not a traditional "liberal," his views on social issues tend to end up on that side. I doubt he and Scalia would agree on much. Ken Kukec 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Very bad form

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If Lessig is merely "considered" liberal, then why are Posner and Scalia not "considered" conservative, but merely conservative? I'm changing it. 68.32.238.94 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Golan error

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Respecting the norm against self-editing, I wanted to note that there's a significant error in the entry about Golan v. Ashcroft. The case was not dismissed. Indeed, we won the first victory in the history of the First Amendment as applied to copyright. The case has now been remanded to the district court, and continues.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/09/a_big_victory_golan_v_gonzales.html

Thanks. Fixed. Nurg (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding the excellent suggestion re a criticism section, you might want to include a link to the "Anti-Lessig Reader" at my wiki.

http://wiki.lessig.org/Anti-Lessig_Reader lessig (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to it in Ext links. Nurg (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No longer on the EFF board of directors?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

YouTube sent Ms. Lenz a notice that it was removing her video. She wondered, "Why?" What had she done wrong? She pressed that question through a number of channels until it found its way to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (on whose board I sat until the beginning of 2008). The foundation's lawyers thought this was a straightforward case of fair use. Ms. Lenz consulted with the EFF and filed a "counter-notice" to YouTube, arguing that no rights of Universal were violated by Holden's dance.

Link to article: http://reno.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html --81.229.72.33 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nurg (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark"

If restrictions on copyright and trademark are reduced, that would mean more restrictive copyright etc. Surely the opposite is meant. Nurg (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig is also the grandfather of the economics of digital content resale in virtual worlds

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In 2003, thanks to a meeting between Lawrence Lessig and Linden Lab, creators of the Second Life virtual platform, Lessig successfully argued that virtual worlds like Second Life ought to allow content creators inside the virtual world to keep their intellectual property on every item they create there, and that it ought to be the role of every virtual world to adopt mechanisms to enforce users' intellectual property rights, as well as allowing them to share their digital creations freely or for a fee. This persuaded Linden Lab to design their very complex "permissions system", where every object is uniquely identified as to whom created it and currently owns it, and has "licensing" information in it allowing content to be given away, shared, incorporated on other people's content ("derivative works"), or sold ("licensed") for a fee using a micropayment system. A whole economy of digital content was born out of this meeting — about US$1.5 million are exchanged each day inside Second Life thanks to Lessig's vision of creating a virtual world economy where intellectual property rights are enforced.

Here is an interview from Linden Lab's founder mentioning it: THE SECOND LIFE OF LAWRENCE LESSIG, PART II

Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for new "List of..." article?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been working on List of publications by Richard Dawkins and vastly expanding the list of media about RD that is online for free. It strikes me that Lessig might also rate such a page, to avoid those who wish primarily to monitor the BLP vs. tracking the media about him. I think that both have a significant "public figure" component to their notability.--Livingrm (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideas Section?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article seems to be missing a section which details Lessig's ideas about copyrights and trademarks. Shouldn't we add one? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree. and also other ideas, like this 93.86.205.97 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Is this diff appropriate? Dualus (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The links are unneeded as "references" -- references should be independent media coverage for this. The links are also unneeded as links, unless the sites are encyclopedic, in which case the articles should be created. I'm not sure the paragraph itself is needed, but I left it in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is already independent media coverage in the news stories cited previously in the paragraph. The primary sources should be cited with inline external links to follow the common practice. In such cases, bare domain names or full URLs only should be used so that the links would still be able to be followed if the article is printed. Dualus (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
From my recent edit summary: "How exactly do redlinks instead of the primary sources which were already described in news reports cited earlier in the paragraph improve the encyclopedia? how do redlinks help the user? Are you going to create stubs for them?" I intend to replace them. Dualus (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
How exactly does that list of links improve the encyclopedia? See WP:RL for the reasons for red links, but if that's a point of contention, I'm agreeable to delinking the domain names entirely, since I don't think they are encyclopedic. Please do not replace them without consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Is this compromise agreeable? Dualus (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

usefull information not in good shape

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The following information have been removed because the (ugly) format did not plaised few guys that force to follow guidelines, instead of remodeling information. It remains usefull informations on the subject.

Columns

Interviews

Audio/video

Transcripts

Transcript of his oral argument and the Court's Opinion for Eldred v. Ashcroft

It appears to have been removed because Wikipedia is not a collection of Internet links, not because it was poorly formatted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
removing information (even in bad shape) from an encyclopedia, is juste plain stupid.(WP:BURO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the list here, so it can be discussed what is detrimental to the article, what can be used as a reference (or even, to draw information from that can be used in the article) and what is simply superfluous. Indeed, this was not removed because it was not in a good shape (actually, it is in a 'good shape', it is how external links sections should be formatted), but because this is just a linkfarm. There may be some links here that are of interest for the article, but many c/should simply go into a {{dmoz}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved some more here, and put some others back in the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Analysis on Lessig Method Powerpoints?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could anybody familiar with Lessig's presentations expand this section? What kind of speech is recommended using this method? How one can incorporate aspects of the "Lessig Method" that will help kick the quality of your presentations up a notch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.171.153.169 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find much out there on the nuts and bolts of the Lessig method. I only found some brief commentaries about the method in a few interviews. I'll keep looking for some analysis. He uses Keynote instead of PowerPoint for what it's worth.Nichworby (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor Dualus

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have removed all the copy added by this editor because it is both poorly sourced and/or OR. This editor has been adding this same information at all the articles related to the Occupy Wall Street articles causing much disruption and frustration to the other editors. See the talk page at OWS article - read from the bottom up to save time. I also deleted the "email" information because the source was not available. If this editor has well-sourced information appropriate for a living person that does not contain OR, he may chose to add it to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, learning proper sourcing issues takes time. Emails generally are not acceptable to use as quotes, or links to websites. But newspaper sites such as The Guardian are acceptable. It takes time to learn this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional convention section blanking

Gandy's deletion deleted far more than just my work. All of the objections above are about the contributor, not the content. I am still waiting on the specific reasons that there may be issues with the paragraph I included. I am reverting. Dualus (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait no longer, here you go:
Not to mention, this is the type of belittling treatment which we have asked you to stop several times. You are not waiting; she said in her edit comment to see the talk page; and, to mistreat good editors will not be a good precedent for you to set. Starting today, we want you to turn over a new leaf. Work collaboratively with the other editors you work with, or pretty soon you'll be out of work. If you wish to communicate why you feel your edits to the constitutional-convention stuff do not violate WP:OR or WP:SOURCE then please state them, so that other editors on the talk page can hear both sides of the disagreement, and so that consensus can peacefully emerge. 완젬스 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Academic criticisms?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The current section on Academic criticisms appears to lack substance. There's a newspaper article citing a Green Party MP to suggest that Lessig does not know the meaning of "legitimate commercial interests" in copyright law. Then a reference to a debate about whether cyberspace law is a worthy research subject. An unsourced claim about Lessig's alleged focus on Eastern European law. An out-of-context interpretation that turns "Google is more dangerous than Microsoft ever was" into "Microsoft's anti-competitive practices were only hypothetical", without a source to demonstrate any kind of academic criticism. — There are certainly many scholars who disagree with much of Lessig's work, but this section does not reflect that. In fact, I find it hard to argue that the section as it currently stands is better than nothing. Rl (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. What bothers me is that the three references for this section are not easily checked online, although they may in fact exist. I'm skeptical.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be deleted. I didn't put much time into my decision other than to note that there are no "blue words" (linked words), so I assume the criticisms don't amount to much. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Two of these three references are easy to check: Google’s Gatekeepers, Regulating search. I just find them insufficient as sources for the supposed content of this particular section. Rl (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not clear what the Lessig quote at the beginning of the NY Times article was all about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the pertinent quote is not at the beginning, but it in the second to last paragraph of the NYT piece. Rl (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the entire section due to a distinct lack of substance. Relevant information on criticisms and debates would be useful to have, though, either in a separate section or worked into the various topic sections. Rl (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The section on the corrupting influence of big money needs to be fleshed out. Wikipedia needs a separate article on the subject as well.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section on the corrupting influence of big money needs to be fleshed out. Wikipedia needs a separate article on the subject as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If this subject pertains to this article (Lawrence Lessig) by all means include it. There are other treatments in Wikipedia on the subject of money-influenced corruption, such as Lobbying in the United States.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Reorg "Money in Politics"

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both (new sub-) sections are explicitly about money in politics. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Link number 18 (http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002912.shtml) gives a 404 error. Or at least it does for me, based in the U.K. where internet is censored. Could people from other places in the world check the link and if it is indeed broken remove it? Spiros Bousbouras (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Both links to the blog are working correctly in Germany. Pendare (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that the link works correctly in the UK, at least it does in England. Listener Sheogorath 217.212.230.115 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased Tone in Political Values?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this an accurate and unbiased way to report Prof. Lessigs political views?

"A year abroad at Cambridge convinced him to undertake a second undergraduate degree in philosophy there, and he was converted to liberal political values."

I wonder about "and he was converted to," as "conversion" has the tone and meaning of being pressured into a certain point of view or belief, whereas it is not necessarily true that Cambridge University's philosophy department has an agenda with respect to influence of anyone's political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.57 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "was converted to" necessarily suggests any pressure, but I accept the point that the phrasing suggests more external agency than there is evidence for. Bwithh 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What about switching "was converted to" to "changed his views to"? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently burdened by an unfair constructive ban by Wikipedia. Listener Sheogorath 217.212.230.115 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Rootstrikers

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Without judgement on what they do, I'm seeing few independent google hits on Rootstrikers. I think it needs to be merged until the group can demonstrate independent notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page of Rootstrikers, pageviews are indeed anemic; but there are solid references. What if we revisit this topic in a month or two, but keep them separate for the time being? We may get a better read on things then. Summer is coming; it may be this rally in Philadelphia gathers interest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
That's crystal ballery. The references which even mention "Rootstrikers" (several don't even mention the organization) do so as a trivial name drop. There's not near enough in them to sustain a full article. This is a push piece, and as much as I personally agree with what's being pushed, we can't have that here. If sources do more in-depth coverage of the group, we'll write the article after they do, not in anticipation that they might do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It's part of a coalition: United Republic, Rootstrikers, and Get Money Out. If it's going to be a merge, it should be a merge to a coalition article, not Laurence Lessig. I agree with Tomsulcer. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it's been over six months since this discussion (and I've seen increasing references to Rootstrikers in the media since then) can this be laid to rest? i.e., to remove the merge proposal box from the top of the Rootstrikers page. Caseylf (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. LTACitizen (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs a Criticism section

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There should be a criticism section. Just for starts, Lessig's battle with Stephen Manes:

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/business/free_forbes/2004/0329/084.html and http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/02/cz_sm_0402manes_print.html

No. See "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". Philwiki (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And articles at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, like:

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop15.5freecultureanalys.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consider wikipedia policies concerning pages/bios of live persons. Outright criticisms, especially with an agenda, are likely inappropriate. A Controversies section is a good idea, and is added today to objectively record them. And a Controversies talk section below as well.

Board of Maplight

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link that references the board members at MapLight is not mentioning Lessig. I do not know if he was in the past so it should be done "was on the board" or be removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoukoul (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Forbin Problems

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this relevant, and if yes, how about a short explanation and Forbin Problems instead of Forbin Problems? –Be..anyone (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Honorary degree, where can I put this on the page ?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On February 3, 2014, Lawrence Lessig has received an Honorary degree from Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium [1] along with Denis Mukwege and Jigme Thinley.

Where do you thing I can put this on the page ? In a new "Awards" section ? --ZeFredz (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Fête de l'université 2014 - Doctorats honoris causa". UCL - Université catholique de Louvain. 2014-02-03. Retrieved 2014-02-03.
Thank you. A new Awards section has been created and this Honorary Doctorate is now incorporated in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.64.137 (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Two other interesting cases

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hardwick v. American Boychoir School CTIA v Berkeley

Worth including? – SJ + 23:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lawrence Lessig/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Note - The section "New Hampshire Rebellion" has two "citation needed" tags. I would expect those to be addressed.

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool
  • No issues  Y
Copyright violations Tool
  • None of the results are actually copyright issues, but quotes etc.  Y
Disambiguation links
  • No issues  Y
External links
  • Eight of the links come up as dead (marked in red)
  • Two of the links come up as most likely dead (marked in blue)

Well Written

  • I am a bit concerned about the informal tone this takes on occasion, grammatically there are not a lot of problems but on occasion I feel like the tone strays a bit. I will try to point out a few issues as I go through the sections.
Lead
  • There are quite a few sources in the lead - sources should be used in the body of the text where a fact is stated, using them in the lead makes it appear that they are sourcing something not in the body of the text. I don't think that is actually the case here, but I would like you to eliminate all sources in the lead that are covering the same information in the body of the article.
  • "election, but" does not need the comma
  • His presidential campaign is covered twice in the lead - I think that is a bit excessive.
Academic career
  • I believe "J.D." should be spelled out as "Juris Doctor" first time the term is used
  • Is "clerked" really a proper word?
  • "holding for a year the chair" the sentence should end with "for a year" not early on like it is.
In popular culture

Seems like an odd placement for this section. I would expect that to be at the end of the article, after it outlines what Lesig has done etc.

Political background
  • Reference 20 does not support the statements of "token liberal" or "chosen for his brilliance" - it supports that he was "left leaning"
  • Reference [22] should be move to after the comma
  • Source for "almost pursued a Republican political career."?
  • This whole sentence is unsourced "What was intended to be a year abroad at Cambridge, convinced him instead to stay another two years to complete an undergraduate degree in philosophy and develop his changed political values. During this time, he also traveled in the Eastern Bloc, where he acquired a lifelong interest in Eastern European law and politics."
  • The statement "Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention but favors some regulation, calling himself "a constitutionalist."" is unsourced
  • The sentence about John McCain is a little hard to read, can you possibly rephrase that?
  • Here is an example of a more informat tone "Lessig has known President Barack Obama since their days of both teaching law at the University of Chicago".
Code is law
  • I think this would be a good place to bring in some views of people - how was the book received? did it influence future decisions, laws, rulings etc.? More than just "he wrote this book" would be great and really help put it into perspective.
Remix Culture

Same here for this book,

Free Culture
  • First time "FSF" is mentioned it should be spelled out.
  • He proposed the concept "Free Culture" - again a little perspective on this please. It's tantamount to saying "on Monday I propsed going to Subway for Lunch" (not trying to be a smartass, just putting it in perspective)
  • Reference 31 bsically states "he held a speach", not really much coverage on content so the last part of the sentence is unsourced but needs one.
  • The "Free Culture" section is written as a bunch of one liners or short paragraphs. Basically a bullet list without the bullets. Please rewrite it.
Net neutrality
  • "Lessig has long been known to be a supporter of Net Neutrality" - one of those more informal phrases I mentioned, and it's unsourced.
  • "In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that he believed Congress should ratify Michael Powell's four Internet freedoms and add a restriction to access-tiering, i.e. he does not believe content providers should be charged different amounts." the last part of this seems tacked on and in a more informal tone.
  • This statement "The reason is that the Internet, under the neutral end-to-end design is an invaluable platform for innovation, and the economic benefit of innovation would be threatened if large corporations could purchase faster service to the detriment of newer companies with less capital." is presented as a fact, not as Lessig's belief or point of view, but a stone cold fact - that's not the case though is it?
  • How much of the preceeding paragraph is covered by reference 36? looking at the title I am not sure if it covers anything but the quote at the end?
Legislative reform
  • "if bureaucratic procedure" should be "if bureaucratic procedures"
  • Ending with three separate quotes and nothing else is sort of weird. And once again no perspective on this, no support or criticism of his stance. The measure of his work is not just by what he is saying but how it is perceived.
  • Since it is a print source I assume it covers all three quotes?
Legal challenges
  • I feel like there is something missing in the first sentence - "he was disappointed with his defeat" - but it's not really clearly stated what the Eldred case was, leaving it unclear exactly what's going on.
Killswitch
  • "Snowden received its World Premiere" should probably be "had" instead of "received"
  • "Congressman Grayson states" past tense, "stated"
  • "writes of Killswitch" - "wrote" 
  • "remarks" - "remarked"
  • "asserts" - " asserted"
Money in politics activism
  • "At the iCommons iSummit 07, Lessig announced that he would stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters and work on political corruption instead, as the result of a transformative conversation with Aaron Swartz, a young internet prodigy whom Lessig met through his work with Creative Commons." - seems to mash two sentences together, is a bit informal in tone.
  • "Lessig criticized the revolving door phenomenon in which legislators and staffers leave office to become lobbyists and have become beholden to special interests." - changes tense from past to present half way through.
Rootstrikers
  • Some perspective - he founded a website it went throgh changes and is now under the organization of someone else. But what did it accomplish? How did it further Lessig's cause? 
Article V convention
  • What is a "national Article V convention"? it's unclear that it's the same thing as listed in the "main article" link since it's using two different terms.
  • What is the purpose of "Fix Congress First!"? Again just stating a fact, not providing the context.
  • "Lessig has called for state governments to call for a national Article V convention,[68] including by supporting Wolf PAC, a national organization attempting to call an Article V convention to address the problem.[69]" that is a lot of calling for Article V.
  • "An Article V convention does not dictate a solution, but Lessig would support a constitutional amendment that would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle." it ses that nothing would be lost by dropping the "An Article V convention does not dictate a solution, but" could be dropped without losing any content. And the fact that it's all presented in present tense is part of why I am a little thrown off by the tone. Maybe that is just me

Well Written

New Hampshire Rebellion
  • Has two "citation needed" tags
  • This should really be one paragraph
  • So is it a 185-mile march or 16-mile march? article kinda states both?
2016 presidential candidacy
  • The second paragraph is just one short sentence dangling there below it.
  • The first two sentences are chronologically out of order, please reverse them.
  • "His campaign is focused" - "was focused" past tense.

Sources/verifiable

  • There are places that need sources, I have pointed them out in the section above.
  • Reference 1 needs the general data added for weblinks - dates, author, site etc.

^Reference 5 needs more info added, at least accessdate and anything else that is appropriate

  • Reference 8, same
  • 14 as well
  • 19
  • What makes Boing Boing a reliable source?
  • 22, more detail
  • Some references have a differnent date format, some have "January 1, 2010" others have "2010-01-01", pick one and be consistent
  • 26, more detail
  • 27, more detail
  • 28, more detail
  • 29, more detail
  • What makes randomfoo.net a reliable source?
  • Reference 33, not sure what this info is about
  • Is freesouls.sc a reliable source?
  • Reference 60 is no longer available
  • Reference 65 is dead
  • 61, more details
  • 62, more details
  • 66, more details
  • 71 is dead
  • 83, more details
  • 84 - dead
  • 85, more details
  • 86, more details
  • 87, more details
  • 88, more details
  • 91, more details
  • 92, more details - is a bare url
  • 94, more details
  • 96, more details
  • 91, more details

Broad in coverage

  • Broad-ish, good enough

Neutral

  • There are a few places where it goes a bit over the top without a reference, the use of term such as "brillant" needs to be expressed as an opinion, not a fact and with a source to support it.

Stable

  • Looks like it yes

Illustrated / Images

  • Licenses etc. check out,  Y
  • I would recommend put Alt text for all images, for FA that would be a reqirement so just something to consider.

Discussion

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  • I have not seen anyone pick up on this yet, so it looks like I may end up closing the review tomoreow if nothing changes. But at least you would have a list of stuff to do if you want to.submitbit for GA again later. Sorry about the bad timing.  MPJ-US  20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see no activity. Have to fail it.  MPJ-US  14:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lawrence Lessig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Got two PDFs and a good page, assuming okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Lawrence Lessig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Four working links, so why is everybody destroying the original links? –Be..anyone (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Lessig. 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:

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

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really a FAIL, but the summary here only shows the dead URL, not the working archived URL for a one-click verification, and title=archive-copy required a manual intervention. –Be..anyone 💩 17:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor error

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps someone is aware of this but Lessig's birthdate is listed as both June 3, 1971 and June 3, 1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satresrook (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Lessig/Archive_1&oldid=1083405143"