Jk123 2099

Welcome!

Hello, Jk123 2099, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sarah 10:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Thank you for your contributions to the article Jakarta International School. Remember though, this is an encyclopedia, and a very important. See the link for more information. - Bonzai273 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All information is direct from www.jisedu.org. Thus is factual not POV issue. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for the citations; there was an issue regarding the citations - as there were very little - but they have been added, and therefore that issue is solved. However, I would still argue that the article does not have a neutral point of view. It clearly displays a large amount of information supporting the view that "JIS is great", but there is almost none supporting any other opposing view. Also, much of the information is opinionated, i.e.:

• JIS is a large, well-equipped school
• The campuses have extensive facilities
• The students benefit from a wealth of opportunities
• JIS learners are inspired by the process of learning
• Complemented with well-balanced programs

And so on. The basis of the writing style is to present information without any sort of bias in general. For example, the faculty and student section is well-written; small, but well-written. It gives information, and shows JIS' attributes (multi-cultural, well-educated) without relying on words such as those highlighted above. I will say more in the talk section, as it would be best if more people could be involved in the contributions. - Bonzai273 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JK but Bonzai is absolutely correct about the neutrality and citation issues. However, there is also a larger issue and that is copyright. On Wikipedia, you cannot just copy a slab of text from elsewhere, change all the "ours" to "theys" and paste a link after it. This is a copyright violation. You must rewrite all the text into your own words. I just removed a slab of text which was copied from the school's website. I don't have time to go through and check the whole article right now but material copy and pasted from the school's website has to go. Sarah 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking further and the whole thing has to go. You're citing YOURSELF as a reference! That's like the very definition of original research and everything else looks like a blatant copyright violation. I've restored the earlier stub and I'm actually going to delete this version from the history pages because of the copyright issues. We're writing an *encyclopedia* here, not writing advertising copy or promotional material. Sarah 07:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You copied directly from the JIS webpage?! There's a lot I could say, but let's just try get the JIS page back alive again, ok? - Bonzai273 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, wait until admin have done clearing out the stuff that's copyright violation material - Bonzai273 (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have every right to copy from the page. I work at JIS, and my staff post the changes to the web page. Their is no way thier is a copy violation. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

No, you can't do that. Working at the school doesn't give you copyright ownership of their promotional material ot the ability to license it under the GFDL. First of all Wikipedia is not a mirror. You have your school's site for that promotional material, we don't want it here. It's written in away to promote the school which is great for your site but not for an encyclopedia. Secondly, it's a copyright violation whether you work there or not. We only accept material that is GFDL compliant, that people have written themselves but even if you got permission to license all that material under the GFDL, it STILL isn't suitable for Wikipedia. It's *promotional* material, not *encyclopedic* in tone. The other thing that is really important is that you cannot, CANNOT use yourself as a source! When I was going through that material, I noticed you were dismissively removing fact tags saying that you do not have to provide citations for material because the information is in your databases! Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable to reliable sources, that is, independent third party sources. We don't allow any original research on Wikipedia, so whatever you say about this school or whatever your colleagues say cannot be used here unless it is published by what we define as reliable and independent third party sources. That material is just not acceptable under our policies. I could list here the policies and guidelines the material violates but it would be nearly all our non-biographical policies - no original research, neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, conflict of interest...it goes on, seriously. I think you should consider whether you should be editing this article at all. You have a conflict of interest with this article and the fact you have been citing *yourself* with original research makes me wonder if you are capable of editing this article neutrally. Sarah 08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that we cannot list the work from our pages, not as a mirror, but for public knowlege. If you search the web on Jakarta International School for example US Dept of education, US Dept of Travl, US Secretary of state, that all of the info posted on the wiki is also verified by them. Let alone our board of govenrors inlcuding the US Ambassador to Indonesia. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Last time I checked a Director has the rights to review and source information (Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Sarah your reasoning is flawed. If you check the page you restored it does not have alot of factual information nor, verification. In fact section about who governs the school is wrong,..

I am also a sysadmin, but I would never abouse my power without atleast cheking or allowing the user to fix the alleged violation (Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Yep, the current version isn't good, I agree. It needs work and it needs reliable sources but to the best of my knowledge, the slabs of copyright violations are gone. You are welcome to correct factual information and add information but you are *not* welcome to post material that you've copied from another site. That's really the first thing that has to be resolved here. There's no way around it - do not copy and paste material from the school's site. The second thing is that you can't delve into original research, citing yourself as a source. We don't publish original research here. I've been told by a member of the Indonesian project that this school is the most renowned of all school's in Indonesia. If that's the case, it deserves a proper article, not one cribbed and pasted together from the school's site and an employee's opinions. If material can't be sourced to verifiable reliable sources independent of the subject then the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sarah

Also, just for your own information, you said, "Last time I checked a Director has the rights to review and source information". I have to correct you because if you're operating under that belief then that could be a primary problem we're having here. No, a director doesn't have the right to review articles here. They have no more rights than any other editor and in fact, when they have such a conflict of interest, we encourage them to use the talk page to make suggestions instead of making edits to the articles for the simple fact, as shown here, they have difficulty being neutral. Sarah 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

further comments

School articles are frequently of the worst quality on wikipedia. Their content is often POV and trivial. I had spent a lot of time maintaining the JIS page from such problems. I will now re-watch this page.

You should look closely at WP:COI. While it doesn't say that people with a COI shouldn't edit an article, it provides very clear and narrow guidelines on how to work on such an article. Your editing clearly shows you breached these guidelines and you have already had an admin advising you on promotional edits, POV, WP:OR, and copyright violations. I would support any further actions related to the JIS page that ensure that the quality of wikipedia is kept paramount, including this page. As an editor who has a COI and has unarguably made edits that undermine the quality of wikipedia (however well-intentioned), you will be subject to extreme scrutiny on this page - while there is much improvement needed to this article (not length in my opinion), you might want to reconsider how best you can do this from your established COI position. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Merbabu, your statement School articles are frequently of the worst quality on wikipedia is very biased.... (Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't understand how it is biased. --Merbabu (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't biased to say that school articles are frequently of the poorest quality; that's an unsourced statement of fact (perhaps we should fact tag it :D)though there are some very good school articles. However, even if it were a biased comment, that is completely a-okay because it was a comment made on a talk page where editors are welcome to post their opinions about articles so I don't really see why it would matter. It isn't as though you posted it into the middle of an article. Sarah 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot violate copyright on material you own! The data on www.jisedu.org is owned by JIS. I am a Director at JIS and was working on the page. Before the page was deleted, there was 55 edits. I was retruning to the page to add further enhancements and better data and now the page is gone without a warning!!!!

There were not 55 edits to that article. There were well over 400 edits before you even touched the article. Sarah 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your view on copyright is flawed, as you cannot violate data you already own. I will clean the site, but as usual, an email or a message would be useful before you revert the page to an older version with flawed information. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Also, internal data such as number of students, languages used, number of computers on campus has to originate from somehwere.. Sorry, no conflict to put that kind of info, nor is it a conflict to put publicly available, missions of schools, philosophy of school information. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

As explained to you privately, you can use the school's website for basic demographic data but not for copy and pasting slabs of text. I'm not going to keep disputing this copyright with you. I will just say that I do not believe that you own the copyright to school's promotional material and are able release it under the GFDL. But even *if* you did own it and were able to donate the school's promotional material to Wikipedia, which means, by the way, that it may be used *anywhere* for *any purpose* by *anyone* including for other people's profit and not just on Wikipedia, it STILL is not suitable for Wikipedia. The problem that poor Bonzai was having above was trying to neutralize the text so it didn't read like promotional material but it was impossible for them to do so because that is exactly what it was - promotional material. So the issue of copyright aside, that material is perfect for your school's website but it's just not acceptable here. I am going to try to look for sources myself and I will try to help with this article when I can but it is important that you follow our policies when you come onto Wikipedia because you aren't entitled to any special privileges or rights because you are an employee of this school and you are expected to follow our policies just like anyone else. Sarah 10:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah I guess you did not understand me. I never said I had more rights then other wiki users.. I stated that as a Director at JIS who consulted with our publications director, I h have the rights to post data to the wiki. (Jk123 2099 (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Image use

Who owns the copyright for the image used - ie, the two kids on the footbridge?--Merbabu (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'd be very interested in knowing that, too. I'm guessing that it's a work-for-hire and that the copyright is owned by the school and thus that JK will again claim he owns the copyright as a school employee, and that he may therefore do as he wishes with the school's promotional material, is that correct, JK? And this would include licensing the material under the GFDL, which from my on and off-Wikipedia conversations with you I'm really not satisfied you actually understand and that is a very real concern to me, particularly when you are posting images of such young and easily identifiable children. I'm just wondering if the families of those young children have been notified that you are attempting to release the image under the GFDL and whether they understand the implications of such licensing? How would the school, and most importantly, the parents of those children feel if that picture was used, say, in or on a book or magazine about something totally unrelated to the school, or in an advertising campaign for a product that has nothing to do with this school, or on a website totally unrelated to the school, possibly even on an adult-themed site and for which neither the school nor the children's parents would be entitled to receive any payment for use of the image and nor would they have any control over its use beyond the requirements for attribution and viral licensing. Beyond legal boundaries and Wikipedia's policies, there are ethical issues at play and I genuinely hope that the actual copyright holder of this image, whoever that is, has knowingly consented to the licensing, that the school understands the ramifications of licensing any material under a free license, that they have explained to the parents/guardians of these very young and identifiable children that they are attempting to release it under a free license which allows free usage by anyone for any purpose and that free means free, no payment, no right of approval or oversight of it's usage and no constraints beyond attribution and continuing the viral licensing. I really question whether a school should be licensing an image of someone else's very young identifiable children under a license like the GFDL that has no "take backs" and has the potential to allow future usage that may embarrass or distress the families or even these kids themselves in years to come. Imagine discovering their child's image used in a way that they would never agree to but being able to do absolutely nothing about it because it is entirely legal. There have been many cases of this happening before and it is entirely possible and not just some wacky theory.

I think it would be far better if this were deleted and a student or staff member of this school took a couple of pictures of the school itself for this article, rather than using promotional pictures of young children. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any students in the pictures but I don't see the merit in using a photo of two very young and identifiable children to represent a school. It makes no sense to me from an encyclopedic perspective. Generally the images used in school articles are of the school itself, especially the one used for the infobox.

I personally think this image should be deleted because of copyright concerns but much more than that I think there are ethical issues at play and we should take the higher ground to protect these two young kids. Because of JK's previous reactions and his attitudes towards all my admin actions, from refusing to remove the anon only block on the school's IP to deleting the copyright violations, I'm not going to delete the image myself, but I have asked another otherwise uninvolved administrator to review this case. Sarah 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, again this is an abuse of power... The image was sent to me by the JIS Communications Director for use on the site. I forwarded you an email as proof. Additionally, the the photo source was listed on the wiki site. You have my email account, just send an email.... I snet u an email as proof of the right to use the image.. Be fair (Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

(Jk123 2099 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

• Jk123, please understand that there are specific guidelines for the material that appears on Wikipedia. Having the copyright holder give "permission to use the content on Wikipedia" is not sufficient: see requests for permission. Material must be released under a license such as GFDL or Creative Commons-attribution-share alike. A complete list of free licenses can be found here. Releasing the image under one of these licenses allows anyone to freely use the image, including for commercial purposes.

We just want to make sure that you and the JIS Communications Director fully understand the implications of licensing images in such a way. JIS and the parents of the children will not have the ability to question the future use of the image. The picture will not be limited to use only on Wikipedia. That is why a picture of the school itself or children from a distance would probably be less controversial.

Regardless, to properly request and prove permission for use of an image, you will want to read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. It is easiest to send an e-mail/request like the examples found here and send the request and the response to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" where it will be permanently archived. Once this has been done, you can upload the picture with the proper license.

If you have questions about this process, you may reach me at my talk page Best wishes, --Jh12 (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi JH I do belive I filled out a form and declared the license type and source. As I stated earlier JIS is the copy right holder, and as a Director of I/S I have all legal aouthority to use JIS Images as needed. As I stated in an email to Sarah

Sarah,

While I do appreciate your concerns, the fact of the matter is this: 1. The bridge is on our campus. It was taken and used with parental consent. The photo appears on our publications that are publicly available.

2. I am familiar with the Internet and the workings of thugs, pedophiles and the likes.

3.You are acting as the internet police and not a fair observer. I do believe that it is not appropriate to censor a site for a photo that is legal, made with consent and distributed with consent of the parents and the administration of the school.

Show me where this violated any policy of Wiki? Copyright? Illegal use?

But to put your moral objections over the will of Parents who consent and the others at JIS who do not have a COI issue is offensive to me and I do believe it is wrong.

(Jk123 2099 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to MOVE appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Groupthink (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)