Talk:Students for Free Culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

I'm going to make

I also made some minor edits to the "Structure" section to reflect the results of the new bylaws that the Students for Free Culture chapters have just ratified. -- Skyfaller 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Fordham Law to the active local chapters list. As the co-founder of that chapter, I hope that wasn't a COI edit (I just wanted to keep things up to date). Outis010 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently article seems to fail

Thanks, now I've started to understand some bits of it, but IMHO there is still a loooong way until casual uninvolved reader is able to read the article. One big concern of mine about the article, sources and references is that most of the references apply to what the article calls chapters, but relation between chapters and

WP:V the link between these three entities applicability of all reliable links to Students for Free Culture

becomes questionable.

What I agree is established are references to "Free Culture Swarthmore" (in Wired), to "Free Culture at NYU" (USAToday), and to "Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons" (in NYT). What is not established in the article yet - is answer to the question "how all these three organizations are related to

WP:N). Ipsign (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's a bit difficult to establish the relationships between these organizations using only external news sources, since few people care about the relationships between organizations, they only care about (and write about) what these organizations are accomplishing. If you can't believe the website of Free Culture Swarthmore http://swarthmore.freeculture.org/about-2/ (that page references both its former identity as the SCDC and its connection with freeculture.org) or Students for Free Culture itself[1], then probably the easiest thing to do is point out references to the same people and organizations using different names. Here are some links.

• "File-Sharing Students Fight Copyright Constraints" https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10students.html - This refers to "Brown’s chapter of Students for Free Culture, a national organization sprouting up on college campuses" and notes that "Established at Swarthmore College in 2004, the group has chapters at more than 35 universities across the country".
• "Mr. Lessig Goes To Washington" from The Nation: http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/mr-lessig-goes-washington/ - This article refers to Nelson Pavlosky founding the first chapter of Students for Free Culture at Swarthmore College. I think it is obvious that this has to refer to Free Culture Swarthmore, there are no other candidates for the Swarthmore chapter of SFC.
• "On Campuses, Free Music Aplenty and Letters from Lawyers" http://www.america.gov/st/business-english/2008/March/20080307140415berehellek0.7545282.html - This article refers to "Swarthmore College’s Free Culture group" as well as "Rich Jones, a Boston University sophomore and head of a Students for Free Culture chapter" which clearly suggests that the Swarthmore College Free Culture group is also a chapter of Students for Free Culture.
• "Know Your (Copy)rights" http://jennvargas.com/academic/copyrights/public_activists.php - Some random academic confirms that "Students for Free Culture started as the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons" and "In 2004, the FreeCulture.org launched, which began the transformation of the Swarthmore organization into Students for Free Culture."

--Skyfaller (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I'm convinced (FWIW), the only question I have about it now is how to integrate this information (relation between many different names) and these references into the article. I'll think about it myself, but if somebody has any ideas - please don't hesitate to be bold and do it. Ipsign (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing the "Goals", "Purpose" and "Structure" sections, and making sure the first few citations aren't of the sfc web site.

IMHO "Goals" is perfectly viable for the article (and might include elements from current "Purpose"). Also note that references like the one to manifesto is IMHO perfectly acceptable source (it is primary source, but in this case it can fly; it is no good for the purposes of

WP:NOTABILITY, but as soon as notability is established, manifesto can be used from primary source). OTOH, I agree that two sections "Goals" and "Purpose" are too much, and that "Structure" is indeed a mess. Ipsign (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]