Talk:Defense Distributed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defense Distributed article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Freedom of speech C‑class Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Firearms C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet C‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Arkansas / Military history / Texas C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Government

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Find sources notice Template:Find sources notice

Care to explain what is going on?

I have never seen Wikipedia censored as it just was. What is the most harmful thing that could've been added with 75 characters? Links to surviving copies of the Liberator blueprints? The article more or less tells you how to find them as it is. Connor Behan (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, what just happened? I'm confused, can you explain and elaborate? — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of the article on May 11. Three revisions were made unviewable without anyone involved having the decency to tell us why. Connor Behan (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Revision deletion, more info at public logs, lots of reasons that could be that might have nothing to do with the article's topic itself. Best to focus on further research on the article in additional WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only additional info given by the logs is that this had something to do with the removal of a link. The criteria at WP:CRD say that an admin should "give a clear reason for the removal." It seems that either User:Fred Bauder or User:The Anome is in violation of this. Connor Behan (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to hazard a guess, if a link was removed then it was most likely a link to a location to download the liberator 3d-printed gun. They deleted the log entry to avoid the possibility of them coming under ITAR regulations as well.68.62.102.48 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These actions were not based on any firm policy. A provisional deletion was made and the matter passed on to legal. But, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/09/3d-printed-guns-plans-state-department I would say, broadly, that this falls within Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We are not cutting-edge, read bleeding-edge, activists on the front line. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/14/diy-firearms-makers-already-replicating-and-remixing-the-3d-printed-gun-photos/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should stick to what is documented in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I agree that posting a link to the blueprints (if that's what User:Nowheremano did on May 11) is inappropriate because it is a primary source and not neutral. When such an edit is made, it should be reverted or even redacted which is what happened. I have no interest in owning a gun and I am not looking for the blueprints. However, my issue is with transparency. A user reading the history can still only see that revisions were deleted and that the edit summary explaining why was also deleted. Am I to understand that an explanation will be put back into the edit summary once the legal team has responded? Connor Behan (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that some sort of explanatory edit summary would've been appropriate. However, best to focus further discussion and energies on improving the quality of this article with secondary sources. That would be most encyclopedic, and educational, for all readers and editors alike, but it would most help to serve the readers. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In need of support: I can't get a new and imho important fact in the arcticle

---8<-- In December 2012, the first idea of the "Liberator" gun emerged from @propagare the German member of Defense Distributed in his Twitter timeline. @Propagare tweeted the idea to Cody Wilson's Twitter account @Radomysisky on the 4th of December 2012. -->8--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.80.176 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. We would need to get consensus that this is not WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, as the twitter account is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and nobody has reliably commented on this fact. Also, That a tweet was sent does not mean a tweet was read, or that they didn't already have the idea from some other source etc. (Im not saying it is so, I am just saying as an encyclopedia, we can't jump to conclusions). propagare is a listed member of DD in about us, but we don't have knowledge of the internal decision making processes etc. I do not firmly object to inclusion, but would like to see what others say first. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It seems that pedantic Wikipedia Germany already included this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.80.176 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing status of Defense Distributed software products

"Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely ..."

This is confirmed as per source:

Bump, Philip (May 10, 2013). "How Defense Distributed Already Upended the World". The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Monthly Group; www.theatlanticwire.com. Retrieved May 14, 2013.

Just putting here as an FYI. I believe this conforms to Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting image from whitehouse.gov

Here's an interesting image from whitehouse.gov: File:2013 May 14 Allow DEFCAD to resume distributing their files.jpg.

Might be useful source info for this article.

— Cirt (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This petition has apparently been removed. I am unable to find it anymore. In any case, it wouldn't be notable unless it got a lot of sigs, or was covered by reliable sources Gaijin42 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding it active there now. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can get there via the link from the image, but if you do a search by issue for Firearms, it is not listed, nor can I find it via text search. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, not sure why, maybe it's just not proliferating quite yet through the media. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

forbes article discussing "Streisand Effect" and open source modifications being made to Liberator

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/14/diy-firearms-makers-already-replicating-and-remixing-the-3d-printed-gun-photos/ Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A most interesting development, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional articles

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/31/gun-control-just-got-even-more-difficult/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/

(Probably can find non-fox refs for the second one) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]