Wikipedia talk:Proposed guideline for magic methods

An example

As an example on how an article that follow established format might look.

First, I found two articles that looked like this (these are the complete original texts):

Steve Fearson's Cig. Levitation: This trick consists of an invisible thread that the magician wraps around his body and sticks to himself with magicians wax. He then manipulates it to give the illusion that the cigarette is floating.

And another:

Steve fearson's Area 51: This is performed exactly the same way as his cigarette levitation, except it adds the ending of the "ufo" flying off into the distance.

What is that supposed to be? There is absolutely nothing of value in neither of the articles. Okey, so thread can be used to animate stuff, but that was known long before Fearson, so why is this under separate headings, and not filed under the more general heading "Thread"? As it turns out, there are a valid reason to have both him and the first example (but not the second) in an encyclopedia - but that's nothing you would know from the examples above. Also, the author has put another title than the original on the piece, without explaining why. No clue on when it was created either. And, there is not even an attempt to detail any historical lineage. Do the author of the article want us to believe that there are no precedents before Fearson?

What is needed is to change the title back to the original. Put a correct date on it's creation. Give a proper description of the effect (how it appear to a spectator). Put it in the right context, so it is possible to track its importance and historic lineage, and point out what the creator has added to the method's predecessors. The second example adds nothing new, viewed in a historic perspective, so it should be merged with the first example.

Compare the examples above to this: Fearson's floating cigarette.

If anyone complains about a secret is revealed, it is quite easy to show that this description follow established pubishing ethics and the industry standard, and by that it should be easy to stifle any flame wars.

The only thing missing from the edited and corrected version is Steve Fearson's permission. I could ask him myself, but he would probably refuse to give permission just because it was me asking, since he despise me after a discussion at the Genii forum. I've got nothing but respect for Fearson as a creator, but I'm a bit ambivalent when it comes to his person. In any case, his work is worthy of a proper description, instead of the original articles. --TStone 23:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example

Yet another example on how it can look when following the established format:

The original text at Balducci levitation was: The Balducci levitation is a simple magic trick, credited to Ed Balducci. It produces the illusion of a person briefly levitating a few inches above the ground. It is a popular illusion with magicians because it can be performed impromptu and without special equipment.

Magician David Blaine performs this trick. On television, his act, which features reactions of the audience, is intercut with shots of him levitating with hidden mechanical assistance. This allows him to appear to have both feet quite a few inches above the ground in certain shots, something impossible with the Balducci levitation. The controversy among magicians about Blaine's television specials focuses on this, as some consider it to violate one of the rules of the television performance of magic: that the at-home television audience sees exactly what a live audience would see.

The illusionist is simply standing on the tip-toe of the foot farthest from the audience. That foot is concealed from view of the audience by the foot nearest to the audience and by the illusionist's clothing. The effectiveness of this trick is dependent on restricting the audience's point-of-view and being aware of the body's angle with respect to the viewers.

And it had an external link to a magic-fan page that didn't add anything relevant. Problems: It talked more about how Blaine uses the TV-medium than the illusion - something that should be on the Blaine page instead. No credits, dates or sources. No hints on why this illusion is important. Not formatted properly.

Compare the text above with: Balducci levitation --TStone 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More examples

Detachable thumb

Suggestion

Generally, Wiki policies are developed by writing the policy page as closely as possible to the desired final policy, then discussing changes to it on the discussion page. Most of the current 'policy' page is discussion and arguments in support of having a policy, all of which should be on this discussion page, and deleted from the policy page. Write what you think the policy should be, on that page, and move everything else that isn't a necessary part of the policy here, where it can be discussed. Aumakua 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just wanted some kind of input from at least 2-3 persons before doing any real work. I'll have it ready within 2 days. --TStone 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

I'm having a hard time finding the need for this proposed policy seeing that Wikipedia already has a copyright policy (WP:C). I feel that the argument of ethics is very subjective and I wonder if policy can effectually be codified based on someone's concept thereof. That TStone thinks that certain publication of magic methods here which "[he's] seen so far are very wrong" is an aesthetic and not really something that can or should be governed by policy. I appreciate what the editor is endeavoring but I feel that the best way to achieve this would be to properly edit the questionable articles so that precedence, not policy, is the model. -- Krash 17:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong here. The separation of the creator and his creation is neither a trivial matter nor an aestetic opinion - but a fundamental issue. We are in a law-less land here. The rights of magic creators are not yet defined by the copyright laws, meaning that it's neither allowed nor prohibited to steal magicians intellectual properties - the law says nothing at all in the matter.

Compare: Two creators work several years in forfilling an artistic vision. Both their work is ripped off and misrepresented at the Wiki. One is thrown out and the other is kept. Why the difference? Because the painter's rights are defined in a big book while the magician's rights are undefined - that's the only difference - a small amount of ink on a paper.

Now, I'm well aware that it is close to impossible to avoid intellectual theft. But what should be possible is to have some kind of guideline or policy to make sure that the material isn't misrepresented. As a minimum at least; that the name of the creator is attached to his creation. In most of the cases, there is little reward for the creator's within the field, even for the most famous ones, except for getting their names reccorded. Take away that, and there's nothing left.

The respected publishers of magic technical litterature follows a set of simple rules. I don't know it they are codified enough for the Wikipedia, but they are codified enough for being of a practical value on a daily basis. When the legal system adds definitions to the copyright laws, they try to make it as close as possible to industry standards. It might still take 10-20 years before the intellectual rights of magicians are legally defined - but when that happens, who want to go back and re-edit so many years of rip-offs? Isn't it easier to follow the standards from the beginning?

Or on a more pragmatic level, if someone's creation is deemed important enough to be mentioned here, shouldn't its creator be deemed as equally (or more) important? Or viewed from the other side, if a creator is deemed unimportant, shouldn't his creations be unimportant as well?

Oh well... I will put together a proper proposal for a guideline or policy now. I'll post it within two days. --TStone 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a policy is necessary here—I think that most of editors here are quite interested in supporting our fundamental policies on verifiability and original research, and would agree that verifiable information about the creator of a magical illusion definitely belongs in each illusion article. In articles where the illusion isn't sourced, I imagine that it is because the creator/inventor was not known to the article's writer—not because there is any intent to deprive the illusion's creator of credit.

Most of the debates about magical methods seem to center on the appropriateness of revealing the secret to a trick at all...and that question seems to have been settled in favour of revealing verifiable information.

From a philosophical standpoint, the difference between a painting and a magic trick would seem to be the difference between a work protected by copyright and a trade secret. Methods are treated very differently from works. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In articles where the creation isn't sourced, it either bad research and or Original Research, which seems undesireable elsewhere. For some unexplained reason, there seem to be an automatic assumption among a lot of people that magic creations pop into existence by themselves, without having been created by someone. An assumption that doesn't happen as often when it comes to other art forms. In the other cases, there is both the copyright laws AND reminders on the wiki, to make people aware that they shouldn't steal other's work. In this area? Neither legal protection nor reminders... The latter should not be impossible.

Oh, the debates about revealing the creators' work...How many magic innovators and creators took part in those discussions? Contrary to what you might think, most creators are not opposed to having their creations known. As long as certain conditions are met, there's no problem at all. Conditions which has similarities in the Creative Commons-license, or the shareware system. The mindset of most creators are quite different from the budding amateur magician who jealously protect every "secret" he finds (while forgetting that he himself got the "secret" because a creator decided to share it with others). I'm not interested in secrets. I'm only interested in making the wiki better, so that a magic creator will not feel sodomized after a visit here.

The philosophical standpoint is halting, because you mention a legal system which is irrelevant in this context. Magic creations are not defined by the copyright laws in any way. You might just as well talk about traffic laws in the context of the agricultural growing of crops - it simply doesn't apply. The language is a part of the confusion. There's a huge difference between the meaning of a general "method" and "magic method". While the former might be a trade secret etc. the latter has, in fact, more in common with choreography or music. Three different works of art; a magic creation, a dance choreography and a musical composition. Why should the first be treated differently than the latter two? It is true: "Methods are treated very differently from works". But this is a case of: "Works are treated very differently from works". --TStone 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

My biggest concern with Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic is that Wikipedia is not a magic encyclopedia. If any policy/guidelines are implemented I would hope that notability and importance are taken into consideration so that things don't become indiscriminate. (see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic#Notability) -- Krash 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and I agree. See my edits of Balducci levitation, in which I merged several pages of tiny derivative variations (mostly examples of Crass commercialism). I think that it is noticeable that I follow a system in my edits. Items that have a historical significance has its own page, and derivative work is merged to that page. I understand that you don't want this to become a magic encyclopedia. Me neither, because there are already better ones in existence. But (I hope) you don't want this to become yet another rip-off site, I guess. If people decide to put other people's creations here, against the creators' wishes - wouldn't it be better if it was made in agreement with established procedure for that kind of material? --TStone 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question of content

I oppose this policy. The article on every method of any sort should list its creator, if known - but that's just a matter of content that anyone can fix. In the Statue of Liberty example, it's likely the original contributor simply didn't know who invented the method. We have on rare occasions suppressed inessential content in the interest of protecting an individual from significant harm, but this is nothing but pushing the conventional practices of the magician subculture onto our editor pool at large. We don't have copyright rules because we believe an author's work should not be reused without permission - we have them because we don't want an author to sue the hell out of us under the law. I think this type of document would make an excellent guideline on how to write a good article about a magic method, but I don't feel a limiting policy is appropriate. Deco 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline would be fine by me. Didn't quite know which level that would be best, so I aimed for the top :-) It is good to hear that you agree that a creator and his creation shouldn't be separated. But if it had simply been a matter of content that anyone could fix, why wait? And why is there no mention of things like that in the debates about deletions? Just long painful and irrelevant talks about "information wants to be free" and "secrets" and "magicians oaths" etc. - but not a single mention that a creator has a right to have his name attached to his work.

In the Statue of Liberty example, it is likely that the original contributor didn't know who created the piece. It is also likely that he didn't care, had no intention of finding it out. And that information isn't hard to get. Man, I live in Sweden - born on a small farm on the other side of the world from the US, and I knew it was a creation of Jim Steinmeyer's long before I even saw the TV-show. And this was before the internet... The contributor didn't just not know who the creator was... he was also unaware that information like that were desireable. So, what would have been the best way to tell him that, without getting a mess of "secrets should..." and "information wants..."? Perhaps a guideline?

Here's a tricky thing.. The explanation given on how the Statue of Liberty vanished is wrong. Clever, and it might work, but still wrong. Therefore, I should remove that explanation. But if I did so, it would raise protests and I would be asked to give a correct description instead - but the piece is not mine to give away, it's Jim Steinmeyer's, and I consider Jim to be a friend, and it would be considered a big transgression if I stole Jim's piece and put it here. I would lose my status and respect within my field if I did so. Then again, I can not add Jim's name to the explanation either, because what is described has nothing to do with Jim's creation that Copperfield performed. Odd situation, right? ;-) --TStone 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think a guideline is appropriate, as it would help the original contributor to know what info they should look for to put in a magic-related article - without any obligation, of course. No contributor is obligated to add anything they don't want to - in both your examples above - and inaccurate content should always be removed or fixed, regardless of whether something is ready to take its place. If nothing is left after such a removal, well, just mark it as a stub and hope someone re-expands it later. Deco 01:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a complex matter requiring explanation to the non-experts among us, and I think Wikipedia could definitely benefit from a clear guideline on how to write articles on magic methods, and what to put in them (or not put in them). As you (TStone) seem to be the most knowledgeable about these things, could you please write your thoughts out on the page here, what you call a "proper proposal"? R adiant _>|< 01:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will :-) I'm still waiting for reply from the known publishers in the field. As this is a matter of concern, some thought has to be invested in the wordings - because if it get accepted, it will probably be difficult to add to it later. But as a general thumb of rule, it's just a matter of thinking of it as if it was a photo or piece of music, and treat it the same way --TStone 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Relevant Legal Basis

The summary should read:There are no laws that protect magic secrets, but there are ethical rules guarding the process. The respected publishers of magic technical litterature around the world has formed an industry standard and praxis in how to deal with the ethical questions regarding the publication of magic methods. I suggest that Wikipedia adapt the same standards. Any mention of the law should clearly state that no law protects magic secrets. Ambivalence is threatening.--Muchosucko 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is a secret or not is irrelevant. The real issue has to do with a creator's right to have his name attached to his work. And just saying that there's no protection for realised expressions of art in this field can easily be interpreted as an encouragement to steal stuff. Since the law isn't applicable in any way in this field, it's either better to remove all references to it - or be very clear on the fact that taking a creator's work in this field is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright --TStone 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you simply misunderstand the law. I do not know how else to explain it to you. I'm sorry. --Muchosucko 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good start explaining it to me is to point out where it says that the covert choreography within a magical creation should be treated differently than a realised expression within any other artistic field - or even where it mention this artistic field at all. Not defined by law means just that it is undefined, nothing else. By copyright, you are neither prohibited nor allowed to steal someone's creation within this artistic field. Do you find anything that is wrong in that sentence? Oh, the usage of the word "steal" doesn't refer to any legal terms, but to the ethical term that predates any legal terms, and refer to taking something from a person against his will. But I'm not opposed to remove all references to copyright and patents altogether, as they are irrelevant in this context. --TStone 06:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explainations are all given Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick) and in legal code itself. I am not going to repeat my arguments only to have you not understand them, then repeat what you've said to me in the first place. I am very sorry. All I can say now is: If you cannot understand the law, at the very least, please do not make up legal mishmash pretending you know what you are talking about -- then enter it into a Wikipedia article or policy proposal. I don't want that to sound harsh, it's just that some things seem completely out of your scope of understanding, perhaps because you were misinformed or do not have a legal background. Continuing this discussion will only engender an identical, obtuse response, so this will be my last comment on this page. --Muchosucko 06:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your input there, and you are using words that doesn't apply. Even if you use the words "red rose" a hundred times will not magically make it into a red rose, if it is a blue bicycle you are refering to. What you call "method of operation, principle..etc." would not be accepted as being "method of operation, principle..etc" by patent laws, therefore those words should not be used in the context of copyright either. Unless there is precedents that show that the words are allowed to have conflicting interpretations. --TStone 09:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of Tricks to Publish

There has been a lot of talk about what is legal and what is ethical related to publicly publishing magic methods. For centuries the methods and gimmicks of tricks were closely guarded secrets and magicians made oaths not to reveal the secrets when they did choose to reveal the secret to another magician. Everything is different now. Magicians used to make their living performing magic, now many notable magicians make money selling their secrets. I personally think that if a magician makes a serious attempt to guard the methods and gimmicks of a trick, then the secrets should be treated as Intellectual Property; however, if the magicians choose to share them without discrimination, all bets are off. Once a trick leaves the closed circle of the magician's world, it shouldn't have the same protections as those kept in close confidence. It isn't a trade secret if anyone with $19.95 can buy something that explains it. If you read many of the books published in magic circles you would quickly discover that very little is new, almost every trick borrows for another trick in some way or another. I think publicly publishing this information does harm the world of magic in some way... but most of what I have seen has been available to the average joe in some published form at one time or another, so, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. --Gijones 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]