Talk:Memento

Contents

1 Old Discussions 2 Respectfully, this article is ALL WRONG. 3 ok... 4 Introduction of New Work on the Page 5 New Edits 6 Comments on new edits 7 More for plot section 8 Why there should be a Trivia section 9 Leonard's Condition 10 Cleanup

Old Discussions

Good work, Ed. I started to read your additions thinking "Uh-oh, wasn't Memento more ambiguous than this? How can the contributor be so sure of the storyline." But then reading it through, I agree with the account, the ambiguouity merely a product of my own deficient understanding of a fairly complex film! Pete 07:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Some of what's included in the article, particularly the description of what happened to Leonard between the assault and the earliest scenes in the film, isn't actually depicted in the movie, but rather comes from other sources such as articles, websites, DVD extras, guesswork, etc. I think that this should be clarified in the article, so that the storyline of the film is described separately from the backstory or interpretation. Does this make sense? -- Arteitle 17:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully, this article is ALL WRONG.

---

This article attempts to add clarity where NONE WAS EVER INTENDED.

Teddy is a pathological liar. Listen to what he says over the course of the movie--why would you suddenly believe him at the very end? Leonard sure as hell doesn't...

There is a (B&W) scene where Leonard very briefly takes the place of Sammy (which supports this article's assertions, check it out... you may need to use slow motion, though), but there is also the purposefully ambiguous image at the end with Leonard lying in bed with his wife, covered in tatoos, including one that was not there before that said "I DID IT." Clearly, this was not a real memory, because he has no such tatoo (though he talked about getting it.)

Listen to his speech again at the end of the movie. Multiple times, if necessary. It is the most beautiful, powerful speech on existentialism that I have ever heard. The point is, it doesn't MATTER what really happened--he can never know, just like we all can never truly have a 100% complete picture of our lives, past and present. But that doesn't mean that our actions are without meaning--in Lenny's words, "the world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, now does it?"

• FOR DEFINITIVE PROOF: Get the limited edition DVD (trust me, it's worth it--you can even watch the movie in chronological order!), then go to http://world.std.com/~trystero/Memento_LE.html to find out how to access all the special features. Follow his instructions regarding the director's commentary--there are THREE different verions, one in which he says that Teddy is lying, one in which he says that Teddy is telling the truth, and one in which he doesn't comment either way.

There is no ultimate truth. It doesn't MATTER what really happened to Lenny's wife. THAT is the message of this movie, and it would be a tragity to reduce it to a mere parlor trick, a "oh look, it's backwards!" gimmick by attempting to prove a single version of history.

I'm going to attempt to edit the article now (my first attempt at such a thing) so bear with me. If I screw it up, ok, but PLEASE don't just revert... this REALLY needs to be fixed.

As it is now, it's like saying "the moral of Titanic is this: don't get on boats, 'cause they might sink."

oh yeah, minor aside: "Dodd inexplicably agrees to leave town (he could have simply come back 15 minutes later and shot Lenny)."

Teddy was with him when they told him to leave town. Teddy remembers, and Teddy watches out for Lenny for the simple fact that Lenny is very useful to him. If Dodd did try to come back, I'm sure Teddy dealt with him.

Please go ahead and fix and add all this glorious detail! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:40, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ok...

ok, I did my best. It's 5:37 AM, though, so it's a VERY hack-ish job. I'm very sorry, but I don't have time or energy to polish it up right now... maybe someone else can help in that department?

I changed a couple of other things, too. The biggest thing I noticed was that you missed the part where Natalie pissed Lenny off, got him to punch her, then gave him the note containing Dodd's description and address. This is fairly crucial, as Lenny has no other way of finding Dodd after he runs away in the Jag...

Once again, I HIGHLY recommend that you get the limited edition DVD if you cannot digest the movie as-is. Even if you think you've got it all, it's worthwhile to watch the chronological edit at least once.

Introduction of New Work on the Page

Hey everyone, there is currently a group working on this page. Please don't go back and erase sections during this progress. Thanks. Chris Lindsey 14:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're all welcome to contribute to this article, but please use your own words. Copying text from IMDB is not allowed for Wikipedia's purposes. I'd be surprised if your professor approved of that, too. Rhobite 14:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks bub, but all of us are new to Wikipedia, so be a little nice to us. We are changing it and sourcing it; basically, we've got it covered. And by the way, our professor is keeping up with our changes. Chris Lindsey 01:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, please let me know if you feel that I'm being anything less than polite. Unfortunately, there's no polite way to remove a copyright violation from an article. IMDB text isn't up for grabs, whether it's sourced or not. It's great that you guys are contributing to this article, but as I said: please do your own work. And please remember what it says at the bottom of the page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Don't be surprised if some of your additions are rewritten, rephrased, or just plain removed. Rhobite 02:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite: I for one would prefer that if you have a problem with text you improve it rather than delete it outright, e.g., I think that the text heading for the Myths, Trivia, Goofs section is a legitimate category for a Wikipedia page. I agree, however, that content imported wholesale from IMDB should be deleted and thank you for that change. BobCummings

New Edits

Hi Everyone That Is Working on This Page, My name is Chris Lindsey and I am a student in an English class at the University of Georgia. Our class is going to be working on improving this page over the next few weeks, and we hope the improvements will better the page overall. Please don't be worried that a bunch of newbies are going to mess this up - we will try to keep the page in good order. If you have any comments on the improvements we are making, feel free to post them on this discussion page. We would appreciate your help in this project, and we hope you enjoy it. Thanks!
Chris Lindsey 01:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the outline we will be using for our page, including the members of our class who will be working on each section. Thanks
Chris Lindsey 15:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
1. Synopsis/plot - Schupp and Kara
Events in the film, and their order.
2. Interpretations - Carrie and Chris
Understanding of plot.
3. Stylistic Features -
4. Critical Response - Nick & Mary
Looking at what others have said about this film: critics, blogs, etc.
5. Questions the movie leaves - Carrie and Chris
(1) Questions about events in story;
(2) Questions about topics introduced by film.
6. Character Analysis (setup links and other connections to actors) - Nikki Sara, Em
Introduce or identify characters. Briefly discuss characters' actions in film.
7. Negative Assessments of Film - Jonathon and John
8. Myths, goofs, trivia - Kendra and Karen

Comments on new edits

• I suggest reading the Manual of Style. For example, section titles should be capitalized as a normal sentence (proper nouns and initial word capitalized, the rest lowercase), and links to the titles of various things (e.g. movies) should be italicized.
• Avoid the first-person tense: don't write "I was very confused about Dodd's character", for example. Instead, figure out what confused you about the character before modifying the article. Alternatively, if the character is by nature confusing and contradictory, state that, not that "you" found it to be so.
• List per-character subsections in some sane order. It makes no sense to put "Mrs. Jenkins" before Sammy, for example -- and "Sammy" should probably be Sammy Jenkins for consistency. The prose in this section also desperately needs some vitality (for example, can you think of a way to start a section that doesn't begin with "X is a character played by Y", "Y's character is played by X", or some trivial variation?)
• Show, don't tell. "Sammy was a significant character because ..." is bad; just describe why he was significant.

Neilc 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have agree with the first-person thing. Please don't refer to yourself in your writing. Also, personal interpretations of the movie are not appropriate for this encyclopedia article. Sorry if this is part of the class assignment, but please do not add your own review/praise/criticisms here. Rhobite 05:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have a disagreement with outright bans on first-person references. I've looked in the Manual of Style and cannot find such a ban (please help me out if I've missed it!). It seems to me that there are two competing and legitimate interests here. A good encyclopedia page should put forth knowledge as objectively as possible and strive to present conclusions which represent consensus belief. Self-references raise doubt as to whether the text which follows is objective. However, we often give individuals with credentials authority to speak on subjects, i.e., references to critic's opinions on Memento as an effort to record the critical reception of the film would be entirely appropriate. Thus, as "credentialed" individuals, their opinions are part of objective knowledge. With that in mind, if one feels that by referring to one's self somehow characterizes a common viewer response, I don't see anything wrong, as long as the self-references are heavily contextualized and limited in this manner. That said, I don't think most of the self-referential text on this page would meet that standard. No one wants to read a blog entry on Wikipedia, yet all knowledge starts as individual observations, and an ouright ban on self-references wouldn't appreciate that distinction. BobCummings

I won't suggest we have (or need) an outright ban on first-person references, but I think we can agree they should generally be avoided. In addition to your points above, a first-person reference is confusing and ambiguous: to whom does the subject of the reference refer? (The "I" in the text I quoted originally, for example.) Citing the work of a credentialed expert is one thing, but speaking in the voice of some imagined and anonymous Wiki editor is quite another. I would be curious to see an example of a situation in which a first-person reference is the most appropriate way to present some information. If any such situations exist, I think they are rare indeed. Anyway, I think we more or less agree -- first-person references are usually bad style and should be used sparingly, although not banned outright. Neilc 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NeilC--Not to be glib, but I think that a perfect example of meaningful first-person use would be the following sentence from your own post-- "I would be curious to see an example of a situation in which a first-person reference is the most appropriate way to present some information. If any such situations exist, I think they are rare indeed." Here, when you state that you'd be curious to see a beneficial example of a first-person reference, you employ the first person in such a way as to infer a universal idea. By stating that you'd be curious to see it, and that you think it must be rare, you're implying that your view is a reasonable one which many, if not all, other reasonable people would hold. You employ "I" to stand in for "many." Such a use is not only logical, but persuasive.--Bob Cummings 18:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but what is appropriate in an informal discussion is not necessarily appropriate in an encyclopedia. The "I" in that sentence was, I trust, clear — whereas it would be far from clear in an encylopedia article written by hundreds of contributors, many of whom are anonymous. Setting aside clarity, first-person references are also less formal: they are fine in a discussion of the kind we're having now, but I don't think they are appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Neilc 03:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First-person references are never appropriate here. The articles on Wikipedia are not credited to authors; the reader has no idea who the "I" refers to. This needn't be listed in the manual of style - it is common sense based on the NPOV and original research policies. This can be considered an outright ban on first-person references, although "ban" is a pretty harsh word. We fix misspelled words too, but I wouldn't say we "ban" spelling errors.

In response to your comment above about myths, trivia, and goofs. I apologize, but it's not my job to pore through copyright violations and paraphrase them until they are "legal". I don't know if this section should be included at all - it's something that IMDB does, and Wikipedia is not IMDB. We try to stay away from trivia in articles. I think this would fall under "mere collections of facts", under WP:NOT. If there are well-known myths about the film, they should be incorporated into the text of a section, not into a simple list. Also a warning: IMDB isn't inherently trustworthy. Many of their trivia items have been inaccurate in the past. Please independently verify IMDB data. Rhobite 17:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

First person references fail tests under no original research; basically, if the best source of an idea is yourself, then it isn't suitable for wikipedia. If there is someone else, in some way important in discussion of the topic, who belives what you believe, then you should use them. If you are a global expert on a topic, then you should have some publications of your own and refer to them directly and not using "I" but using yourself in the third person "Ceasar believes that..." Mozzerati 20:12, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

More for plot section

Is there a need for a subsection in the plot section describing the actual order of events in the movie and how any timeline is convoluted because of that? I was thinking there needs to be a bried outline on how the movie progresses chronologically, and then the actual overview of the movie. What do you think? Chris Lindsey 04:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Why there should be a Trivia section

Rhobite, I know you have a complete fit each time this section is posted, but I would ask that you follow Wikipedia rules and allow for some discussion on the topic this time. I would also ask that you read through the following reasons for keeping the ‘Trivia’ section:

First off, the trivia section is useful and is found on other pages. See The Passion of the Christ and Star Wars Phantom Menace. The trivia section is a complement to the existing page, one that would provide the reader (or viewer of the movie) a bit more information. The reader can compare things they saw wrong in the movie and check them against the trivia, and also add small facts that they have found. Rhobite, you said, “I don't know if this section should be included at all,” so why don’t you wait for some consensus on the Discussion page before making changes. One person’s thoughts are not enough to show why an entire section needs to be removed.

Secondly, as to the possible copyright violations contained in the section. The How to edit a page contains basic information on editing a page and sourcing: Cite your sources so others can check and extend your work. Most Wikipedia articles currently lack good references, and this contributes to Wikipedia's single greatest criticism – that it is not a reliable source.

We are adding to the reliability of this page by directly sourcing the trivia section for each point. From the plagiarism page, There is some difference of opinion over how much credit must be given when preparing a newspaper article or historical account. Generally, reference is made to original source material as much as possible, and writers avoid taking credit for others' work.

We are in no way taking credit for another person’s writing, and in fact, we are actually accrediting each piece of information. From the copyright FAQ, Under U.S. copyright law, the primary things to consider when asking if something is fair use (set forth in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)) are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

   Is it a for profit competitor or not? Is it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Is the use transformative (of a different nature to the original publication)?

2. The nature of the copyrighted work;

   Is it a highly original creative work with lots of novel ideas or a relatively unoriginal work or listing of facts? Is the work published (to a non-restricted audience)? If not, fair use is much less likely.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

   How much of the original work are you copying? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair. Are you reducing the quality or originality, perhaps by using a reduced size version?

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

   Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it? Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a viewer is interested in doing so?

This is the actual definition of copyright, as provided by Wikipedia and the US code. If you read, you will see that in no way does the trivia section break any part of this code. The fair use provision of the US Constitution allows: Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the Legal enforcement of claims of infringement.

This Wikipedia page is assuredly somewhere where the Progress of Science and Useful Arts is taking place, so even if the Trivia section were in violation of the copyright clause, the Fair Use provision allows for this information to be used without permission or clearance of the writer(s).

IF you still believe there are copyright problems with the Trivia page, I ask you to consider one more point. Rhobite, you are not following Wikipedia procedure for copyright violations. From Wikipedia:Copyrights: It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police every article for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

As you can see, the procedure is to use the talk page for discussion, which has not happened on this page. Rhobite simply deletes the section, while explaining, “It's not my job to pore through copyright violations and paraphrase them until they are ‘legal’. I don't know if this section should be included at all.” Another procedural point, from the Possible copyright infringements page: This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.Rhobite has yet to post this page under the possible copyright violations, another mistake on his part. The page’s whole purpose is to allow the ADMIN to decide whether or not pages are in violation, and not “rank-and-file” members.

I would ask everyone that the Trivia page remain until there can at least be some sort of discussion between multiple Wikipedia members on why it should not be part of the Memento page. Thank you.

1. Please sign comments with four tildes (~~~~).
2. The Copyvio page isn't there for admins to make decisions. Moreover, admins are rank-and-file members (and all editors should be prepared to act as admins); admins just have a few extra tools to tell them.
3. This article is rather bloated and repetitive; I've corrected the English, and removed some of the repetitions, but it needs a more thorough overhaul.
4. If material is in violation of copyright, it has to be removed; if the editor involved has the time and expertise to replace it, fine — but she is under no obligation to do so. Rather, the original contributor is under an obligation not to plagiarise in the first place. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To clindsey: I'm sorry, you're mistaken about how copyrights work. Even if you cite the author, you may not copy someone else's copyrighted work. For the purposes of Wikipedia, material copied from IMDB and other copyrighted sites is unusable. For the purposes of your course, I would expect that copying someone else's words without adding any of your own work to it would result in a failing grade for the assignment. Please also remember the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. And last, I really question whether this trivia section belongs here at all. Lists of trivia usually do not belong in encyclopedia articles. I'll probably remove it again some time in the future. Rhobite 18:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

(Just to stress that Rhobite isn't replying to me, but to the anon who wrote the very long piece above my comments. At least, I hope so... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Oops, sorry about that. I clarified it. Rhobite 22:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

additional comment on copyrights; Wikipedia is designed to be freely redistributable, and in general, through the GFDL licensing we encourage commercial reuse of our material. This means that what might be acceptable in an academic situation is may not be acceptable for Wikipedia since downstream licensees might not then be able to use it. Images are a specific exception, but the aim is that they are clearly tagged so that downstream licensees can remove those images if they need to. This is enforced by your acceptance fo the GFDL every time you edit ("DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"...By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. at the bottom of the editing page). (Un)fortunately you can't use academic exceptions to bypass that. Mozzerati 20:21, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I must admit I'm a little lost. The discussion on coppyright on this page is somewhat baffling. It seems as if there is a conflation of two concepts: (1) plagiarism, or the representing of someone else's work as one's own, and (2) copyright violation, the theft or reproduction of someone else's copyrighted work, with the important fair use and scholarship exemptions. Mozzerati's comment that the scholarship exception might not apply here is an interesting idea.

But what I can't get my mind around is this: how would one know if the content submitted on Wikipedia is in copyright violation? Specifically, how do we know the posters of the trivia content aren't posting original observations? For instance, our Memento page posters write

• "Teddy's phone number is the same as Marla Singer’s in Fight Club, 555-0134.", while the IMDB page writes that
• Teddy's phone number, 555-0134, is the same as Marla Singer's number in Fight Club (1999).

If we don't know for certain that the Wikipedia poster copied this material from IMDB, or elsewhere, at what point do you grant the benefit of the doubt? I think it fairly clear that some of the information first contained on trivia was copied over from IMDB wholesale, and was properly removed. But after that point, I'm not sure that the poster's content isn't their own (to argue otherwise would be to maintain that only IMDB could have known about the Fight Club phone number connection). Clearly, this is also not a question of an original phrasing of this content. If someone has reason to think that the posting isn't the owner's original contribution, shouldn't one give that reason for suspicion? It seems that after the original mistake there is a great deal of prejudice against this content.

--Bob Cummings 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The items I recently removed were copied verbatim from IMDB, ChristopherNolan.net, and moviemistakes.com. To me, that's evidence that the people who added them to the article did not write them. I did leave some items because they were somewhat paraphrased.

I'm guessing you're the instructor here. I am not claiming that original ideas are copyrightable - they aren't. If someone wants to rewrite a bunch of trivia in their own words and add it to the article, that wouldn't be a copyright violation (but it might still be unencyclopedic). Nor am I claiming that your students are plagiarizing, since they did cite sources for each quote (eventually). All I'm saying is for the purposes of this article and your course, people should take the time to write things in their own words. If someone handed you a paper which consisted entirely of other people's words, but was properly sourced, you'd still fail them. Rhobite 01:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Right on both counts! I am the instructor, and for the most part I've deliberately refrained from entering too much into the conversation on this project, for I wanted the students to have the opportunity/job of creating and justifying their own text. You're also correct that if a student gave me a paper which consisted entirely of someone else's words, I would fail that writer even if the work were properly sourced. But perhaps this is the distinction which reveals the most about the trivia section debate. On an academic paper, the writer is expected to produce orginal knowledge on a subject in his/her own words. An encyclopedia article, by contrast (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the writer doesn't produce original knowledge, but rather his/her own words about the state of knowledge on a subject. In essence, the writer is creating an original expression of existing ideas. More to the point, I've viewed the trivia section as a sort of bibliography: a summary or paraphrasing of minor notes on the film as exist on websites and elsewhere. And as we've covered before, the wholesale importation of IMDB material is wrong, I thanked you for removing it, we talked in class about how that it is wrong, etc., etc. But shouldn't there be room for a summary of what is out there on the web in terms of trivial knowledge about the film? In the context of a bibliography of this sort, wouldn't we expect (desire) that writers summarize (and verify, as you point out) existing knowledge? I haven't worried two much about assessing these brief bibliographic entries on terms of original expression of exsiting knowledge since they're so short. Presenting them succinctly and giving them a proper source has seemed enough to me. --Bob Cummings 12:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bob Cummings: Prejudice? What an odd claim. Why should there be prejudice about an article on a film? Is this just emotive flailing about, or is there some genuine ground for such an accusation? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis No, I didn't intend this as emotive flailing about. Yes, I say prejudiced, as in I felt the content was being "pre-judged." The first content posted to the trivia section was plagiarized, and removed. The subsequent postings, however, shouldn't have been plagiarized content (though I note Rhobite's claim to the contrary on some of the content and will look into it). I was trying to say that I was concerned that since the first content posted to trivia was plagiarized the subsequent postings were being "pre-judged" as also plagiarized.

1. Well, I for one am not prejudiced on this matter, having come to the page simply because of a plea to the Administrators' Noticeboard, without knowing what the specific problems were. I seriously doubt that Rhobite is prejudiced either; indeed, you've acknowledged that some plagiarism was going on after the first occasion, so it's still not clear to me why you'd bring in a personal accusation of that nature (note also that such accusations are against Wikipedia rules). I realise, of course, that you didn't intend it as emotive flailing.
2. As for your comments on the nature of an encyclopædia, I'm a little surprised that you think that a list of trivia is appropriate.
3. Finally, I'm unsure of the ethical status of using Wikipedia as a laboratory for your students to experiment in. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not offended. I don't think Bob is accusing me of being racially prejudiced or anything. He's suggesting that I'm now prejudiced against the trivia section, since people have added copyrighted text there multiple times. My answer is that I'm prejudiced against all trivia sections. Lists of minor goofs and coincidences in movies are not encyclopedic. For the few trivia items which are suitable in an encyclopedia article, I'd rather if they were written in paragraph form and integrated with the article. And I'm prejudiced against content copied from other sites, of course. I don't think anyone can be faulted for attempting to remove infringing content. Rhobite 13:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis I only have one remaining question: why do you think that my students' involvement in Wikipedia is experimental? --Bob Cummings 19:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Bob about copyright: the general answer is that we don't actually have to be sure that something isn't copyrighted; Rather, since the DMCA, we have to make good faith efforts to remove it once informed. As long as the Wikimedia foundation believes that the material is truly free for use under the GFDL then it's not illegal from the point of view of the foundation. However, a person knowingly introducing copyright material is certainly breaking the law, with civil and sometimes, in some juridictions, criminal liability. The Wikimedia foundation does have good reason to believe that material added is truly free for use due to the agreement contributors must accept every time they add something.

Some of us, and the project as a whole to a lesser extent, however, take a more active view than the legal minimum. When we see something which "feels suspicious" we do appropriate web searches. Normally we can quickly find the source of a quote and tell in which direction the copying has gone. In this case there's a whole copyright cleanup process which gets rid of the violation. In my case, this is done to try to make life easier for downstream users in future. Removing copyright material quickly and with limited warning is inconvenient even if criminal penalties don't apply. This means it is better for everybody if it gets removed quickly and reasonably quitely without copyright owners having to ask for it. Overall, this is a fairly good sign that copyright law, as currently written, has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and communication, but that since it is the law we take it seriously.

Answer to students and Bob from me personally. Your edits are experimental since you are quite new here. Personally I think that makes them legitimate. Everybody has to start somewhere. I think you just have to expect that a big group making many edits on Wikipedia in a particular area will upset someone. Other school projects have been much worse and we really haven't worked out how to deal with them, or whether we want them. Many people seem to be relaxed and think we should welcome them. Part of massive open collaberation is that everybody has a different opinion and you someone will always be at the extreme opposite and that is the persom most likely to need to discuss with you. Don't worry / be happy. But do try to listen to the others even when they seem unreasonable and then edit other articles in topics you know about in a way that makes it worth everybody's while. Mozzerati 20:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Well, Bob Cummings' question rather distorted what I said, but it is true that all editors are, to a certain extent, experimenting. For me, the worry arises out of the fact that most editors are involved because they want to be. I worry when a group of editors become involved because they're been told to — because it's part of their course. That has a number of possible effects, but one is that it can distort the editing process; a group of people editing an article with a shared purpose (a purpose essentially unrelated to the purpose of Wikipedia, I might add) is very different from the normal model of Wikipedia editing.

I'm not, however, concerned with what ought to be done about it – with rules and regulations – but, as I sadi, with the ethical question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, and it's one that comes up whenever a class edits Wikipedia as a project. Unfortunately these projects rarely go smoothly, and this Memento project is actually one of the smoother ones I've seen. It's good that the students here have been willing to use talk pages and respond to suggestions. It's important to realize that the rules are no different - this article doesn't belong to existing Wikipedians, nor does it belong to the student editors. Rhobite 22:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I personally resent the fact that everyone assumes that school groups represent newbies to this small community. I for one have used Wikipedia and have edited several pages. Honestly, how many school projects do you have on here? I believe that most professors view Wikipedia as a bad source that is not to be used, so they usually don't even discuss the webpage. And I also think that all of you should be glad to have college classes help out. We present new opinions and different viewpoints, and since of all of this is open edit, we should freely be allowed to work on webpages. What ethical questions involve student projects? Our purpose was to improve the Memento page, which I think we did. You guys frequently took off entire sections of our additions without announcing them on the talk page (sometimes minutes after they were posted), questioned us, and questioned our professor (the action that truly turned me against wikipedians). As I said, you should be glad to have more editors on here, not make them all angry at you. We were working on the page in a process, and expected to have some time to perfect the article, which we weren't given. We improved this page, while all you did was ostricize our project and turn all of us against the wikipedians who were working against us. You guys lost an entire class of extremely smart college students, members of a first rate liberal arts institution, that was ready and willing to help out and have turned them against wikipedia. Congratulations!Chris Lindsey 02:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

There have been quite a few school projects: Wikipedia:School and university projects. Chris, that was a compliment I wrote above. Your classmates have been mostly well-behaved, and their contributions have been good for the most part. Some submissions have been problematic; I removed them. I won't apologize for removing the content which one of your classmates plagiarized from other sites. I also won't apologize for daring to question your professor (and I thought college students were all about questioning authority). As I said above (I'll bold it this time): If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. That text is on the page every time you edit an article here. Sorry if you thought that Wikipedia gives you a license to write whatever you want, unchallenged. You were mistaken. Rhobite 02:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite I really appreciate that link! Next time, I will certainly register a class project. I should have known that a page of this sort existed and looked it up. As to Chris's comments, I really hope the class wasn't that dejected, but, in truth, I, as a writing teacher, was quite excited to see the quick response to material they put on the page. It's much worse to contribute content to an obscure wiki where nothing is read. I'm to blame for false expectations that draft materials were quickly removed, for I didn't realize that the material posted would be read as quickly as it was -- my mistake, and I won't make it again (once we figured this out we made adjustments so that we posted more-polished text). --Bob Cummings 13:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know that was a compliment you wrote, but that was a scathing attack that I wrote. Nobody minded the fact that what we put on here would be reedited and changed, what we minded was that people like you ruined our process. We were forced to do our work offline, because everytime we began to work, someone would take our first categories down and put the stub sign on the page. We knew there was plagarism on the page, and we were working with the students to make it fit the format of wikipedia. You taking it down each time just angered everyone, took the work away from the article, and on to justifying everything we did to the "real wikipedians" I know what Wikipedia is, you don't have to continue lecturing me on it. I get enough of that in class everyday. What I am saying is that people like you should begin to help others trying to edit a page, and work with them, not automatically oppose them because they are working on a "school project" or for any other reason.Chris Lindsey 03:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

If anybody suggests that students, or even classes, should be banned from editing Wikipedia, or automatically opposes their edits simply because they're working on a school project, then I shall oppose and argue against them. Do you have any other straw men to knock down?

Here's a learning experience: if you place poor material on Wikipedia, planning to improve it later, it is likely to be removed. Now, what lesson can you draw from that? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a few comments to make on the Memento page, so I am going to jump right in, in no significant order. Where has everyone gone on this page? After all of the hell we caught trying to make it better, everyone that was complaining, reverting, and removing our edits seems to have left. Apparently now the page does not conform to the higher standard of Wikipedia, but it did before. To Mel Etitis: You have shown us that there are restrictions on “original research” but nothing that has previously been discussed on another page cannot be discussed here. From where shall we find “new material” that isn’t “original research”? It is so hard to determine what you guys want on Wikipedia, and every time we add something you pull out another Wikipedia:Do Not Do Such and Such page. And Mel, Rhobite showed us a nice page above, the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. It is quite hard to believe that a professor would be such a jerk to say “Here’s a learning experience… now what can you draw from that”. Especially when you know we are students at another university. Please have a little respect for those of us here that are trying to help.Chris Lindsey 23:26, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Respect can't be demanded, and certainly not on the grounds that you're a student — it has to be earnt; you've failed to do that, not only through your earlier straw-man games, but also through your childish abuse. Thousands upon thousands of editors all over the world have managed to adapt to what Wikipedia is about; are you really saying that it's beyond you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris: Original research is about verifiability and neutral point of view. To adress the first, make sure the facts you cite are clearly sourced. To adress the second, make sure your conclusions don't stray too far from the fact (clear straightforward conclusions are good, but encyclopedias are not the place for original and complex literary interpertation). Keep your cool, listen to your own advice, and keep up the good work. --L33tminion (talk) 06:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone: I think the discussion has strayed from the topic. Furthemore, it pains me to see editors fighting. We should assume that these students are making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Likewise, students shouldn't presume that "native" Wikipedians are working against them. We all want to improve Wikipedia. --L33tminion (talk) 06:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Leonard's Condition

I do not think it is crystal clear that Leonard actually suffers from anterograde amnesia. As he was studying the case of Sammy Jenkis he was trying to determine if it was psychological or an actual physical ailment. I think it is entirely possible that Leonard is suffering from short-term memory loss only psychologically, becasue it seems to be highly improbably that two people so cloely linked would get it and the fact that he was studying the Jenkis case would make it very prevalent in his mind and in a sense the condition was highly suggestible to him. I am not really sure which is the truth, but I do not agree with the definiteveness of the article on this point.

I left this comment, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Gangster Octopus

Cleanup

This article needs significant editing. At the moment it is bloated, and contains a great deal of what can politely be called original research. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summarizing the questions presented by the movie is not original research. Making opinionated conclusions is. This article needs work, but it also contains a lot of good material. I'm going to do some work on the article (but maybe tomorrow, it's late). --L33tminion (talk) 06:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Did some editing and rewriting. A few things:

1. I worked on the "Plot" and "Characters" sections, but they still need more work.
2. Who played Mrs. Jenkins and who played Jimmy? The actors for the other main characters are mentioned in the "Characters" section.
3. The "Questions and Interpertations" section is long and somewhat repetitive. Could it be condensed and written as a few paragraphs of prose instead of a set of bulleted lists? (I'll put in some time on that section later...)

--L33tminion (talk) 07:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I made an initial attempt at rewriting the "Questions and Interpertations" section. (Should the title of that section be changed to something else?) --L33tminion (talk) 16:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just as a comment, the name of the character is Sammy Jenkis, with an e, which can easily be checked by looking at the tatoo on Leonard's hand. It's listed as Jankis throughout the article. In general the theories of how the story fits together are probably worth mentioning more than particular interpretations, since the film is deliberately left up to some debate. Relevant sources of information include the DVD extras, Teddy's and Leonard's recollections, and the official memento movie site.BigCow|

You know, I took a shot at cleaning up the "Questions and Interpretations" section, to remove the bloat and original research, but frankly, I've come to the conclusion it's all original research and should be removed. --Misterwindupbird 06:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)