Jesse Ventura

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Invention Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen Pirate Politics (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pirate Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pirate PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Pirate PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Pirate PoliticsPirate Politics Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology International relations: Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance). Intellectual property (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: "Anti-Copyright and Cassette Culture" by Donal McGraith, edited by Dan Lander & Micah Lexier, Sound by Artists (Blackwood Gallery and Charivari Press, 2013, Canada).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thought&Action.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism section is comparable in size to the rest of the article (38/94 KB, at time of writing). It is therefore of adequate size to justify a split, with this article presenting a brief summary of the main points. NPOV and breadth have improved significantly since the last discussion concerning this section in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the section is big enough and notable enough to be it's own article Rexh17 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like WP:UNDUE proportion. This article should have a few decent critics but it is strange for it to be more than half of the article. There is already a criticism of patents article and it has had a WP:NPOV tag on it for seven years now. Instead someone should clean the section up. For example the second paragraph alone summarizes a single primary source essay that wouldn't follow the WP:RS guideline. There are a lot of paragraphs that could be shortened or even removed and still explain everything. Do we really need that many words to explain the criticism that it's not really like personal property and should be compared to a monopoly? Jorahm (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:CSECTION generally discourages articles and sections of such nature. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article on the upcoming Starfield (video game). In it, it mentions that the game is the first "intellectual property" from Bethesda in 29 years. In the strict sense, of course it's not, they create IP every single day they work on this or other games. But that got me thinking, it is a very common usage in the video games industry, how a series is often referred to as an "IP". I don't see any reference to this usage here anywhere, but think it would probably merit a section, or at least a mention somewhere. Darkage7_[Talk] 16:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am only seeing this post now but this is a good question. It is normal for readers or even companies to throw words around but it is important for the encyclopedia to be precise and clear with its terminology. I am not sure where to put this guidance but someone should write this. (You are correct that they are constantly generating new IP in a legal sense and the ordinary word they are looking for is "first new series".) Jorahm (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a section should be added. Keep in mind that this is an encylopedia - not a dictionary. The article is about a concept, not the 'term', which is an important distinction. If some field uses these words to mean something else that is not necessarily on topic here. It might be worth mentioning at Wikitionary, though. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a valid point. Here's the problem I see: because video game reporting will continue to use the term "intellectual property" to refer to new video game franchises, it will probably continue to the way Wikipedia needs to refer to them, because that's what the sources say. I think perhaps an entry in Glossary of video game terms#I would suffice, however I've seen many articles erroneously link to Intellectual Property when referring to a new franchise. I certainly don't know the answer, but to me the status quo seems inadequate from an encyclopedic perspective. Darkage7_[Talk] 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably fair to say that the Starfield video game is the first intellectual property it has released in 29 years. The issue here is imprecise wording in Starfield (video game), and video game reporting, not a fault of the article that actually deals with IP. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this discussion is stale but I wanted to say that this is an incorrect... Bethesda is constantly generating new intellectual property in the form of new copyrighted video game works and new Elder Scrolls or Fallout games also qualify as "new IP" in the legal sense. This is an example of laypeople commonly misusing terms like when people say "literally" to be hyperbolic and something is not "literal" in the dictionary definition meaning of the word. Wikipedia must be cautious about falling into this trap and making popular common mistakes Jorahm (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual name for this is "franchise," and not IP. A franchise includes, for instance, a new universe, new environments, a specific graphical style, specific rules, characters, et cetera When a company purchases another game company, it is common to read that they "acquired multiple IPs," which means they own the rights to use one or more franchises from the studios or publishers they have acquired. If a studio is working on a new "IP," it means that they are working on a new "universe" without saying more. This rule also applies to movies, books, and BD. Then strictly speaking, this is intellectual property.

R&D and development can indeed be considered forms of intellectual property (IP), which means that some companies are creating IP on a daily basis. For instance, in Belgium, there was a specific fiscal mechanism aimed at lowering employment costs, which allows only employees active in R&D to have a small part of their salaries defiscalized. This is not IP in the usual meaning; it's expected that over time, it will become a product - then further improving the product is also IP, and then licensing the IP is how these kinds of products are sold.

What must be stopped is when these types of situations are not a coincidence at all. For instance, referring to Starfield as intellectual property on Wikipedia, where hundreds of articles use the same strategy of revising the actual history by use of words that convey a negative sentimeny, and systematically putting GNU as the primary, and sometimes only, actor when they are irrelevant, nonexistent, and always exaggerating their role, while almost canceling any other company, like Microsoft —it's everywhere, and it starts with the use of pejorative wording, which is already a first step toward the common fallacies, and no amount of Stallmanic condescension and judgmental logorrhea can transform this into another opportunity to defame the ethics or morality of those companies.

Then it brings up the question, what is this article referencing the FSF or Stallman? Has anyone visited their website on the World Wide Web? I think that it's time to recognize that they are mistaken; the only result is 40-year-old 'tools' that were terrible then, mediocre today, and the definition of obsolete... and it is difficult to hide it further on GNU/Linux; it feels like archeology, and some potentates and autocrats have made the organization extremely vertical, making it impossible for a community to exist. Many other welcoming, friendly communities that do not follow the "fiats and ordinances" have actually created a significant amount of widely used, quality software and are enjoyable to collaborate with. SkwGnuLve (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: AB1967, Astrosfan1212.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]