User talk:Bovlb/Archive 2005-07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Crapsey Deletion

Hi Bovlb,

Just wanted to respond to your comment regarding my request for a Speedy Deletion of the Crapsey article.

While I've made a number of contributions to Wikipedia, I'm a relative newbie when compared to many others. Frankly, I spent quite a bit of time composing and formatting the bio stub for Crapsey, which your collegeague "FreplySpang" hastily and incorrectly labeled a Copyvio. It was NOT -- as all of you should should know, there are only so many ways to summarize the salient points of anyone's life -- birth, childhood/family life, education, work, achievements, personal life, death, etc. Thus ANY bio blub will, by definition, have similarities to other blurbs on the same person one might find somewhere. The overzealousness of your colleagues has a chilling, stifling effect on those of us who want to make contributions to Wikipedia.

I feel the Copyvio label tainted the credibility of my entry and, in effect, resulted in a waste of my time. I thus suggested that, if your colleagues felt they could do better then THEY should create their own Crapsey bio -- and I could monitor their work and comb through it for the "Copyvios" that would most assuredly be there.

I'm sorry you found my PLEASE STOP statement "curious", but it was frankly begining to feel like a Revert War, with your colleagues effectively teaming up and Sock Puppetting me, thereby avoiding the 3 Revert Rule!

Btw, what's the story with disabling Wikipedia Search for "traffic" reasons? Is this permanent!? Google and Yahoo do NOT deliver the same results as your own search tool. This developement effectively turns any Wikipedia search into a web search despite the "Search Wikipedia" option. Thanks.
17:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi 4.156.234.84. Thanks for responding so calmly. I guess my remark on Wikipedia:Copyright problems may have been a little terse and cryptic. We have had problems in the past with people who post copyright violations, and then repeatedly remove the notice, often based on some non-consensus interpretation of copyright law. Being listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems does not mean automatic deletion, but instead means that everyone can comment on the issue, and an administrator will look at it after a few days and take the appropriate action. I did not mean to imply that you definitely fitted that category, but I am generally suspicious of people who remove copyvio notices, as it implies something out-of-process is going on. It is normal practice in such cases to zealously restore the notice.
  • Regarding the actual issues of copyright violation in the article, I agree that there are only so many ways to phrase things, but there did seem to be a stronger-than-necessary resemblance. I did not form a strong opinion either way, but felt that there was sufficient cause to keep the question open to wider review on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
  • Regarding search, it is normal practice for the search to be disabled when the servers are under heavy load. I believe this is done automatically, and it is usually re-enabled shortly. It is possible that something is broken with the way we tell Google and Yahoo to restrict the search to Wikipedia. Bovlb 18:22:24, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

Hi Bovlb, I'm frankly disturbed by your message regarding "undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive."

I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but you did not "discuss" my article with me when you edited it.

I was also distressed by your remark about being somewhat unsure of my Crapsey article, feeling it more a "sentence by sentence paraphrase" from EB rather than an article written "from scratch" and your statement (above) about a "stronger than ncessary" resemblance.

What does any of that mean in the real world?! "Stronger than necessary"! As writers, we research our subject and fashion the results into something, but this sort of writing NEVER produces something "new" or "original". I fear that many of you at Wikipedia have gotten bogged down in the sort of nitpicking which sees plagiarism everywhere.

I'm well aware of the 3 Revert Rule and cited it to you, having felt your collegues were Sock Puppeting me to insure I couldn't restore my postings. If anyone has been "impolite", it's them. 06:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi 4.157.77.100. The message I left on your talk page is the 3RR template, a standard template used to help users avoid stepping over the line. I apologize if its phrasing seemed inappropriate to this case; perhaps there was a more appropriate template I should have used. The article in question is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where you have four times removed other users' contributions in the last two hours.
Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone, so I'm not sure what you mean by "my article".
As I said before, the level of similarily between your Crapsey article and the EB one disturbs me; it seems to me to be on the borderline of copyright violation. This is the reason why I feel it is important to keep it listed at WP:CP, so that others can review the case. I realise this may seem like nitpicking, but I hope you understand that we have to be a little paranoid about copyright issues (but not too much). For example, I would estimate that EB are pretty high on the list of people likely to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement. My advice to you would be to find multiple sources for Crapsey's biographical details and synthesize a new article from all of them; I find this the best way to avoid the trap of simply mirroring the structure of someone else's work.
I'm not sure what the "Sock Puppeting" is, but I suspect that you're referring to the replacement of {{copyvio}} tags that you removed. This is normal practice; any editor who sees a copyvio tag removed is likely to replace it, and then keep an eye on things.
I'm sorry if you've found your experience with editing Wikipedia to be disheartening. Please do persevere. You should consider creating an account. Bovlb 07:07:53, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

Hi again Bov,

Not much time at the moment since I'm in the midst of a project but wanted to respond to a few points.

First of all, thanks for your kind, even-toned replies to my questions and expressions of irritation. I DO think that WikiP should have an avenue of complaint for users -- from my recent experience, it seems contributors can get stuck in an endless loop of Admins (or whatever titles you and your editorial colleagues have), never reaching someone with the authority to resolve complaints. You and others have referred vaguely to the "process" of Copyvio review, but I have no idea who does that, when they do it, or how to reach them to defend my position/claims.

1. I sometimes find a "You have a message waiting" notice. How is that genrated? Do you get this same notice when I post on your User page? Is there a way to send a messaage directly to you so it won't be visible to the world -- e.g. if I needed to provide you an email address or something I didn't want posted here?

2. Regarding Crapsey. I did indeed check various sources in writing the article. And if you read the EB citation and my piece, you'll see that mine is quite different, not at all a sentence-by-sentence paraphrase. It differs in style and wording from the outset to the end and contains far more detail than EB.

Moreover, Crapsey is a local legend in Rochester, and I had no need to consult Brittanica -- I don't know how you folks access EB Online, but I stopped using it years ago when they went from a free to a pay service that only provides "teaser" articles that are virtually useless. Thus, the entry non-members get for Crapsey is the following truncated info:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9125441

We have never been EB "trial" members or subscribers; it would appear that you folks at WikiP do have some sort of membership, however. Is that correct?

3. Regarding Sock Puppetting, I was adapting your own WikiP term for those who use "dummy" accounts (or have friends act in concert with them) to insure they get the posting they want. It was beginning to appear that your colleagues were teaming up in a Revert War.

In fact, they did just that in another article we posted about area poet William Heyen -- they kept Copyvio-ing it, though in fact it was written by us for our own journal, Exit Online. When I pointed this out, I was told, in effect, "Oh yeah? Well, prove it!""

I have no idea what sort of "proof" one can offer for owning someone one has posted to their own web site (or any other web site for that matter). More to the point, THEY offered no suggestions as to how one might "prove it." If you have an email address for someone at WikiP who oversees this sort of stuff, then let me know and we'll be happy to contact him/her.

4. As for "my article," I was referring to the fact that it's mine by virtue of the fact that I authored it. In fact, your own guidelines specifically state that

the author of each edit is the author and has only granted a GFDL license, so that author can be said to be the owner of that particular edit. That could even be the whole article. For this reason, the authors don't have to comply with the GFDL requirements for their own writing - the GFDL license doesn't override their own rights to use their own work. They can also license it to any number of others under any other licenses they choose, since that's one of the rights authors have.

5. Thanks for your candor over concerns about EB suits over copyright. Maybe EB has folks that spend their days doing nothing but monitor WikiP, though I seriously doubt it since they wouldn't have access to the posting info you and your colleagues use to monitor the database. It would take an army of staff even to randomly check WikiP listings -- especially if they checking for the sort of "similarities" you folks spend time on.

6. As for creating an account, in fact, my colleagues and I do have accounts and would, indeed, like "credit" for our efforts. However, given the recent unpleasant incidents we've encountered that include threats of being blocked/blacklisted, I'm sure you can understand why anonymity seems preferable for the moment. Sure we could create accounts to take any flack, but why bother?

7. I'll have to check into templates. I suspected you might be using some sort of boilerplate, and this is precisely why forms can be so dangerous.

8. Speaking of "templates", where does one find a complete list of "comment codes" such as {Copyvio}, {db}, etc. I've found pages that need revision but which I think need something more precise than the catchall {Cleanup}.

Anon 19:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi 64.241.37.140. I appreciate your taking the time to communicate.
  • The process of copyvio review takes place by people placing comments either on the Wikipeda:Copyright problems page or on the article's talk page. I favour the former. The admin taking final action (after about a week) should check both. I note that it's actually relatively rare for a copyvio to be contested, and most pass without comment. The ones that are contested often end up in the sections at the top of the page, and get considered for longer.
  • I feel that I should clear up one other point. You seem to be drawing a firm line between me and my "editorial colleagues", and yourself. We are all editors, including you, and WIkipedia is the result of our community efforts. Some editors are also admins, and have access to certain additional facilities, but other than that, they are not supposed to have particular control over content. We are peers, you and I, and I am merely acting in line with what I believe to be community consensus, and in the way I think will be most helpful to you.
  • Regarding avenues of complaint, see Wikipedia:General complaints and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You can get general help on using Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Help desk.
  • Re 1. The new messages notice appears if someone has modified your user talk page since you last viewed it. I get the same message when you leave me a note. Unfortunately, because you're not logged in, I can only leave a message for your IP address and hope that it doesn't change the next time you visist. This is one good reason to log in. I will often copy messages I write onto my own talk page to make them easier to find. If you're looking at a user page or user talk page, you should see a link at the left under "Toolbox" labelled "E-mail this user". For users who have supplied an address (like me), this allows for private communication. (I'm not sure whether this works when you aren't logged in.) I do, however, prefer open communication on my user talk page if it's at all possible.
  • Re 2. The EB page I'm referring to is the one originally referenced. I hope you'll see why I see some similarity. I imagine that some Wikipedians have a subscription, but I do not.
  • Re 3. I covered the practice of restoring copyvio notices above, and I haven't done enough research to comment more specifically. It was rude of people not to respond to your question about how to prove ownership. I can't offhand find a page that documents the answer, but the usual two options are either to send a mail from the same domain as the website to a trusted Wikipedian (say an admin), or to place a notice on the website. In both cases, it's important that the message explicitly releases the text under the GFDL (or into the public domain). Wikipedia does not, in general, use text "with permission". This is important because there are others who reuse Wikipedia content under the GFDL. By the way, you would be amazed at some of the bold but unfounded claims past contributors have made about copyright ownership. It is to protect ourselves, and the rights of copyright owners, that we try to be so careful, and not take things at face value.
  • Re 4. You are quite correct. I apologise if my remark was snide.
  • Re 5. I do not have access to any special posting info. It's all available to everyone, although some of it is better hidden or harder to use. I seem to have developed a "nose" for likely copyright violations. (Note that I did not, I think, make the initial identification for any of your articles.)
  • Re 6. I understand your position. My position is to use my account, and guard its reputation.
  • Re 7 and 8. See Wikipedia:Template messages. This is not complete, but it is most of the useful ones.

Bovlb 02:05:18, 2005-07-14 (UTC)

More on Protocols/Procedures/Courtesy

Hi Bov,

Thanks so much for your kind reply. Our discussion was getting so long it was unwieldy to scroll though, so I thought I'd continue under a new heading. Hope you have no objection.

I'm still under the gun with that project I mentioned and am amazed that my last note was as long as it is!! Wanted to reply to a few points for the moment...I'm using numbered points because it makes it easier for you (and me) to refer back to.

1. Regardingn my making a clear distinction between me/us and "your editorial colleagues", yes, you're right. I guess I don't know enough about WikiP yet, but I clearly don't have access to the same "additional facilities" (which I take to mean "tools") as you, so I don't have the same control.

Sure, I could put a Copyvio on someone's page, but I rather doubt it would stay there any more than my {db}s did -- I assume Copyvio notices are either 1. sent to all admins (or those who deal with Copyvios specifically), and/or 2. posted to the Copyvio page for you and your colleagues to make some sort of determination on. From what you say above, it appears that some Uber Admin(s) makes the final determination.

2. Also regarding "tools" I and, I suspect, most WikiP contributors have no power to Lock and page to insure it doesn't get Reverted by anyone else. Nor can we Delete a page, even our own. Nor do we have access, as I assume you do, to EB and other pay services to check for likely infringements.

There are even several services used by educational institutions which faculty regularly use to check for plagiarism in term papers, theses, etc. Perhaps you also have access to those? You didn't indicate how that EB page was accessed since the public can only get the "teaser" entry for Crapsey.

Thus, to paraphrase your quote and the old axiom: "we are all peers, with equal power to edit, but some of us are more equal than others!"

3. Regarding your statement that it's "actually relatively rare for a copyvio to be contested, and most pass without comment," are you saying that once a Copyvio is pointed out, the "offending contributor" simply concedes the point and allows the page to be removed without so much an objection?!! That's truly astouonding -- I'd imagine that most folks do not deliberately borrow from others, however similiar the contents might be.

Have no idea what you mean by "the ones that are contested often end up in the sections at the top of the page." Can you point me to a sample of this?

4. Regarding your statement that "he EB page I'm referring to is [1], the one originally referenced -- what do you mean? Referenced by whom? By your colleague?

Or are you obliquely saying that WikiP has the means of reading contributor hard drive caches and Recent URL lists to determine where they've been?! I know I didn't reference EB and don't know how you access their pay service, but if you're in fact suggesting that WikiP can somehow monitor member hard drives, I'd find that VERY disturbing...an outright privacy violation. Will run AdAware & Spybot S&D just to see if anything they regard as "malicious" turns up with WikiP fingerprints on it! ;-)

5. On your reply to 3 above that "Wikipedia does not, in general, use text 'with permission,' " I'm confused. The passage I quoted suggests that the authors are granting WikiP a GFDL "license," which, from my understanding of the law, means "with permission." The author still "owns" the material and, presumably can make whatever other use s/he wants of it but cannot expect payment from WikiP, restrict the editing of, or, for that matter, even withdraw permission for work submitted to WikiP.

6. Regarding your answer to 5 above that you "don't have access to any special posting info. It's all available to everyone, although some of it is better hidden or harder to use," this sort of relates to my #1 immediately above, and I guess I'm confused again. How in the world would Admins and other "watchers" like you (still don't know what your title is) know "what's new" on WikiP if you don't get notices or have some list you can comb through? Are you saying there's an actual public list of all new articles? If so, where is it, and what prompts you folks to check one article vs. another?

Again, thanks. Will try and get back later or tomorrow.

Anon 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi 64.241.37.140,
  • Re 1 and 2: I don't have access to any additional facilities. I am a run-of-the-mill editor like you, not an administrator. Flagging suspected copyright violations is something any editor can do; it does not require administrator privileges. The procedure for doing this is described on WP:CP. It does take an administrator to delete a page, however, which is the usual result from suspected copyright violations. The notice is posted on the article in question, and on the WP:CP page, nowhere else. Again, I have no subscription to EB, nor any tools except search engines for detecting copyright violations.
  • Re 3: If you scroll down WP:CP, you'll see it consists mainly of reports, with the occasional comment, many of which are not from the original poster. Typically the original contributor does not respond at all within the seven day window. There are many new contributors who happily copy-and-paste from other websites, with utter disregard of their copyright notices, and our policies. Have a look at some of the listed items for examples. Most entries on the WP:CP page are in dated sections under "New listings", but some have "fallen off the top" into "Older than 7 days".
  • Re 4: If you look at the original report on WP:CP#July 11, you'll see that Duk listed that URL. Presumably the same URL also appeared in the original copyright notice. How that URL was found, I have no idea, but I would suspect search engines before spyware. 8-) It's by a human comparison of that page with yours that I perceive a certain amount of similarity in phrasing and structure. I'm prepared to accept that it's within the bounds of coincidence.
  • Re 5: You are correct; permit me to clarify. People often reproduce text from other websites citing permission with various constraints like "in Wikipedia", "for non-commercial purposes", "providing it is quoted without alteration", or "on condition that the source is credited in a particular way". Unfortunately, none of those (except perhaps the last) is satisfactory for text in Wikipedia for the reasons I explained above.
  • Re 6: New articles can be seen at Special:Newpages. Changes to all articles can be seen at Special:Recentchanges. Everyone has their own criteria for which entries they check, but most people are more suspicious of anonymous users than of logged in users.
  • I note with regret that Gamaliel has just blocked you for 24 hours. In the same circumstances, were I an administrator, I would probably not have done this, but you have to admit that you did twist each other's tails quite a bit. Perhaps this will give you a chance to concentrate on your other project. 8-) Note that you can still edit your user page, and I think you can still send e-mails using the "E-mail this user" link. I'll add a note to both entries on WP:CP that we are in a dialogue.
  • This is probably an unnecessary remark, but I feel I should point out that if you edit Wikipedia from a different address and identify yourself to me, I will feel obliged to report it as block evasion. This is independent of my feelings about the block itself. Sorry.

Bovlb 03:46:38, 2005-07-16 (UTC)

User:Microtonal/List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function

Hi, there. I have sandboxed just such a list, like we discussed a few weeks ago. Let me know what you think. Microtonal (Put your head on my shoulder) 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching it. It looks pretty good. Some minor points:

Bovlb 00:46:25, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

Yes, House Ginaz is a copyvio, any reason you didn't list it?

I noticed you edited House Ginaz, and noted in your summary that it may have come from DUNE MUSH (as it did, it's a perfect copy, actually) but you did't list it at WP:CP? I just wondered why, and if you know about the google-for-a-random-phrase trick for detecting copyvios. Thanks for all the work you do at Wikipedia! JesseW 02:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I guess I must have missed that one. My edit summary ({{cleanup-context}} DuneMUSH?)) was just my guess about what the missing context was, not an indication of where the text itself might have come from. This must have been based on a Google search as I don't really know what DuneMUSH means, but I evidently didn't stumble on the right document to match it exactly. I'm usually pretty good at tracking down copyvios. Bovlb 03:46:06, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

WP:CP#July 11 Adelaide Crapsey - Is this over?

Can we remove this entry from WP:CP? It seems to be done with, the anon who you were discussing seems to have left, and in it's history there doesn't seem to be any copyvio template, so can we get rid of it from WP:CP? BTW, I commend you for your patience in the discussion above. The anon was embarrassingly confused... So many people find it hard to deal with the lack of hierarchy at Wikipedia. JesseW 00:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I believe the copyvio is missing because it was speedied and then recreated. I have re-compared the latest version of the article with the EB page, and I can see little similarity. I think we can let this one go. Bovlb 05:24:44, 2005-07-22 (UTC)
    • Great! I'll go remove it now(and reference your talk page). On another matter, would you mind not using an unusual format for dating your signatures(see above). It is a Real Pain In The **** when archiving the Village Pump to come across non-standard date stamps. (No offence meant) Thanks! JesseW 06:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I use ~~~~. I believe that's the usual format. 8-) Seriously, it appears that the software is now (approximately) respecting Date format preference for signature expansion. I have mine set to ISO 8601. Can you quote the "standard" for your date format? Bovlb 06:30:17, 2005-07-22 (UTC)

Copyvio

Thanks for the heads up. I just went ahead and deleted the "offending" image, although I find this to be completely absurd. Richard Harvey is an enormous prick, I have to say. He didn't like the caption other people wanted to put on the image, so he puts his own caption embedded into the image. Then when somebody tries to return the caption to its original form, he cries out copyvio. john k 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

I was angry and overreacted, but I don't feel especially bad about making a personal attack on someone who has been nothing but a pest. john k 7 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the personal attack on me by {User:John Kenney]], on the copyvio page. I note he has now gone back into the page and deleted your edit and the personnal attack from the page. I do not believe I am a pest, check my contributions, though I will defend images I upload, which are from the Archives where I work, with permission, otherwise they may never see the light of day. Is it now permissable to put the original, with embedded text, image back on the page, ie:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brig_Arthur_Valerian_Wellesley_KG_LVO_OBE_MC_BA_DL_8th_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg Again thank you. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

I also now note that he is working his way through, and deleting, images I have uploaded to other pages, such as those of the 6th and 7th Duke of Wellington Pages. ~~

Yes, I know, don't bite newbies, and so forth, and there's no real excuse for a personal attack. But it's extremely annoying when somebody's entire purpose on wikipedia seems to be to defend with all their might the fact that the caption on the picture of the current Duke of Wellington must be just so, and is willing to go to extreme lengths to defend this. john k 7 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Jane Austen

Thanks for your answer at WP:RD about Mrs. Bennet. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking July 8, 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Hugh Fraser

What proof do you have that Hugh Fraser the diplomat who died in Japan in 1894 was the grandfather of Hugh Fraser 1st Baron of Allender born in 1903? (Obviously he could not be the father!)

  • I can't remember, and I cannot find any source for it, so I have removed it. Bovlb 15:18:39, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

copyright suggestion

Hi - It was a good idea to ask how to make the copyright info easier to find. I think the Wikipedia:Copyrights page is (permanently?) protected, so only an admin can change it. I don't know where the trim on the edit page is, but I suspect it also can only be changed by an admin. I'm not one and it looks like you're not either. Do you want to follow up on this at perhaps WP:AN? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hisarlik copyvio

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hisarlik, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from web sites. For more information, take a look at our policy library. Happy editing! Also, could you please clarify why you think we have a fair use claim to Image:HisarlikMoundToTroy.jpg. You might find it helpful to use Wikipedia:Fair use as the basis for your explanation. Thanks, Bovlb 04:25:23, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thank you for pointing out the source of that text. In the future, I will be more careful before posting material whose origins I didn't even bother to check.

Regarding the image, there's a note down the bottom of http://www.utexas.edu/courses/introtogreece/lect4/lect4imgs.html (from whence the image is linked), and it states

Note: All images used on Classics Department pages accessed from this site are subject to copyright regulations, and are provided for non-commercial, study purposes only.

Being a Wiki newbie, (and a copyright newbie!), does this notice preclude the use of the image on Wikipedia? Probably...

Thank you for the heads-up.

Regards, --GilHamilton 04:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Non-commercial licenses addresses your question. So, you're left with making a fair use argument. Cheers, Bovlb 04:46:55, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Is it possible to have the process of deletion of this copyrighted article (Hisarlik) sped up?

I'd like to replace Hisarlik with Hisarlik/Temp soon, so I and others can work on this article.

Regards, --GilHamilton 05:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

As (apart from me), you are the only editor, you can request a speedy deletion. You can do this by adding {{delete|requested by sole editor}}. Bovlb 05:09:00, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

Table formating

Thank you very much for your help. HJKeats 15:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Choob

Cheers for making this a worthwhile page, it was annoying me for ages. --Air 4 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion

If there are images you inappropriate or unencyclopedic, you can list them at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If they're really really inappropriate, you could always slap a {{speedy}} tag on it or notify an admin. --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Fairuse

Hi Bovlb, I've removed the template from the village pump (enough of dumb jokes) and moved your comment to Template_talk:Supermandisputed, where I responded to it.--Nectarflowed T 5 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Making copyright policies more obvious

I have left the following note on the talk pages of a few users who may have some useful insight into why our copyright policies are not as obvious as they could be.

Hi again. I have a follow-up question for you. A lot of people genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia, but don't realize that our copyright policies forbid direct copying from other websites. I'd like to save everyone a lot of time and trouble by improving our communication in this respect. Do you have any suggestions for how this could be made more obvious? Thanks, Bovlb 2005-07-06 15:26:52 (UTC)

You didn't ask me, but here is my response anyway. One simple improvement is to make the warning more visible. I posted my suggestion a while ago at the bottom of talk:Copyrightwarning. Also (and here's where many people disagree), we need to have strict rules for copyvios and be strict about enforcing them – my experience shows that in many cases, copyvios won't be reverted if affected editors bitch and moan enough. As things are now, there's nothing to gain from meticulously checking contributions for copyvios, and nothing to lose from being negligent. That's no way to educate new editors. Rl 6 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  • That's a plan, although I think "without permission" can mislead people into thinking that simple permission to use is enough. `And why not "public domain or GFDL"? Also, there should be a clear link to a fuller explanation. Bovlb 2005-07-06 16:30:17 (UTC)
  • Heh, I didn't change everything. Most of what I did was simple reformatting and minor copyedit, the rest looks like the current notice. I would support some edits in the wording as well, but I thought it might be better to do it one step at a time. Rl 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Modrac:

You could probably communicate this better by asking the users to rephrase everything they include. I think people generally make a distinction between taking a paragraph from a different website, and a bullet pointed list for example. If it's clear that ANY material that is added has to be rephrased, people will most likely do it, and if they don't, it's best to flag the site for copyrighted material and let the user know what they have to change. - Modrac