|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hi, I noticed that you have deleted a particular paragraph I put up on Social inequality. Since I am new to Wikipedia I am still not very familiar with it, and from now I will pay good attention towards copyright issues. I have a doubt, can I copy (even if it is just a line or two) from another Wikipedia article, if yes, what exactly is to be done? Thanx in advance!
Nmkirpalani (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)nmkirpalani[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool, thanks for addressing the doubt immediately. =)
Nmkirpalani (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)nmkirpalani[reply]
Hello
I understand why you deleted my edits on the article Wipro. I just wanted to ask you whether I can rewrite the same material in my own words and properly cite it this time. Thank you. Poojalh (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion piece
That essay is really excellent. Copyright concerns are usually difficult to write about it a way that's not so detailed as to be difficult to follow, yes not so general as to be inaccurate. Your essay is informative, persuasive, and just good reading. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Quadell. That's kind of you. :) I think we could get a long way with the problem if we could just encourage our users to be generally more conscious of the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I enjoyed the article as well. One thing I have noticed, though, is that people who raise close paraphrasing concerns don't always suggest how to rewrite the offending text. They just say that there is a problem and point people to a guideline (or essay). My view is that close paraphrasing is best dealt with by active back-and-forth discussion, though part of the reason this probably doesn't happen is that it might reveal how people hold different views on what counts as close paraphrasing. If Editor A points out to Editor B that part of an article is closely paraphrasing the source, I suspect that if Editor A were to do a rewrite, then editor C would come along and say that it is still too close to the sources and a further rewrite is needed (cue furious argument). This is because the way people write from their sources differs from person to person as each develops their own writing skills, and learns from experience how to use sources responsibly without relying too much on one source or too closely paraphrasing their sources. More distressing is people claiming something is closely paraphrased when it isn't, or claiming that a non-copyrightable fact or commonly used phrase (used widely by different sources) must be rewritten to avoid plagiarism. And then you have people who think that using duplication detectors (a technical starting point) is a substitute for actually opening up the sources and reading them and comparing them with the article in question (the holistic approach). Anyway, I'll close by saying that the 'Example: close paraphrasing repaired' bit at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is excellent, but I wonder how many people bother to open that bit up and read it? Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see this for a while. You're quite right that learning to rewrite close paraphrasing is generally best done in even a brief mentorship with somebody who already knows how to do it and that judging whether or not there are problems is very subjective. I'm not sure how we can address that, though. :/ People who tag issues may not necessarily be good at coaching others on overcoming the issue, and we don't really have a whole lot of people volunteering to help with this kind of mentoring. I do it fairly routinely, but I wouldn't set up a booth somewhere and do it indiscriminately. It takes a lot of effort and isn't always successful. (I once mentored a user with problems in that area for months before he seemed confident with rewriting. It was very well worth the time to help out with him, but I just don't have time.) I'm glad to hear that you like the example in the essay. I wonder if there's any way that we can spread the word about that further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I contact him and all, and at first he seemed more interested in knowing about me that in wikipedia, i answer his questions regarding my studies, my work, my travel interests always urging him to tell me exactly what he wanted help with.
He finally contact me in the talk page, he at first insisted on using e-mails, just to tell me that he is "compiling" work to do.
Anyway, i keep letting messages in his talk page but he hasn`t edited since August 25 and further checking his contributions he hasn`t made a single edit to an article, only to his user and user talk pages.
What do you think this means? Is he busy? Did he fool us? How long do i keep checking on him?
As always, thanks in advance. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for working with him. :/ I'm sorry if it's been a waste of your time, but I want to make sure you know that this doesn't downplay for me the value of what you were willing to do. In other words, whether he takes advantage of it or not, I appreciate your willingness to help. :) If I were in your position, I think I'd just let him know that you've got work to do and that if he has questions about using Wikipedia (Spanish or otherwise) he can leave you a note at your talk page. I would not check back again, and I would not talk to him any more about off Wikipedia stuff unless you want to. We're not a social club, and your help is simply a courtesy to him. (I'd also be careful when he does ask for help; if he's just needing attention, once he stops getting social contact he might start asking pointless questions. But I would give him the benefit of the doubt for a question or two. Please let me know if that seems to be happening.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Let`s hope for the best. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let him a message the day before yesterday telling him that if he was REALLY interested in editing he could contact me, nothing yet, not much hope left. Shame. Anyway i found out your name, and got a barnstar out of this, that`s WAY good enough for me. If you ever need help with anything please let me know. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you haven't seen, I thought I should bring to your attention Special:Contributions/Ilovemoonriddengirl. New account, only made 2 edits, both clear vandalism related to Pure Reason Revolution topics. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I'd actually blocked him before seeing this note. There's little doubt that he's a sockpuppet, almost certainly of User:Poundlane36. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, just to say, I think the original puppeteer was User:Justpassinby - all subsequent socks are likely the same guy. Sorry to be pedantic! Thedarkfourth (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And another one: Special:Contributions/Nippywallis. Bondegezou (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked as an obvious sock. If s/he doesn't get bored soon, we may want to look into semiprotection for a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. I'm keeping a closer eye on PRR-related articles for the time being. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New vandalism at Tom Bellamy, and a new sock to go with it - I didn't revert because I don't know how to undo more than one edit. Is there a way? Thedarkfourth (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have "rollback" rights? That's an easy way. Another relatively easy way is just to go to the last version before he edited, click "edit this page" and save with an edit summary explaining why. I think it may be time to ask a checkuser to look into blocking the IP(s). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a checkuser to look into IPs, definitely seems like a good idea. Justpassinby is clearly persistent. I presume the band's recent announcement that they are disbanding soon has prompted his/er re-emergence. They play their final show on 30 November, so I'd expect disruption until at least then. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's using too broad a range to block the IPs, but we have other tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I wonder if you can offer some advice on how I can get help with copyright cleanup. I've spent the past month or so mopping up behind one class from the India Education Program, the students of which are extremely unclear on the fact that copyvios are not allowed here. Their campus ambassadors say they are working with them on the topic, but in the meantime, the copyvios keep rolling in. Do you know if there's any way to marshal some troops to systematically check the contributions from this class, and possibly from other IEP classes? I've made a start of a log at User:Fluffernutter/checks - it's incomplete, and doesn't even log a lot of the actions I've taken yet since I didn't start logging until yesterday, but if I could just get enough experienced users to check out all the students' contributions and annotate that list, I could at least get on top of things as they keep coming in. As it is, I'm running around frantically, hoping I don't miss anything huge. More warm bodies would be a wonderful thing... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time, but as I understand it in some cultures copying is seen as a compliment to the originator and is accepted. This may just be a slur but I've read it several places (in discussions of the problem in universities). I don't know if there is anything we can do about it. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're not the first person who's mentioned that to me, Doug. I suspect the students are doing it mostly out of lack of awareness that not only don't we see it as a compliment around here, but that we actually see it as a huge, huge legal issue that must be avoided. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no idea how timely and welcome this is. :) I'm already exploring the issue of copyright concerns emerging from this program with staff in my liaison role on a request from another contributor, but I had not been able to obtain specifics for them. I've sent them a link to your log page. So thanks for that. They may be able to help the ambassadors find ways of addressing concerns on their end.
- I'll try to poke at it a bit when I get off work, and I hope that a talk page stalker or two might be able to help out. (Talk page stalkers, if you have time?) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look at a couple now, but MRG, I will let you know -- I do not have time! —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I especially appreciate your sharing some anyway. :D --User:Moonriddengirl 14:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Five done, every one of which was a cut-and-paste from some website (except one user who hasn't yet edited an article).
>:( Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuck, this is a trainwreck. I will try to check a few more later tonight. Yoenit (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably won't have time, but I did leave a message on Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors to alert them to the problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The organizers started recruitment of Online Ambassadors a couple of days ago, so once they start taking charge of the material, I guess the situation would be better. Lynch7 15:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point to note is some of these could be "offline" copyvios from textbooks (which have many derivatives online, but no preview on gbooks) I found one section sourced to a textbook, but different parts of the section were in other papers and so on. This adds some complexity to the clean up effort. —SpacemanSpiff 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and if that textbook were published by Gyan then it most likely would be a copyvio of a copyvio ;) - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, guys. And LOL, Sitush. True enough. :) Staff is taking these concerns seriously, but we need to do what we can on this end as well. Hopefully we'll be able to work with these students so that they can continue contributing without running into problems. The idea is to bring them on board as Wikipedia contributors. Do not want that to backfire. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the person in charge of the Foundation's India Programs and responsible for the Education Program in India. I'm writing to tell you that we are aware of the copyvio problem with some newbie editors at the Pune pilot. We've done a number of things to reduce and eliminate the problem. For starters, we've been going to every single class and clearly instructing them about what can and cannot go on Wikipedia. We've had meetings with the faculty and with the respective directors of the concerned colleges. Faculty and Directors have reinforced our messages to students (and are continuing to do so.) We're doubling the numbers of Campus Ambassadors deployed to 30 from the 15 we have. (We're conducting training sessions for the new 15 Campus Ambassadors this weekend.) We're starting an Online Ambassador program in the next few days to get additional support for students. All of these measures will hopefully reduce the problem - but do keep in mind that we have 1000 students involved in this initiative so the sheer scale of the task is challengin. Having said all this, I want to thank all of you for helping out. I know that adequate information has been given to newbies by you - and that this has been done in a courteous manner - so Thank You. We're continuing to work on this problem - and it is of massive priority for us. Hmundol (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's necessary to try to systematically check all the classes' contribs the way we've (so, so wonderfully, you guys!) crowdsourced this one since yesterday. I'm torn between "it may be a waste of human capital" and "but if there are copyvios, it's so much more important to catch them NOW"...anyone have opinions on whether we need to do the whole set? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At present it's an option. My copyvio clean up activity is almost exclusively on WP:INDIA related content both here and at Commons, so I come with some undestanding of the area and possibly skewed opinions too. In these particular cases, it's imperative that we show everyone involved: the ambassadors, the course instructure, the foundation liaison and the students what the problems are and where they are. It maybe an option to create a copyright sub-page for each course set and if/when we notice the first copyright issue with that course we start listing and handling them on that subpage. Then, both the instructor and ambassador have immediate visibility to it (not as part of a CCI group of pages) and it's also there on the course "home page" for the students. More importantly, listing the problems would also show them what the issue is and probably help reduce/remove the issue. Maybe make it an automatic red-link in their standard "course homepages" that turns blue when logs are added. —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Fluffernutter, you did a great job catching this now. And, again, timing was perfect for me as you gave me plenty of the kind of actual examples I was looking for. :D
- Those who've worked with me won't be surprised that I lean towards the "much more important to catch them NOW" category. :) The longer we keep them without identifying them, the greater the risk that we will lose the labor of subsequent contributors. I hate that. I can think of few things that would demoralize me more than, say, being told that the 20 hours I put into Article A had to be tossed aside because the guy before me created an unusable foundation. :P
- Hmundol, I really feel for you with the challenge here. I know that students can have great difficulty grasping the concepts of copyright and plagiarism. I have worked one on one with students in person who have repeatedly violated our university's code of ethics -- not because they want to, but because they don't get it. (I can sympathize; drop me in a computer coding class, and I may be equally challenged. :)) The real challenge on Wikipedia is that there is an increased urgency to help them get it and get it quickly. There are far greater "real world" risks for copyright violation here than in a typical classroom (assuming that in the typical classroom the teacher is motivated to help them overcome the problem and not to punish them for failing to arrive as fully mature writers). Helping these students make this leap so quickly can't be easy. We want to set them up for success, not failure. Oi.
- User:SpacemanSpiff I like your idea. I wonder if the program would embrace that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Fluffernutter, thanks a lot. I am one of the CAs present on ground for IEP. The job you did is definitely recommendable and we did share this serious issue amongst us, and planning to share it with students also, that this is not just another assignment. You need to take it seriously, or else you are screwed up. But please let us be polite also at same time by giving them one or two warnings and might be a limited block. Personally, today only I ran into some articles which were directly taken from website and one book, but I took care of it and forwarded it to the concerned people and lets hope this does not happen again with those students again. I ensure you that this thing has been taken by us seriously. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An indefinite block can be limited. :) It only lasts until the contributor can reassure us that they will not continue. I believe Fluffernutter has been giving them a warning prior to a block? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, no one has been blocked without at least one warning, and often they've had multiple warnings. I'm also keeping an eye on the talk pages of people I've blocked, and each of them is unblocked as soon as they commit to not violating copyright (though I've had to re-block someone today after they promised to behave, which, sigh...). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:SpacemanSpiff & User:Moonriddengirl: I agree and like User:SpacemanSpiff's idea. I'm a little unsure of how it could be done. Is there any way you can help out on this or let us know how this can be done? Can I ask User:Rangilo Gujarati to get in touch with you and figure out how to and do it? (He's one of our Campus Ambassadors and is an existing Wikipedian.) Hmundol (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even I agree with User:SpacemanSpiff's idea. Do let me know what more can be done. Thanks a lot. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me put something together using the Symbiosis experience as a starting point. I'll get back to you all in a day or two. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I did it for my DSA class, check this out this, and ll also ask all other CAs to do the same for their classes. Also it appears on the course Page. Thanks Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I upload these images? They are very old images of Ooty and it is a government website which makes no mention of any copyrights. Thanks. Suraj T 10:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I'm afraid that those questions I frequently cannot answer, and I can't tell you with this one. There's a lot involved in determining whether or not a picture is public domain--not only the age of the photograph may factor in, but the date when it was first published. The best people to ask to help you with that are the ones who contribute to WP:MCQ. They've been very helpful for me in figuring out when content was first published and if it's okay for us to use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker)Many of these are all very likely
{{PD-India}} images, but the content is best posted to Commons and the questions addressed there as these images can be used by multiple wikis. e.g the cars in the picture would date that image to the 20s/30s and so on. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks mrg and spaceman stiff. The date of publication are not available. But aren't all images from government websites fee use? And I've posted the same queries in WP:MCQ and in commons. Suraj T 10:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, any material by any government organisation in India is copyright protected unless specifically released. (e.g. pib.nic.in releases photographs, but even they can not be uploaded here as they fall under the ND clause). —SpacemanSpiff 10:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. There are a few exceptions, but I don't believe that images would be included. You can read a few details about the exceptions at User:Moonriddengirl/copyright_FAQ#Copyright_status.2C_Indian_government. That's a copy of a note I left to another contributor some time ago, and the links may be out of date, but the information shouldn't be. :) Hope that you get a good answer, and that the images are free for use! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually live in Ooty and I'm planning to take all the required images myself. Well, I'll have to wait for replies from WP:MCQ and commons. And as for User:Moonriddengirl/copyright_FAQ#Copyright_status.2C_Indian_government, I tried giong thruogh it but it's kinda complex for me. Anyway thanks for pointing me to it and thanks for the wishes as these are old and valuable images and I hope for the same too. Suraj T 10:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I foud the publication dates for a few of the pictures: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I suppose all except the first one are free now. Suraj T 11:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the first couple, it seems that was the date they were taken. I'm not sure about the date they were published. Copyright laws are complex. :/ But that would be good to add to your question at MCQ, as it might help them determine the status. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked. Waiting for a response. Suraj T 11:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am under the impression that you are either in charge of copyright issues or are at least an expert on them. I hope you don't mind me asking out of the blue, but can I remove a {{non-free}} template from an article if there appears to be nothing wrong with it? The template doesn't explicitly say that I can't remove but I am not sure. The template was placed with the rationale "I suspect with recent amendements that the Act is still copyright".
The article in question, Riot (Damages) Act 1886, relates to a statute which is an edict of government and is therefore in the public domain in the United States, whether amended or not, and regardless of its status anywhere else (according to the United States Copyright Office). This has been discussed at Wikisource, and, as far as I can see, they appear to be content to reprint the whole of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that are, unlike this Act, certainly in copyright, in the United Kingdom, on the strength of this rule of law and the Crown Waiver / Open Government License.
It also appears to be in the public domain in the United Kingdom, as the effect of section 164(4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 appears to be that amending an Act does not create a new copyright in it.
The amendments in question themselves consist of the mechanistic and purely consequential substitution of one technical term of art for another due to a change in nomenclature (e.g. "police area" for "police district", "police fund" for "police rate" and "compensation authority" for "police authority"), and do not appear to me to contain any creative content at all.
I also think it could be justified as fair use anyway because the use of the unamended text would be misleading or at least very confusing because police districts etc don't exist anymore, and the text provides context for the explanation of the amendments etc.
I could go on, but I hope that I don't need to. What should I do? James500 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, James. :) I'm not in charge by any means, but I do a lot of work in the area, and I'm happy to help.
- I've removed the {{nonfree}} tag. As you say, with the nature of the content, it isn't copyrighted. You're quite right that you can do that yourself. Ordinarily I would suggest you put an explanation on the talk page, but you've already done that. :D
- Sorry for the inconvenience. Copyright is a pretty big issue on Wikipedia, and I'm glad that people are thinking about it. I'll explain to the tagger. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. James500 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moonridengirl, long time no talk. I have a copyright/plagerism question for you in regards to J. E. "Buster" Brown. I've read your 'essay' about copyright concerns but I'm still unsure about this situation. Much of the contents of the Brown article seems to be paraphrased from a University of Texas biography. It's not a copy/paste but much of the article still closely paraphrases this site. You've been my go-to person in the past on copyright issues, so I figured you'd be a good person to ask if this article really is good to go or if it strays across the line. Thanks for any help you can provide. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi.:) That's always going to be a subjective call. Unfortunately, even the courts are limited in objective tests for this kind of thing and will frequently rely on the "ordinary observer" reaction. When I try to judge these things myself, I look for a balance of actual duplication of striking phrases mingled with an overall appropriation of the organization. The creativity of the organization makes a big difference here. Biographical data organized chronologically with a focus on the elements that we might expect to be in any biography (he was born; he learned; he worked; he married; he died) are less creative than subjective selection ("the three key events from his childhood that led him to becoming a bail bondsman were...."). The more creative the organization, the further we need to deviate to clearly avoid appropriation.
- I'll look at the article specifically when I've got a bit more caffeine in me (late night :D) and give you my opinion, but I wanted to let you know that I'd seen your question and give you my general approach so you wouldn't think I'd overlooked it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi. This one is borderline insofar as it follows very closely on his achievements in the Senate. The earlier sections are more typical "he was born, went to school, etc.", so less worrisome, but the structure overall of the rest may reflect more creativity. There is nothing in the source to indicate that these are chronological records of achievements, and it would be really good if other sources mentioning other achievements were woven in to avoid borrowing too much from that source. That said, I think it falls on the side of "okay". Not good, but okay. I'd welcome observations from others, if anybody who happens to see this wants to give an opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, perhaps it's possible to encourage editors to balance a number of issues in determining whether plagiarism or close paraphrasing is occurring. I played with the box at WP:CANVASS, but these are just vague musings at the moment. The scenarios are meant to be the extreme ends on separate but related judgmental scales. Is the concept useful? Tony (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Length of wording in question
|
Closeness to the original
|
Distinctiveness of original wording or meaning
|
Attribution
|
| Less of an issue
|
Short
|
Your own wording1
|
Not distinctive
|
Fully attributed
|
|
|
↕
|
↕
|
↕
|
↕
|
| More of an issue
|
Long
|
Exact wording duplicated
|
Distinctive
|
Not directly attributed
|
1Excluding "non-creative" text.
- Oh, I love that, Tony! That's great. :) I think it's a very useful concept. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Perhaps we could let it ferment for a little, and consider how it might be modified and how/where it might be used. :-) Tony (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. :) One thing that I think we might need to do is footnote the "short" bit just to note that if content is non-free, even short verbatim excerpts need to be used as quotations unless they are completely non-distinctive text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to give you and Drmies talkbacks to your own page now, there seems to be a question from one of the few non-copvyios but close-paraphrasing issue on the outreach project in that section. —SpacemanSpiff 14:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Brilliant. :D Thanks; I would have missed that one for sure! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think this is close paraphrased enough (from here) to warrant deletion? There's no clean version... Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking at this one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a problem. I'm in the process of rewriting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten it and revdeleted the earlier text. I do not know, but suspect that the Polish article which precedes ours is the source of this copyright problem. :/ For that reason, I did not give the contributor a caution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moonriddengirl! Your name was suggested by Crohnie (talk · contribs) as an administrator who is familiar with copyright issues that could possibly assist in a situation that needs resolution. What happened was that an article up for FA (Ted Bundy) attracted attention for some of the images in the article due to the FA process. These images were subsequently nominated for deletion on the Commons based on the belief that the Archives are not the true copyright holder and therefore have no right to license images that are not PD; and that nomination remains open and unresolved. But I'm really not sure why. In the past, an editor had contacted the State Archives of Florida in regards to all the images contained within that archive, and was told that attribution to the archives was the only requirement for their use. I very recently contacted the same State agency concerning only the images from their archives used in the Bundy article, and was informed that they are aware of no copyright issues, and that attribution was the only requirement. A professional author who had used an image from that archives in his for-profit book on Bundy has confirmed that only attribution to the State Archives of Florida was needed. The editor who nominated the images for deletion refused to withdraw the nomination unless proof that the State of Florida is the true and actual copyright holder is presented (so that it therefore has the right to do what they are already doing).
My position is this: twice now the State has confirmed that we may use the images just as long as we credit the "State Archives of Florida" (and we do). Is this not tantamount to a CC-by-SA license being explicitly given to us by them? Must an OTRS ticket be filed for each and every image from this archive... when they've said that not only can WP use them, but anyone can? The "template" that was used in the "Permission" sections of the images (created by Andy Dingley in 2008) has been challenged as well, and another deletion nomination concerning an image from the FBI's own website has also resulted from this article's failed FA nomination. Nothing's happening on the Commons, but if we had to go by consensus over there, these deletion nominations would be closed. Myself and several other editors who have put a lot of work into this article (not to mention others whose work involves using images from these State archives) would appreciate any input you could give us. Discussion on the Bundy images continues here, but we would like input on how to close the image deletion nominations as we firmly believe they have no valid basis. Thank you for your time! Doc talk 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. First, I have to clarify that I don't have any special standing on Commons. I'm not an admin there or really even all that active in that project. So I can't do anything to facilitate closure of that deletion debate. Sorry.:(
- It would have been really nice if the State's email to you had not included the vague "We are not aware of any copyright issues with these photos", which completely refuses to take responsibility. :/ The disclaimer for the website is also somewhat vague: "The use of material in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the materials." How do we know in which cases these terms govern? What are the terms? But Statute 257.35 says: "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida State Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4) provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." That "any use" is nice, clear language (and would include modification) (Paragraphs (1)(b) and subsection (4) deal with the hows and whens and allowed charges.)
- Given the vague language in their email (inconclusive, since smart attorney-speak refuses to take responsibility for anything) and the slippery section of the disclaimer, I could not personally say certainly that all images in the State Archives of Florida are free for use (or that they aren't), but I think they are both germane to a determination on Commons. There are a couple of things I would do if I were in your position to try to speed resolution of this.
- First, I would link both that disclaimer and the relevant statute, highlighting the language about reproduction. Then I would go to the Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and let them know that this has been open for months and that it is delaying the promotion of the article. Without attempting to promote your own point of view there, I would recommend requesting that somebody close it so that editors will know one way or the other if the images are usable so that work on getting the article to featured status can continue.
- Ordinarily I would recommend you forward the emails you have received to OTRS for logging (doesn't matter who we are, we have to submit these documents to prove that we have them when it comes to legal matters), but the vagueness would probably not help here. The WMF attorney recently rejected a permission letter from Puerto Rico due to similar vagueness. I think the disclaimer and statute will probably be the main considerations here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been very helpful to this editor [5], but I suspect the blocked contributor couldn't wait any longer [6]. Please correct me if you think otherwise. I've left a note for Drmies as well. Thanks, 99.184.129.216 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've noted this [7]. Much appreciated, 99.184.129.216 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that I had to. :/ I appreciate your attention to the matter as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your Copious Free Time (tm), could you take a look at David Wallis Reeves and make sure I didn't paraphrase the sources too closely when I expanded the article? I don't think it's a problem, but I'd appreciate a cross-check if you have the time. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm not sure I tagged File:SarekOfVulcanAvatar.jpg properly. While out hiking on a trail, I passed several places where trees had fallen across the path and had been chainsawed clear, leaving flat surfaces on both sides of the trail. Afterwards, someone else came along and carved faces on the flat surfaces. I took pictures of a few of these, took a fancy to one of the shots, and started using it as an online avatar. For my RFA ThankSpam, I uploaded a low-res version of the pic and tagged it "own work". It strikes me that that probably isn't the correct tag for anonymous transient public art -- but I have no idea what a better one would be.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'll be happy to take a look at the article. :) If it's low priority, though, I'm going to try to tap out some CP items first. In terms of the image, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if we don't know who carved the face, there may not be a correct tag, unless we are using it under WP:NFC. :/ In some countries, Commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama would do it, but the US doesn't have FOP. Somebody at WP:MCQ might know some loophole that I don't, though, as images are not my major area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! As I said, no rush -- I don't _think_ I paraphrased too closely, but I wanted a second opinion. I'll check with MCQ as you suggest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted comment by blocked sock account My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This file is up for F5 however I think it may not be copyrightable as it only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes., if so what needs to be done to the comments section to reflect. Mtking (edits) 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) The thing to do would be to change it from non-free, adding {{pd-textlogo}}{{trademark}}, although if you have any doubts about that you might want to get feedback at WP:MCQ. This is by no means my area. I'm all about the text. :D You can see the templates in use at File:090511 komo newsradio.jpg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on this commons image commons:File:Russian Railways Logo.svg do you really need File:RussianRailways.png at all? Right now it is an orphaned non-free image and if you don't use it, it will be deleted but you could tag it as {{PD-textlogo}} per MRG's comments above but I recommend you do that only if you are going to use it in the Russian Railways article. ww2censor (talk)
I've now got my PhD thesis in and now have some time to be on wikipedia again. I've started working on understanding bots, with my current aim to be getting a bot for WP:CP working again. Not a problem if someone beats me to it as it will be a useful learning exercise regardless. Would you be so kind as to add User:dpmukBOT to the confirmed user group. Not sure if I'm going to run into any captchas or the like before making the bot autoconfirmed but it would be one less thing to worry about. Proof I created the account is here. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations and good luck. :)
- I actually had to read up on how to do that, because that's not something I regularly (read: hardly ever) do. I trust you to use it appropriately and all and not start running an unauthorized bot and get us both in trouble. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry you had to look it up. Don't worry I've read the bot policy and, per WP:BOTAPPROVAL the bot will very definitely only be editing in my or its own user space, where it doesn't need prior approval, until I do have approval for it to go 'live'. :-) Dpmuk (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MrG. The so-called "vanished user" vandalising PASOK MP articles is back. Could you please semi as needed? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Can you show me a diff or two to help me verify that it's him and see which articles need protecting? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi MrG :) Sorry for the omission. Here's the trail. Same Romanian IP as before. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all the hard work you put into this. Since I know how busy you are with WMF and copyvio control please feel free to decline such requests in future. Thank you again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but other people have been putting time into copyvio control lately, and I'm happy to take my mop where it is needed. :) I've protected everything that I saw and am trusting bots will put up protection notices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to hear it. I enjoy working with you and it sure saves time trying to explain this chronic problem to the various noticeboards :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, Maggie and you talkpage watchers may have noticed that a lot of the Indian editors coming out of the Global Education program are having problems understanding copyright. This is unsurprising; in Indian culture, copying is seen as the highest form of praise, in a sort of "this source is so good I cannot add anything to it, and furthermore consider it so perfect that I'm willing to associate my name with it" kind of way. This is really complimentary for the creator of the source text, but a bit problematic for Wikipedia, which could find itself in an awkward legal position if students or other editors go around posting copyrighted text - whatever their intentions.
As such, a group of users have had to go through, patrolling the work done by the Indian editors, and on quite a few occasions have had to block the editors for persistently not groking copyright. On a couple of occasions there have been unblocks due to assurances that the students now understand the issues, followed by additional violations and a new block This isn't a great situation; we end up with editors who are constantly overwhelmed with patrolling lots of new pages (and, understandably, get a bit irked) along with students who can't complete their course due to their blocks. We can't let them edit, because there are legal issues, but at the same time we can't let them not edit. As such, I've got a wee idea that Maggie, random talkpage watchers and the course ambassadors might want to consider.
What if we mandated that users in the Indian program, rather than experimenting around in mainspace, needed to create articles in their userspace, with a NOINDEX tag, which would then be checked by someone before being switched over to mainspace? The lack of mainspace and the presence of a NOINDEX tag would substantially reduce the legal concerns - people are very, very unlikely to see the pages - and would also mean that we can identify what specifically the students have added when checking for issues. Rather than having an article on PFI which the student contributed part of (which leads to having to muck around with diffs to work out what turned up where, when and was written by whom) we have a page which just consists of the student's contributions. A lot easier to check.
As to who should do the checking, we've got two options. Neither of them involve editors. What the program needs, what the students need and what the wiki needs are editors who are prepared to come in and deal with issues that arise with a friendly smile, a kind tone and a big helping of good faith, and this simply isn't going to happen if the only editors who care about shepherding the new users along are constantly overwhelmed with copyvios. The two actual options are that the pages are checked by students and that the pages are checked by ambassadors. In the former case, those students who do grok copyright would take on the responsibility of scanning drafted articles for problems; in the second, that role would b taken by the Campus Ambassadors. Personally, I think the onus needs to be on the Ambassadors; students didn't sign up to be tutoring and reviewing the classes, but the Ambassadors did. In addition, allowing the Ambassadors some healthy experience of recognising copyright violations and teaching people how to avoid them - without the pressure of editors shouting about it - would be really, really helpful. At the end of the year or semester, students leave, and new students come in. The Ambassadors remain constant. If we've got one group we can give some real experience dealing with these issues, it should be the ambassadors; otherwise, we'll just have to go through the same awkward process next year.
End result: we don't get sued, students can edit, editors don't get pressure and the ambassadors get some more experience teaching on avoiding copyright problems, which they can apply to future courses. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking from the front lines of indian-copyvio-pursuit, I quite like this idea. The only problem that immediately comes to mind is that these students aren't always creating new articles; they're also adding to existing ones, so we'd need to make sure we addressed the userspace proposal to both types of editing without getting all sorts of attribution weirdness when students try to copy over a whole article to their userspace so they can work on it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Attribution should not be a problem, just copy it back when it is accepted and mention the students username. A custom-made {{under construction}} template on the main article might be useful, but even that is probably unnecessary. I think this is an excellent idea. Yoenit (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Fluffernutter is referring to the attribution issues of initially sandboxing, but I'd agree we could probably come up with an alternative. I like the idea; it would be a good learning ground for the students as well to allow them to learn some of the other norms of Wikipedia. This can help them avoid their first contact with an outsider (not part of their program) being hostile and off-putting. Perhaps after a certain period they can graduate to working directly on the article? The challenge, of course, being that copyright issues don't often become clear until content added is substantial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Set an arbitrary limit; 2 drafts free of copyright problems, and they can go into mainspace. That way, the students with perennial problems don't put us at risk. I'd like to hear what the ambassadors think of this. Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We did think of asking them to write in draft first and then moving in main space, but again the problem was they won't be able to work collaboratively. Also all CAs would be loaded with number of articles to evaluate all together at end. So why not keep a check on them from beginning only. I do believe that there has been a hell lot of violations, but just look at it other way also. They might contribute to Wikipedia forever once their classes are done. Now that most of them have realized the seriousness of Copyrights violation issue, lets assume that there won't be much problem in future. Also we came up with one solution that we ll be displaying violations per class on course page only, so that they ll avoid it in future. It is already up for my class, please check this out. Thanks Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they could still collaborate amongst themselves, and once they've shown that they understand copyright we can release them into the mainspace. The problem is that "most" doesn't seem to cover it, and that we can't assume there won't be much of a problem - we already have had a string of course members who have been blocked for copyright violations, who have been unblocked after swearing that they now understand the problem, who have had ambassadors swearing that they've explained the issues to the course member...and who have then gone right back and violated copyright, again and again. I applaud your efforts to highlight the issues, but unfortunately they don't seem to be working. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, me again, again not sure how to proceed. This diff shows suspected copyvio material which has been removed from the article but left in the history. I don't have the book, so can't confirm or reject the suspicion (even if I find it hard to believe that a published work could be so poorly written). I have an idea, perhaps a wrong idea, that copyright matter is still considered visible even if it is not in the current version of the article. What, if anything, should be done here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in; if you can point me to each diff which contains the material, I'm happy to revision delete it. It's fairly (read: not entirely) accepted that prior versions need eliminating from public view. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do that routinely when there's a lot of material or a high chance of inadvertent restoration. :) In this case, though, I'm with you--it's hard to believe that this was copied from a book. ("The head is about medium-sized with a Roman nose. While the neck is short, strong, and well devoloped") There's a chance that some of the content was copied verbatim from the book, given the elevated language especially. (Did the same person who wrote that poor sentence fragment come up with "strong and surefooted"?) But I'm inclined to think it's a clumsy paraphrase, and without access to the book, I can't even verify that it's following too closely. Since it was removed not with a certain assertion that it was copied from a book but only an indication that it "appears to be", I'm inclined to leave it where it is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Moonriddengirl. I know you have experience with OTRS. There's a rather complicated question Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#How_can_a_journal_publisher_grant_permission_to_use_images_en_masse.3F about the academic journal GENE granting permission for its material to be used on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I follow the whole situation, or what license is being granted, or what articles and images are applicable... but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Do you have an answer for them? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
