Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems
| This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Copyright problems page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Irish Supreme Court cases articles
Hello WT:CP, I'm cross-posting this to New Pages Patrol as well as here at the suggestion of User:Hut 8.5.
Over the past academic year I have been working with students and law faculty to create articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. There is an explanation of the rationale and pedagogy behind this project on the front of my user page. The key point is that non-disruptive contributions were my priority.
When the project started I took feedback from WikiProject Law based on a few early articles. They pointed out the need to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM. I worked with the student editors to strike a balance between this guidance and the advice from my law faculty colleagues that it is often important to preserve and quote the exact language used in a decision.
In this respect, one thing I have noticed is that Earwig is giving a false positive on some of the articles due to the presence of direct quotes from the case decision. The case decisions are from the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) and its usuage rules for Irish decisions follows the Courts Service of Ireland regulations. Its rules allow for re-use and quoting as long as citations are provided. Earwig is also flagging common legal phrases and proper nouns. We are checking every article with Earwig to make sure that any flags it puts up relate to material that is properly quoted and cited or refer to common legal phrases and proper nouns. If anyone has concerns about content please let me know. Alternatively, I will have all the articles on my watchlist so I can respond to concerns on individual article talk pages.
I will be moving articles to mainspace starting later today and tomorrow, and over the course of May. The law faculty and I are working through them in chunks to do the Earwig checks, formatting, and any final tidying.
The first batch of articles is (I will add links as I move them):
- Okunade v. Minister for Justice & Others
- Comcast Int. Holdings v Minister for Public Enterprise & ors and Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise & ors
- Bederev v Ireland
- The Health (amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004
- AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors
- DPP v McLoughlin
- Attorney General v Oldridge
- O'Connell v The Turf Club
- Roche v Roche
- Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey
- N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality
- Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
- Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy
- C.K. v J.K
- D.C v Director of Public Prosecutions
- Delahunty v Player and Willis (Ireland) Ltd
- Braddish v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the court cases are free to be reused, it may be a good idea to add the website to User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions to prevent false postives. That is, asuming there is no other material on the website that should not be copied. --MrClog (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @MrClog:. I don't think there is any protected content. I've posted a request on Earwig. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Unable to list a problem here
I discovered text in a Wikipedia article that appears to have been copied verbatim from the website of the subject of the article. Unfortunately it seems that anonymous editors cannot file a report as it requires the creation of a page. So I will note here that the problem is at Lagos State Ferry Services Corporation. Please take any necessary action. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 May 12 for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio in TCEC season articles
Can I get some help with whether the material in the "notable games" sections of TCEC Season 14, TCEC Season 15, TCEC Season 16 and TCEC Season 17 (the last sections of all of those articles) are copyvio issues? They don't directly quote from the cited source, but the content is immediately identifiable as coming from it. If they are copyvio, what is to be done? Banedon (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Copypaste from fandom.com
Greeny Phatom: The Movie is copied in its entirety from https://dreamfiction.fandom.com/wiki/Greeny_Phatom:_The_Movie. dreamfiction.fandom.com has a CC-SA 3.0 license, so is this a copyvio or just a hoax? I mean, seriously, a 729 million dollar gross? That would be three-fourths of what The Lion King made! On that alone I'm going to nominate it under WP:G3. But is it a copyvio? - Sumanuil (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
subslikescript.com and other subtitle sites
Recently subslikescript.com has been added to several articles as a reference, e.g. on Craigslist and Larry David. They describe themselves as 'a simple search engine of subtitles available at a wide variety (of) websites', but they serve the files rather than embedding them or linking to them; they don't reveal the sources. Their page on copyright/DMCA does not fill me with confidence. I haven't found a clear statement on the copyright status of subtitles, only warnings that people should not make their own. I'd like others' views on the suitability of linking to subslikescript and other unofficial (user-generated or not) subtitle sites. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Please ping me if replying. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of pages with default notability
@MER-C: Given the recent 3+ month spate of deletions (mostly Billy Hathorn's work, I believe) of pages with default notability under WP:POLITICIAN, is there a way to increase publicity (or some other method) so that these pages get rewritten, rather than all content deleted? I'd do it myself (and have for a few), but I don't have the time. In this latest batch, Odon Bacqué, Girod Jackson III, Linda Harper-Brown, Rebecca Petty and Trent Ashby have default notability (and look to me to be pretty well-sourced), probably along with a few of the others. While we're a very long slog away from having all state legislators on WP, going backwards doesn't help. And then there are cases like James Benjamin Aswell and Joe Waggonner (both previously poorly sourced), where members of congress get deleted because very few people monitor this page. Star Garnet (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- There have also been quite a few prominent politicians listed on Political party strength in Louisiana who has their articles deleted due to copyright problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:b40c:873f:543d:d614 (talk)
- A copyvio blanking places a notice that is much more prominent than being sent to AFD. Yet nobody is contesting the deletions via any means - not even on the respective talk pages, nor are they providing a short rewrite that will stop the links from going red when I clear the listings a week later. Wikipedia cannot host copyright violating articles regardless of the notability of the subject they cover. It is policy that major contributions of repeat copyright infringers may be removed indiscriminately. This is the proper venue for copyright discussions. MER-C 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- That would require an experienced and interested editor to view a page that probably goes weeks without a single view (WP:NTEMP, etc.), or to be monitoring this page on the off-chance something relevant gets posted. Leaving that aside, I have a few questions. What needs to be done to an apparently well-sourced article to remove copyvio concerns? What were User:Billy Hathorn's signature copyvios? Long excerpts, poor sourcing...? I see on their investigation there are multitudes of pages entangled in this. Roughly how many pages are facing potential deletion? There doesn't appear to be a hidden cat for these pages, but is it possible to get one? If there was, with the help of petscan, I could probably get a group at WP:POLITICS to work on this so long as there's a definable objective. Star Garnet (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Star Garnet, As someone who has worked in the trenches of this CCI, I can answer your questions:
- 1. I would phrase the article down to it's most essential, non-copyrightable facts. Billy tended to write in this archaic, quickly identifiable way that reads more like a story or thesis; see this version of Bill Dodd for example,- note the massive walls of text and the "Notes" section.
- 2. " Long excerpts, poor sourcing...?", yep, and those are just the tips of the iceberg. Billy covered all bases when it came to bad sourcing; early on, it was inproper formatting, bare urls, self citations, and blatant pastes; Later on he went more towards close paraphrasing and extreme refbombing, as many of his articles were being sent to afd (Look at his talk page history if you want hundreds of examples). And since some of the sources he copied from can't be scanned by earwig (offline books, newspapers, journals, unattributed unpublished interviews he did with article subjects), there are many presumptive removals.
- 3. You're not going to like this, but the amount that could be deleted is around 2500+ as there are 5499 articles listed at his CCI (according to The bot), and he created most of them. Worse, he's an LTA with hundreds of spas, high edit socks, and ips, who's edits also need to be accounted for. I'm pretty sure he's still socking to this day; I think I last saw an ip I'm pretty sure was him back in April? These deletions have been going on for about a year now, and the reason you're seeing more is that his socks and post unban edits are now listed. The good news is that most of the articles set to be deleted are non-notable local politicians who held low level offices.
- 4.
There doesn't appear to be a hidden cat for these pages, but is it possible to get one?
That's a good idea, I think something was done previously for another massive CCI a while ago. I'll look into that. Help would be greatly appreciated, as you can tell this has been quite the endeavor. - Hopefully that clears some stuff up (and sorry for the novel!) Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 03:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article for a State governor Stephen B. Packard was also deleted.
- That would require an experienced and interested editor to view a page that probably goes weeks without a single view (WP:NTEMP, etc.), or to be monitoring this page on the off-chance something relevant gets posted. Leaving that aside, I have a few questions. What needs to be done to an apparently well-sourced article to remove copyvio concerns? What were User:Billy Hathorn's signature copyvios? Long excerpts, poor sourcing...? I see on their investigation there are multitudes of pages entangled in this. Roughly how many pages are facing potential deletion? There doesn't appear to be a hidden cat for these pages, but is it possible to get one? If there was, with the help of petscan, I could probably get a group at WP:POLITICS to work on this so long as there's a definable objective. Star Garnet (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- A copyvio blanking places a notice that is much more prominent than being sent to AFD. Yet nobody is contesting the deletions via any means - not even on the respective talk pages, nor are they providing a short rewrite that will stop the links from going red when I clear the listings a week later. Wikipedia cannot host copyright violating articles regardless of the notability of the subject they cover. It is policy that major contributions of repeat copyright infringers may be removed indiscriminately. This is the proper venue for copyright discussions. MER-C 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)