Talk:Clover Stornetta Farms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Low-importance).


Beyond the AfD, I'm now wondering about the copyright status of this page.

For example, here's a snippet of what's on there currently:

In June of 1991, Clover Stornetta opened its brand new state-of-the-art milk processing facility in their current Petaluma business location. The Stornetta Dairy in Sonoma became Clover’s only bottling plant for the time. The equipment was antiquated and a large amount of the work had to be done manually. With the new automated plant run with computerized controls, Clover became able to do three times the volume of the former plant with the same amount of manpower as of the last processing set-up.

And here's a snippet of this page (which contains a copyright mark):

In June, 1991, Clover Stornetta opened its new state-of-the-art milk processing facility at the Petaluma location. The Stornetta Dairy in Sonoma served as Clover's only bottling plant until then. The equipment was antiquated and much of the work was done by hand. With this new fully automated plant with computerized controls, Clover is able to do three times the volume of the old plant with virtually the same manpower.

Given that this whole thing sounded like corporate PR to me from the first, I'm now wondering about its copyright status. Dori 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I read their main article and changed as much as I could around so it would be my own writing instead of rewording, but some things you can't change a lot. I can't move those facts around, otherwise it would be lying or typing the paragraph out of chronological order...there wasn't much else I could say. Black Kat 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What other sources did you use to write the article? According to WP:RS, "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." I don't see any citations in this article, and, well, it sounds a lot to me like their website reworded. That's not what makes a good encyclopedia article.
Additionally, taking a work that's under copyright and simply rewording it does not remove a copyright. It's not just about swapping a certain percentage of their words out for yours. If all you did was "read their main article and change... as much as I could around so it would be my own writing" -- it's not suitable for WP. Do some research and find some reliable sources and improve it if you think it should stick around. Dori 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it doesn't remove a copyright, but it was overall basic on the years. There wasn't much more I could really say unless I put the years out of place. Besides, if I didn't care about rewording, I wouldn't have put a link to the site. I've seen many articles here that are two sentences, and they're meant to be expanded, which is what I hope for this site. Black Kat 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)