Talk:Ngarrabullgan

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Australia: Queensland / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Ngarrabullgan is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual Property Statement

It is noted that some/much of the cultural landscape material relied upon in compiling this natural and cultural history (ranging from the 'naming' of places, to the stories/mythology for the places, plus the content of both the names and the stories) should properly be considered the intellectual and cultural property of those Aboriginal people's who first gave the material to be documented and recorded.

It is also recognised and noted that within local Aboriginal economies of knowledge great store is placed on the act of performing or presenting knowledge, and it is in fact by performing or presenting knowledge (or some version of it), that the ownership of the knowledge is established. The more frequently and effectively particular stories, knowledges, designs or skills are performed, the more they become stamped and owned by the performer, plus, the more the performers performances will be to 'purchase 'obligatory relationships against which claims to real world benefits can be drawn/demanded.

Recognising and acknowledging the above, it is not the authors intention, nor can it be considered Wikipedia's organisation's intention to rob the original performers, tellers, knowledge holders of their 'ownership' of those names, stories, or knowledge that may be used in this article. Instead, it is here asserted that any use made of the names etc in this article can not be considered a genuine, authentic, authorised use, and should, rather, be regarded as more of a charactiture of the original, promotional in nature, leading readers towards the actual, authentic knowledge holders, potentially increasing the value of their intellectual and cultural property .. As a matter of practice, in accessing and using such names, stories or knowledges I undertake, whereverpossible, to either name the person/s or family who have originally given the performances/knowledge, and/or the families/group from amongst whom the performances/knowledges find their source.

Bruceanthro (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid statement to make for information appearing in Wikipedia. Information in many (possibly most) articles may have some kind of 'traditional' ownership, but if the information is still in the public domain, there is no requirement for Wikipedia to make specific acknowledgement. If there is information that is not in the public domain, and is specific intellectual property, it should not be included in Wikipedia. Additionally, informal traditional ownership rights are likely not recognised in the United States, where Wikipedia's content is stored.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]