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 | |||
| 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 talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
| Wikipedia copyright |
|---|
| Policy |
| Guidelines |
| Advice |
| Processes |
| Resources |
Contents
[edit]
First-time report and I found this terribly confusing: I added a report at the link given by the copyvio template, which was Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018 August 24, a new page. After I saved it, it showed up under August 23 (not 24) on the main page. Then I thought I should add more information, but I didn't know in which place to do it - edit the August 23 section of the main page, or go back to the "today" page. I tried the former, and when the edit window opened, everything but my entry was there, so I couldn't edit it. I then did the latter and added more info and saved it, but it didn't update on the main page. Could there please be some kind of explanation of all this? Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, it updated on the main page a while later. It's still confusing that it's listed under the previous day, and if you want to add a comment to it by clicking on "edit source", you can't because it's mysteriously missing. You have to guess that you should click where it says "put new article listings" in the Footer instead... --IamNotU (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've fixed it, the issue was just that the new page you created didn't have the header with that day's date on it, so it wasn't distinguished from the previous day's listings in the list. I've added that header now and it looks fine. Hut 8.5 06:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
subpage chaos?[edit]
Why are the unresolved issues on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_September_20 not listed on the main page? --Espoo (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Probably just an oversight, I've added it. No need to call it "chaos". Hut 8.5 21:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Large-scale copying of ancient inscriptions into articles[edit]
I can't find a policy page (I checked WP:C-P and WP:COPYOPEN) that talks specifically about the copying of large amounts of primary source material from a website containing ancient inscriptions. The article is DNa inscription and the website is livius.org. This doesn't seem to be a COPYVIO issue, as their about page specifically permits copying of text.
My question is really more about the suitability of this sort of thing for Wikipedia, vs. using Wikisource instead. Copying the entire text, if desired, seems to be what Wikisource was designed for; and limiting the Wikipedia article to content about the inscriptions, perhaps with some brief, quoted sample text, seems more in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedic role.
Should we encourage the off-loading of large amount of text from DNa inscription to Wikisource in this case? Is there a policy page on Wikipedia which governs this question? Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Discussion listed at Wikisource:Scriptorium. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding the copyright issue, we can't used text copied from Livius. Their about page says that you can reuse text "provided that you refer back to Livius and do not make profit either". That last bit isn't consistent with the licence Wikipedia is available under, which does permit commercial reuse. The article claims to be taking the English text from a printed book published in 1893, which is in the public domain. The original text is certainly out of copyright and I suspect the transliteration may not qualify for copyright protection, depending on what was involved in creating it. I think the general question of whether inclusion of inscription text is appropriate should be discussed somewhere else (WP:VP). Hut 8.5 06:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Hut – the 1893 book is safely PD, the transliteration may not be creative in any real sense. Our guideline on long boring texts is at Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources; the talk-page is probably the place to start a discussion about this specific case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- The text of A guide to the Old Persian inscriptions (1893), the published source of these passages, is welcome at English Wikisource and can be used by Wikipedia in whatever way is appropriate here. The original inscription can be hosted in its original form at Multilingual Wikisource as Old Persian does not have dedicated wikisource of its own. However, the table at DNa inscription, with the translation, transliteration, and original text in three parallel columns, does not belong at Wikisource in that form, unless such a table exists in a published source. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Phone number issue[edit]
Consider the case where I am providing my phone number in my the user page of myself. Will that be considered as a copyright violation?Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, but you should be mindful that the internet is forever and once you put it up, it’ll be out there for anyone to see. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- It was actually a problem by yet another wikipedian. If it violates, I thought I can inform the admins about the same.Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Flagging a CWW article as needing translation attribution[edit]
I sometimes notice articles that appear to have translated content that is not attributed, and I have a question about how to properly flag this. I'm thinking, a new maintenance template at the top of the article is perhaps needed.
I'm aware that if an article contains content translated from an outside source, this would fall under COPYVIO rules, and might not be permitted at all, depending on standard Copyvio conditions. (These must be difficult to catch or prove, as standard plagiarism tools will not work on translated material. Not sure what, if anything we can do about this right now, but this post is not primarily about this case.)
The issue I wish to raise now, is about content added to en-wiki that is translated from another Wikipedia or sister project. As I understand it, this is governed by WP:CWW and is generally permitted, as long as required attribution to the source article is provided. However, attribution is not always provided. My question is, what to do about such articles, when one finds them? This case seems not quite as serious as plagiarism from outside sources, so blanking the article with a big, red banner while investigation is underway about attribution from another Wikimedia project would seem like overkill to me. I was thinking a new template is needed, that could be placed on top of an article, saying something about suspected translated content and missing attribution, and linking to CWW, ATTREQ, and so on. {{Interwiki copy}} is not the right template, and WP:TFOLWP says nothing about this case. I'm thinking of a new template, along the lines of {{Cv-unsure}}, but geared more to translation rather than copy-paste, and with verbiage about proper sister project attribution, rather than copyright violation from an external copyright holder.
For a real world example, you could have a look at Talk:Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet#Unattributed translations. I placed a {{Proofreader needed}} template on to of the article itself, but that template really doesn't address the atribution issue at all, which is what got me to thinking about this situation, and whether we needed a new template. Feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- For a mockup, please see User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Template:Translate attreq. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- What I normally do is perform a tiny edit to the page so I can retroactively add the attribution myself via an edit summary, like this:
Attribution: content in this article was translated from [[:fr:example]] on November 17, 2018. Please see the history of that page for full attribution.Then I place a{{translated}}template on the article talk page, and I notify the editor how to do it properly the next time, like this:Hi. I see in a recent addition to [[:fr:example]] you included material translated from the French Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- What I normally do is perform a tiny edit to the page so I can retroactively add the attribution myself via an edit summary, like this: