--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
You should not believe that. Everything is copyright
by its author, if no
one else, notice or no notice, unless it has been
released into the public
domain either by the passage of time, some specific
license to use it or
simply a declaration that people are "free to use
it" as one sometimes sees.
Certainly.
You did the correct thing. If User:Stevertigo wishs
to do enough editing to
create a credibly new article using the factual
material in the copywrited
material (thus conserving energy as he alleges) that
is fine. But in fact he
did not. He just reverted. User:Stevertigo's demand
that you edit it rather
than request deletion is inappropriate.
Sorry Fred -- I didnt "just revert" --I edited the
material down to stub with barely the smell of the
original on it. (the sites copynotice just said "fine
to copy for noncommercial reasons, just link here" -
are we "commercial"?)
Since I have neither the time nor patience, I copy
here the discussion from Talk:Thomas Sutpen: Do read
section *** at leaste.
Wikilove be upon you and all you wikilove,
~S~
I rolled the copyvio deletion back because this little
text --even if copied from an edu site does not
constitute a problem for us. There was no copyright
notice on the source page, it was not copied in full,
and theres no reason why the effort placed in calling
this a copyviolation cant be better put toward
changing the text to make it unique. --戴眩sv 04:09,
Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)
Why not discuss it on the VfD page before arbitrarily
rolling it back? This little bit of text is word for
word from the original page, and just because there's
no copyright notice on a page doesn't mean that it is
free for us to steal. I'm going to put the copyvio
boilerplate back. Please take it to the VfD page.
RickK 04:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ditto. Just because there is not a copyright
notice on the source site does not mean that the owner
of the site does not hold the copyright on it. Chances
are s/he does even without the notice. The original
text here was extremely close to what was on the page
and would need to be deleted out of page history
before rewriting the article I think. Am I
correct?Ark30inf 04:18, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There are two issues -- one an anon user who
insists on adding copied text -- I think its probably
our autist friend Merritt who mails the list. He
should be temporarily blocked.
The second issue is the use of small amounts of
copied text and simple ability of us to modify it
enough to remove any direct connection to it. I
understand that this is hard to do if your goal is to
be the current m:top cop but I also see a lack of
effort -- of simply copying a boilerplate while "not
using sysop powers" to take more decisive action, as
suspect behaviour. I suggest adding a boilerplate
without removing the text, and letting people modify
it. Yes there are other editors here. -戴眩sv 04:36,
Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)
I was under the impression that copyvio stuff
needed to be deleted from the page history before
rewriting. I'm not sure that the amount of copyrighted
text makes any difference.Ark30inf 04:39, 11 Sep 2003
(UTC)
*** The only explicit answer to this is that its
unclear. There are incredible limits to how Wikipedia
can or cannot be in danger of a copyvio -- it is
likely that there are plenty of things that are
technically in violation now. The history cannot
seriously be called into question -- if you have to
dig into history to find a vio, how can it be argued
that its a current violation? Its also true that if we
know about it we can change it, and if *they know
about it, they can change it too, cant they? With an
openly editable content system it is just as much the
responsibility of an owner to change a specific entry
that violates their copyright, as it is our obligation
to accomodate them if they ask us to remove it. In
otherwords, while we can't simply copy text
willy-nilly we also can't be worried about it too much
either. As a general rule its just as easy to edit
something down to a stub - (that it may grow into
something) than it is to waste time going through VFD.
I have no interest in being anyone's cop. That is not
and never was my goal, and resent your assertion. How
am I supposed to change an article when I have no clue
what to change it to? RickK
I dont mean to offend you. Please dont take my
comments personally. If Ive been rough with you its
because I was under the impression that you were being
rough with the newbies. If I am mistaken in that
impression I apologize. -戴眩sv 04:42, Sep 11, 2003
(UTC)
You didn't answer my question as to how I'm supposed
to change an article if I don't know how to change it.
RickK 04:48, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Cut it down to a stub-- a WP:STUB is an ugly duckling
that may grow to be a swan. --Im taking a
break...-戴眩sv 04:51, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)
I understand, just thought that it was
preferred that copyvios be deleted to get them out of
page history and then rewritten/stubbed.Ark30inf
04:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history
pages. Copyvios should be listed for a week to see if
they are copyvios. Not having a (c) symbol does not
make it copyright free. Accusing people of laziness
for not wanting to correct a copyvio is out of order.
Different people have different priorities, perhaps at
different times of day. If I saw a copyvio when I was
not awake, I would not want to rewrite it as it would
be no good. If someone has no interest in a topic,
they can not be forced to write about it. Listing it
in the appropriate place for someone else is the best
idea. RickK - please stop not using your sysop powers.
The same goes for Martin. It's very annoying. Angela
06:32, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)
While I would trust your sleepytime edits over
the bright and awake edits of many others, Angela, I
would prefer to believe that the difference between
your asleep and awake skills would by reason be
astronomical. The merits of an article, although
always at the mercy of human fancy, might best be
judged when our high officials are sober. As for Rick
and Martin to chose moderation--this is to be
encouraged, but to deliberately choose (redundant?) to
not use their powers for good might constitute a
dereliction of duty. Listing it in the appropriate
place for someone else? -- If were interested in
efficiency (which I assume is the premise for
following our autist copyswipers around to immediately
undo what they do) then perhaps a simple call out on
recent changes, and an adding of a copyvio notice to
the top might prove a good balance between throwing
baby and bathwater out. Spectrefully-戴眩sv 07:28,
Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com