The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) articthis pagele seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian [1].
"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."
appears in both, for instance.
Linking to subpages of DGM violates terms of service
The terms of service (tos) of Discipline Global Mobile (DGM, a record company) expressly prohibit links to any page except the DGM homepage. The tos warns that copyright violations will be pursued legally with tenacity. There is discussion at the talk page of WP's article on DGM's founder, Robert Fripp:
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see how there could be copyright issues with linking to subpages of a web site. Fair use allows you to quote short sections of text from copyrighted works (and a URL is definitely short) and I suppose that they are below the threshold of originality anyway, making them not copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think this is an area where were we can make statements like "I fail to see..." because it is a legal syn. I suggest we look around for reliable sources that can give us some guidance on this issue. Here is one:
- Many copyright experts believe that deep linking (links that bypass a website’s home page) is not copyright infringement -- after all, the author of a novel can’t prevent readers from reading the end first if they so desire, so why should a website owner have the right to determine in what order a user can access a website? ... However, if a commercial website has no linking policy or says that deep links are not allowed, it’s wise to ask for permission before deep linking. Why? Because many websites -- even the listener-friendly National Public Radio -- have asserted rights against deep linkers under both copyright and trademark law principles.
- International law is equally murky. For example, in 2002, a Danish court prevented a website from deep linking to a newspaper site. But in 2003, Germany weighed in on the issue when its federal court ruled that deep linking was not a violation of German copyright law. Subsequently, an Indian and a Danish court both separately ruled against the practice of deep linking in 2006.
- International law is nice, but in the US, the courts have explicitly sided with those who use links; even "deep" links: Washington Post v. Total News, Ticketmaster v. Microsoft, Kelly v. Arriba Soft, Perfect 10 v. Google. Since US law governs our usage and usage OUTSIDE the US is covered by our WP:General Disclaimer, I think it is pretty safe to say that a reference usage is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, just about EVERY reference guide states you should cite the FULL URL of the source of your information, not merely the main page of a website.
- I fail to see how WP:SYN applies.
- Given that this is the fourth or fifth discussion that Kiefer has started, I believe there may be some issue of canvassing. Let's consolidate this into one discussion instead of having it all over the place. Buffs (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- The point being that now you are discussing it on case law which is much better than saying "I fail to see...". The problem with the paragraph "I fail to see... Fair use allows" is that it is advancing a position without using a legal expert to advance the position for you. -- PBS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Buffs, Let us wish that your understanding of copyright is superior to your understanding of WP:Canvas, which explicitly labels the leaving of a handful of neutrally worded notices as appropriate. The link to the discussion page at Robert Fripp was provided, and experienced editors know that (at the time) it
iswas best to continue the discussion at the original place (before discussion was closed there, to be continued here 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)- Snide comments aren't needed. Starting the same discussion in 4 places is canvassing. You've now stopped discussions elsewhere and redirected them here, ergo, any canvassing problems have been thoroughly eliminated. Have a good day.
- @PBS, "I fail to see..." indicates that the person doesn't understand your point of view. By definition, that's confusion, not synthesis. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Buffs, Let us wish that your understanding of copyright is superior to your understanding of WP:Canvas, which explicitly labels the leaving of a handful of neutrally worded notices as appropriate. The link to the discussion page at Robert Fripp was provided, and experienced editors know that (at the time) it
I think this is probably the best place to discuss the concept in a general way and let the discussion here be used for the more specific one. Here is another paper.
- Web Site Linking: Right or Privilege Richard A. Spinello June 4-5, 1999
The Ticketmaster v. Microsoft Case ...
There was an out of court settlement to this lawsuit in February 1999. Although the terms of the settlement were not disclosed Microsoft did agree to link to Ticketmaster's home page instead of to its sub-pages. The settlement was actually a disappointment for those searching for a firm legal precedent about controversial linking activities. As a result, at least in the United States there are curently no unambiguous legal guidelines on the practice of deep linking. ...
This article (Web Site Linking: Right or Privilege)also includes a section titled "Ethical Dimensions of Linking" which is worth a read and perhaps should be discussed further
In our view, a compelling case [(Locke's "labor-desert" theory)] can be put forward that a Web site should be considered as the proprietary and private property of its author and owner. ... In short, property rights are required as a return for the laborers' painful and strenuous work. ... Likewise, the utilitarian argument that ownership rights are justified ... Part of exercising that control is ensuring that visitors are exposed to the homepage so that advertising revenues will not be compromised.
--PBS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Following Buff's and PBS's suggestions, I archived the discussion at the talk page of Robert Fripp.
- I agree with your comments and recognize that the creation of those pages required extensive labour, which should be respected (and, as usual, this position is better articulated through virtue ethics than through utilitarian or Lockean British-schoolboy ethics).
- I registered with DGM and asked for Wikipedia to have permission to link to its pages, only when illustrating or documenting an assertion in an article related to DGM or Fripp, etc.
- Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article is from 1999, which means that 13 years of development are missing.
- For the 1997 Ticketmaster case, it means it is simply irrelevant, as we actually do have precedents now. Ticketmaster tried it again later, this time against Tickets.com, and the court clearly said that URL is not subject to copyright (see deep linking). And then the same thing was said again in other cases. So this issue seems to be quite clear now: deep linking is considered fair use. See the Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing for more details. So, we don't need to ask DGM for permission. The fact that in 2012, we have multi-billion-dollar companies making products that build their success on deep-linking, proves that deep-linking is not illegal. Google offers deep links to billions of web pages (including the DGM subpages), and I am sure they don't read ToS for each one of them and ask them for permission. Because they don't have to. It's fair use. If it wasn't, they would have been sued already.
- The ethical considerations are outdated, too. In the days of cloud computing, having ToS saying that deep linking will be prosecuted is absent-minded to put it very mildly, as you will violate the ToS automatically, in thousand ways, when you use modern Internet services and modern technology that are the norm in 2012. Furthermore, there was no Wikipedia in 1999, the concept of sharing common knowledge for the benefit of mankind was not known (and therefore fully considered) then. And so on. There is nothing ethical about this "no deep linking" requirement in 2012. It is deeply immoral and dangerously inhuman, if the punishments suggested in the ToS are really enforced. I find the DGM ToS highly unethical, confused and backward-looking.
- So I think we should really focus on a single thing: is deep-linking in the US legal or not regardless of what the website owner wants? If it is (and the court rulings from this millenium suggest that it indeed is), than there is no need to ask DGM or anyone else for permission, and then I would not ask them even as an act of courtesy, for the reasons explained above—as a matter of principle.—J. M. (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi J.M.
- That seems a bit below your normally high standards. Would you please remove the abuse of DGM and soapboxing? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. First, I wasn't interested in bringing ethical issues into this discussion, as I consider them irrelevant in this case. but they were brought here (i.e. considered relevant) by other people. They explained their opinion on the ethical issues, and so I did exactly the same thing, to offer my point of view. Second, I can't see anything that could abuse DGM in my comment. You said you see the requirement ethical and explained why, I said I consider it unethical and explained why.—J. M. (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Or do you mean the last sentence of the third paragraph? If that's the only thing you mean by the "abuse of DGM", then I'm making a small edit to make it 100% relevant to this discussion, and that's it.—J. M. (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- You at least removed the falsehood that "DGM views itself as 'the ethical company'"; in reality, DGM announced "an aim" to be "a model of ethical business" in a troubled industry. Your judgmental evaluations of DGM's ToS are at best superfluous. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Or do you mean the last sentence of the third paragraph? If that's the only thing you mean by the "abuse of DGM", then I'm making a small edit to make it 100% relevant to this discussion, and that's it.—J. M. (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. First, I wasn't interested in bringing ethical issues into this discussion, as I consider them irrelevant in this case. but they were brought here (i.e. considered relevant) by other people. They explained their opinion on the ethical issues, and so I did exactly the same thing, to offer my point of view. Second, I can't see anything that could abuse DGM in my comment. You said you see the requirement ethical and explained why, I said I consider it unethical and explained why.—J. M. (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with Buffs as to law: the cases summarised on the relevant articles cited above show that deeplinking with images of/from the site being linked to are allowable - all that is under discussion here is linking to the URL. I also agree with JM as to practicalities: deep linking is normal practice, unavoidable in many web functions and is how the web works the design purposes of the Web is to allow authors to link to any published document on another site (from Deep linking). Babakathy (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that I was wrong to comply with the ToS and to ask for permission to link from Wikipedia? Following Jimbo Wales's and the WMF's misuse of Wikipedia in protesting SOPA, I thought Wikipedia was making some token moves to respect others' copyright and property rights. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- "The WMF's misuse"? First time I've seen the WMF accused of misuse for following community consensus, but...okay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of the community differs from the consensus of the community. Consensual decision-making is practiced by many Societies of Friends ("Quakers") and other intentional communities. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you would have read consensus here differently than the three administrators who closed it, I gather, and would have preferred that the WMF second-guess them as well. It seems the Wikimedia Foundation is in a rather tough spot. :/ The community is not happy that they disagreed with and would not implement WP:ACTRIAL, and you're accusing them of misusing Wikipedia for following what they were asked to do by three administrators in good standing closing out an extremely well advertised and attended community discussion. The RFC that User:Aaron Brenneman is proposing to draw together could be helpful to surface different ideas of what the WMF is supposed to do when the community wants to take action. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of the community differs from the consensus of the community. Consensual decision-making is practiced by many Societies of Friends ("Quakers") and other intentional communities. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- "The WMF's misuse"? First time I've seen the WMF accused of misuse for following community consensus, but...okay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that I was wrong to comply with the ToS and to ask for permission to link from Wikipedia? Following Jimbo Wales's and the WMF's misuse of Wikipedia in protesting SOPA, I thought Wikipedia was making some token moves to respect others' copyright and property rights. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with Buffs as to law: the cases summarised on the relevant articles cited above show that deeplinking with images of/from the site being linked to are allowable - all that is under discussion here is linking to the URL. I also agree with JM as to practicalities: deep linking is normal practice, unavoidable in many web functions and is how the web works the design purposes of the Web is to allow authors to link to any published document on another site (from Deep linking). Babakathy (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
break for convenience
I did not say anything about asking for permission to link. But since you ask, I think it is not straightforward as while it is a courtesy to do so, it is also a bit of a problem if they say no. (and how practical is this, does someone have to ask seperately each time we link?)
- More generally, can we please stick to the merits of this issue, which will apply elsewhere, and avoid snide comments about DGM, WMF and so on. They make this discussion uncivil when it need not be so.Babakathy (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe that this reference has been raised yet; forgive me if I'm wrong:
“ | So far, the courts have found that deep links to web pages are neither copyright infringement nor trespass. No court has enforced a website's terms of use that bar deep linking. --Electronic Frontier Foundation | ” |
- While I'm all about respecting copyright, there's a couple of things to think about: first, the person who would be liable for violating a site's terms of service is the person who violated the site's terms of service--that is, the editor who found and added the link originally. Our readers and reusers, who found the link on Wikipedia, will have entered into no such agreement with the site. Second, links are easily removed on a cease & desist request. Third, there is no universal presumption that deep linking is disallowed. NOLO notes at the Stanford website that, for instance, Amazon welcomes deep linking. I would not myself knowingly violate a commercial website's deep linking prohibition, and I would never counsel anybody to do so. But I would not support a blanket prohibition against deep linking. It is a useful practice, widely accepted, with little precedent against it in the US, which governs us collectively. It might be worth noting somewhere that the legality of deep linking is not entirely settled, that users are responsible for the links they add under the laws of their own jurisdictions, and that if they know a site discourages deep linking, they should take this into account. I'm not sure that many of our editors understand that they are personally liable for what they do here, even if what they do is within our policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The legal issue seems clear, the ToS of DGM is a matter for users of the site (and if someone utters a link, then a non-user would be able to link with impunity). The policy issue is another matter, and one we could perhaps address by looking at and respecting the NOINDEX requirements of web sites, the alternative being individual site negotiation (or a bit of both). Technically, if DGM would like to send me a large amount of money I will show them how to make the site un-linkable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
- I don;t think this is a DGM policy, it's just some cut and paste legal terms. See this search. Like those ToS that injunct against using cancelbots and make us ROFL. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
- I would summarize this discussion. The community views the legal warning of prosecution as lacking credibility, under the current U.S. law . If there were a problem of legal liability, the editor adding the link would be most responsible; other editors would hardly be liable. The decision of whether or not to add a link to a particular website is best decided on the individual article's talk page or on the talk page of a closely related project. An individual editor is free to ask the website for permission to deep-link (when this is prohibited by the ToS); a few have emphasized that politely requesting permission is not required by WP policy and some have further raised the concern that such requests may set an unwanted precedent. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you've got it. It's just as credible as saying "If you violate these terms of service, we will sue you, take your house, kill your dog, and eat your children." Likewise, if it isn't necessary to ask permission, then you don't need to do so. Asking is a mere pleasantry. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would summarize this discussion. The community views the legal warning of prosecution as lacking credibility, under the current U.S. law . If there were a problem of legal liability, the editor adding the link would be most responsible; other editors would hardly be liable. The decision of whether or not to add a link to a particular website is best decided on the individual article's talk page or on the talk page of a closely related project. An individual editor is free to ask the website for permission to deep-link (when this is prohibited by the ToS); a few have emphasized that politely requesting permission is not required by WP policy and some have further raised the concern that such requests may set an unwanted precedent. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don;t think this is a DGM policy, it's just some cut and paste legal terms. See this search. Like those ToS that injunct against using cancelbots and make us ROFL. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
- The legal issue seems clear, the ToS of DGM is a matter for users of the site (and if someone utters a link, then a non-user would be able to link with impunity). The policy issue is another matter, and one we could perhaps address by looking at and respecting the NOINDEX requirements of web sites, the alternative being individual site negotiation (or a bit of both). Technically, if DGM would like to send me a large amount of money I will show them how to make the site un-linkable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
- While I'm all about respecting copyright, there's a couple of things to think about: first, the person who would be liable for violating a site's terms of service is the person who violated the site's terms of service--that is, the editor who found and added the link originally. Our readers and reusers, who found the link on Wikipedia, will have entered into no such agreement with the site. Second, links are easily removed on a cease & desist request. Third, there is no universal presumption that deep linking is disallowed. NOLO notes at the Stanford website that, for instance, Amazon welcomes deep linking. I would not myself knowingly violate a commercial website's deep linking prohibition, and I would never counsel anybody to do so. But I would not support a blanket prohibition against deep linking. It is a useful practice, widely accepted, with little precedent against it in the US, which governs us collectively. It might be worth noting somewhere that the legality of deep linking is not entirely settled, that users are responsible for the links they add under the laws of their own jurisdictions, and that if they know a site discourages deep linking, they should take this into account. I'm not sure that many of our editors understand that they are personally liable for what they do here, even if what they do is within our policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts:
- As a legal matter, whether a complaint by a web-site manager claiming that a link is a WP:COPYVIO has any legal merit falls under WP:OFFICE and it's not productive to discuss it here, except perhaps as preliminary discussion to see if the claim is void on its face or if it has enough merit that a legal opinion is required.
- As a matter of what does the English Wikipedia want to do regarding deep linking against the explicit wishes of a web site operator when deep linking is not a violation of the law, that's something that should be discussed on the Copyright policy talk pages and probably linked to from WP:CENT.
- As far as the use of a link on a specific article page where neither law nor Wikipedia policy prohibited it, that's up to the editors of the page in question. Of course, all other policies and guidelines still apply: Having a link to DGM on a page where that link serves no useful purpose should be edited away.
List copyright issues
I may have screwed up: I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz because I believe the list reproduction to be a copyright violation, and then remembered the existence of this board. Should I let the AFD run its course? Withdraw it and list here?—Kww(talk) 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like a speedy to me. CSD or blank the copyvio parts and list here. The AFD seems unnecessary. Franamax (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I left a longer response at the AfD, but strictly speaking, this is not a list reproduction (i.e., there was no list (by Penguin or otherwise) until I created one here). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am very much afraid that this list is likely to constitute a derivative work. :/ What a reference considers "core" is extremely creative, and even though you haven't copied over a list, it seems to me that transforming their work into a list could easily be "a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted".17 U.S.C. § 101 No matter how we shake it, this isn't fact, but opinion. If this were listed at CP, I would delete the list, with true regret, on that basis. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I left a longer response at the AfD, but strictly speaking, this is not a list reproduction (i.e., there was no list (by Penguin or otherwise) until I created one here). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Question
I recently removed material from Olive oil and Mediterranean diet which looked like possible copyvio from here. I then left a message on the talk page of the editor, who says he is the author of said material (username fits author name). As I am not well versed in this procedures of this area, especially when the user reports he is the author of the material, I wanted going to bring it up to you all to see what the proper next step is (restore material, get more information, etc). Any help is appreciated. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- If someone claims to own off-site material which is presumed to be copyrighted, they need to go through one of the routes listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The simplest is if they just put a CC-BY-SA 3.0 "free" license notice on the document in question, or they can go through the WP:OTRS system to verify their identity, ownership, and intent to freely license the work. So that's the first step BUT this looks like a doctoral thesis to me, which I believe we consider as original research, so the editor should be warned it will likely not be permitted in any case, unless they provide the underlying sources for their statements. A doctoral thesis is not peer-reviewed per se, i.e. it is reviewed by the examination board, but not published in a journal. The doctoral thesis itself, to my knowledge, does not constitute a reliable source - though text excerpted from the thesis (and donated through OTRS) may be acceptable if it cites the underlying sources and specifically not the thesis itself. Hope that helps... Franamax (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am the author of the material removed, as mentioned above. I am new in wikipedia and I have recently received an answer to my feedback, raising up the issue of conflict of interest. I would like to ask for assistance on this issue which I consider very important. My contribution to wikipedia, is as mentioned above. I have used some paragraphs from my doctoral thesis enriched with more information on the subject of olive oil and Mediterranean diet. My doctoral thesis, is supported by 3 original, peer-reviewed scientific publications, as it is done in all biomedical research field nowadays. So, it is indeed peer-reviewed, otherwise it would not be a thesis. I have no interest in any kind of publicity in wikipedia. I have noticed that information on this novel area of nutrigenomics is missing from the above wikipedia articles and this is the only reason I decided to add a part on it. All my contributions were written by myself and I used scientific peer-reviewed publications to cite all the other information. If I have misunderstood the scope of wikipedia's contribution, please let me know. I would like to re-write my contribution but the main idea and information will be the same, because there is no other scientific evidence on this field. Is this ok with wikipedia's good practice rules?Thank you!ValentiniK (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. :) Thanks for your interest in improving this article. There are two issues to consider here. First, unless you rewrite your contribution in completely original language, you will still need to verify permission in accordance with Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. We don't have any way currently to connect individual accounts with real life identities, so we have to use external processes to make sure that copyright license is legal. It isn't that we doubt you; it's that with legal issues, everything has to be done just so. :)
- The second question, as you suggest, is the reliability of your research. There is no reason that we cannot accept your research as long as it is verified by reliable sources (see WP:IRS). We do have policies against "original research" (see WP:NOR), but that generally refers to primary research that is not backed by reliable sources or "synthesis" of sources to draw conclusions that they do not directly support. Every content creator on Wikipedia engages in research; that you did it for publication elsewhere first doesn't matter. :) (See WP:SELFCITE.) As long as you either verify license through the method above or put your research in new language, you should generally be okay.
- The final question to consider, though, is citation. If your doctoral thesis is published in a reliable source (as you seem to suggest), you may cite it directly, although doing too much of that is likely to lead to people thinking you're here to promote yourself. If you are referring to your own published conclusions (what would constitute "original research" on Wikipedia), you would want to cite your publication (sparingly) to do so. Sparingly helps prevent people misunderstanding you and thinking you are here to promote yourself but also helps avoid putting "undue weight" on your own views. We try to represent views even-handedly (see WP:UNDUE). If, however, you are bringing in information from sources you read and referenced in your own work, you should probably cite those sources directly.
- Again, thanks much for contributing! Expert help is always welcome, although there are best practices to engage in to avoid misunderstandings. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing examples
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing concerning the language of the examples being used there. These examples were generated to give contributors guidance in talking to other editors where problems are sufficient enough to warrant tagging of the article, either by blanking with {{copyvio}} or with {{close paraphrasing}}. The specifics at this point seem to revolve around whether or not the examples should be altered to default to use on a single passage of close paraphrasing (by removing the current text "This is an example, there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely") or altered to embrace paraphrasing that may not be as close (by eliminating the term "very" from "very closed paraphrased"). Additional input in this conversation would be welcome to help establish consensus, here. The section immediately above is, really, essential reading. Sorry for the complexity; a content dispute seems to have swelled it a bit. :) Please see the discussion there if you have an opinion and would like to take part. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Palestinian costumes
Some sections of this article Palestinian costumes are almost direct quotes from a website on the subject. They are only a small part of a lengthy and important article which has been completely shut down. Is there any way of isolating the problem areas that need attention rather than censoring the work of many other editors?
Also is this claim of copyright violation a tool that any editor can use?Padres Hana (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- All editors are encouraged to help deal with copyright violations. Please see WP:CV101 for more information on how. It is important to Wikipedia, to copyright owners, and to our content reusers that we keep our material legal and free. If you believe that the problem is isolated to specific sections of the article, I would encourage you to talk to the tagger to see if the blanking can be limited to those sections. If not, and you want to help rewrite the article to remove the problem, directions for doing so are on the template itself and also at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Rewriting content. As noted there, your rewrite would be placed on a temporary page. If you do choose to assist in this way, please note on the talk page that you are doing so to help avoid the administrator who is reviewing the issue overlooking your rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Tawfiq Canaan
This article relies heavily on one source for much of the biographical info on Tawfiq Canaan. I spent a lot of time trying to phrase the mterial in such a way that it is not too close a paraphrase of this source but it is challenging given the limited ways in which one can impart biographical details. The article has now been tagged as a copy vio. I am worried it will be deleted before it is reviewed by other editors or before I have a chance to try to rework the material yet again. I would very much appreciate someone with experience reviewing the article and determining if the current tag is appropriate or if a close paraphrasing tag should be used instead or none at all. I should mention my contribs are currently under review. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tiamut. Tiamuttalk 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't have time to review the article right now (the source is long, and work is busy), but I just wanted to let you know that the article will not be deleted without review. All articles tagged for copyright problems are reviewed by a copyright clerk or an administrator before deletion.
- If I wanted to work on a rewrite and needed more time, what I would do is get it going in the temporary space and put a prominent and easily visible notice at the top of that temporary space that you would appreciate lengthening the period of the copyright problem listing to allow you to complete the work. If I were the administrator handling a listing and saw such a note, I would relist it without a second thought. While the article is blanked, there is no danger of redistribution, and we can afford to take time to repair it. :)
- Without having time to do a comparison of the source and the article, I will offer you some of my general advice for handling rewrites where I find challenge given the limited ways one can impart biographical details.
- The threshold for creativity is pretty low, and it protects not only the language that somebody uses but the way they put their facts together. The degree to which you need to write "different" depends, really, on how much you are taking from any one source. If source A says "John Smith was born in 1967", you're not going to get in any trouble saying the same (no creativity there; it is a very standard way to identify year of birth) if it's the only reference you draw from source A. (That said, I would still switch it up: "Born in 1967, John Smith....") If you then go on to follow their organization in large part, though, you're no longer just reproducing an uncreative way to say something. Think of it like art. A straight line is uncreative. The more straight lines that combine in the greater number of angles, the more creative it becomes. If you copy the pattern from somebody else's arrangement of straight lines, you may well infringe their copyright, even though the pattern is entirely constructed of straight lines. :) The closer you come to replicating their pattern, the more of an issue you are likely to create. When taking biographical details from a single source (or from a few sources), you are at greater risk of copying their pattern. You need to avoid both taking their language (where at all creative) and their patterns.
- Try to meld multiple sources into the same sections. If you can take a fact from one and a fact from another, for instance, rather than copying over the facts from one, you are less likely to wind up with a closely paraphrased work, because your pattern will be significantly different.
- Take basic notes from your sources and then merge those into sentences of your own. For instance, if your source says, "John Smith was born in 1967 to Rebecca and Harold Smith of Long Island, but was almost immediately transferred into the care of his paternal grandparents in Maine", your notes might say: "Place of birth: Long Island; Parents: Rebecca & Harold Smith; YOB: 1967; grew up in: Maine; caretakers: grandparents." Without looking at the source, you can then build something out of that yourself. For instance, I might build this sentence: "A native of Long Island, Smith was raised in Maine by his paternal grandparents." And work the YOB and the names of his parents into another. Ideally, if I've found multiple sources, I can do that one better: "A native of Long Island, Smith was raised in Maine by George and Harriet Smith who stepped in after his parents, Harold and Rebecca, abandoned him on the steps of the Long Island church days after his birth in 1967."
- Caveat on the previous note: I very seldom rewrite sentence by sentence, because it is almost impossible to do it correctly. Instead, I would take notes of a paragraph or several paragraphs - still ideally with multiple sources - and work from there. If you rewrite sentence by sentence, it is very hard not to wind up with a close paraphrase because you will still be following the arrangement of your source. :/ If you are able to work with extended passages, taking notes, you can consider whether their arrangement is the only one that makes sense. With biographies, sometimes it is - chronological frequently works best. But there may be ways you can switch it up still. For instance, if we know more about Smith's relatives, we could start off our "early life" passage talking about who they were - what George and Harriet did for a living and who Harold and Rebecca were that they would abandon Smith to begin with.
- After any rewrite, take a moment to compare it to your source. Don't look for where they are different; look for where they are the same. Are there many points where they are? If so, can you do anything to switch it up further?
- Hope this helps somewhat! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Bot problems
DpmukBOT hasn't run today because it's reporting very high (>4.5 hours) database lag. Don't know more than that at the moment. Dpmuk (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Right, boring technical reasons appear to be behind the lag ([2]). I've run it manually ignoring the lag. In doing so I seem to have made a minor error in running it from my computer as opposed to toolserver that meant it listed something that was already listed. I'd put it down to the operator being tired and about to go to bed rather than anything wrong with the bot itself! I'll have a look and see what happens tomorrow. Hopefully things should get back to normal soon. Dpmuk (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I deleted Oforia under the G12 speedy deletion criterion because it appeared to be copied and pasted from this website (click on the Info tab). The article's principal author has written to me that he published the same text on several sites, and he would like us to restore the Wikipedia article. The content in question was added to the Wikipedia article during July 2008 and the website has a 2008 copyright notice.
What should I do? Can I restore the article and add {{backwardscopy}} to its Talk page? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it wouldn't be a G12 because there's content in history prior to the influx of potentially copyrighted content. G12 is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable. :) "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." If nothing else, the versions of 11:13, 30 April 2008 and before could be published.
- In terms of the disputed content, if we can't prove that it was the same person who published the text on several sites, we can't publish it here, even if it's true. If content was published elsewhere before it reached Wikipedia, we are required to verify license. Moreover, if in submitting it to one of those websites he surrendered copyright, he doesn't have the right to place it here even if he is the original author. Lyrics.com, at their Terms of Use, note that "Lyrics.com is the sole owner of all content and intellectual property of the web site, unless otherwise noted."
- Beyond that, the content was actually added by an IP editor in April 2008, here, and subsequently modified by that IP editor and others, including the named account. I feel quite confident that it was here before lyrics.com had it, given this [3]; "one of the inventors of the genere" becomes "one of the inventors of the genre". It's highly unlikely that the IP would have copied it incorrectly from the other site and then fixed the misspelling.
- Given that, I would feel comfortable restoring the entire article and placing {{backwardscopy}} on the talk page.
- If you find an article tagged for G12 that doesn't meet the criteria, please feel free to put {{copyvio}} on it and list it at WP:CP. That'll give time for a more complete evaluation of the background. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate your detailed reply. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright attribution of CC3 file
These files: [4], [5], are based on another file licensed under creative commons: [6]. The original file was created by a blogger in May 2011, before the creation of the other two files. The original file has a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. The pink version of the image attributes the source, but the second one does not. What is the best way to handle this. aprock (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- When something that is compatibly licensed lacks necessary attribution, the best way to handle it is to add attribution and drop a friendly note to the contributor who uploaded it about licensing requirements. :) It may be a good idea to glance to see if this looks like a pattern or to request that the contributor fix any other attribution issues he or she may have created. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Maria
The article Maria (1956 song) includes the image File:Maria leonard bernstein.JPG. This is an image of some words and music from the song. The license information for the image notes that it was placed in the public domain by the creator, which is true of the image, but it seems to me that there needs to be additional justification for the use of the copyrighted original source material. After some thought, I've decided to post here, rather than at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions because my concern is about the non-media portion of this, even though the technical format is jpeg. Matchups 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's a clear derivative work, but it's on Commons. We can't process it here. :) I'll tag it for them to handle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thủy Pháp at AfD. Protocol question
The article on Thủy Pháp is at AfD. Now that the source website is identified, I would normally tag for CSD G12 but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about this. On the other hand, it seems wrong to let it sit there for 7 days while the AfD discussion runs its course. Blank for CP evaluation, perhaps? Would appreciate input from more experienced hands.--CharlieDelta (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Blanking for CP is fine. G12 may be okay, but I would not use it if there's any chance for permission; {{copyvio}} is better in those cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. Of course, given what the article creator says about the source, it should be {{copyvio}} not G12. Thanks again.--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hist merge needed or not?
Just recently, I seem to have been dealing with a few cut-and-paste moves at SCV where the original article has been turned into a dab page for whatever reason. To begin with, I added the {{Copied}} template on both talk pages to provide the attribution to the previous page and marked the SCV listing as OK. Now that I've read the example at WP:CPMV which seems to illustrate exactly the situation I have been dealing with, I'm wondering whether these should, strictly speaking be marked as needing a history merge. Seems a lot of admin work. I'm wondering what the best course of action is in these cases. Dipogon (plant) and Cliff Parker (English football) are two recent examples.--CharlieDelta (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've repaired those two.
- It's a pain, but better to repair where we can - the second example is a perfect case, as Cliff Parker (English football) was moved to Cliff Parker (footballer) subsequent to your tagging. When content is moved around, it's easy to lose it. :) When you encounter them at SCV, the best thing to do is probably just to flag them
{{subst:SCV|M}}
. The best thing is, as I know you do, to explain to the contributor why this is a problem, even if just using the template. They don't always listen to the bot, and we'd like them to stop. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)- Could I ask you, in that case, to look at Pallada which was turned into a dab page with a move of content to Russian frigate Pallada? I suspect that will also need repairing. The move was done by an admin, User:Parsecboy, which gave me some pause...--CharlieDelta (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Even administrators can't keep up with everything. :) I'm sure this is just an area that he hasn't worked in. I've let him know, and finished out the attribution (we need the link in edit summary and it's a really good idea to place {{copied}} at the origin page, to prevent its ever being inadvertently deleted; there's a template specifically for multiple instances of copying, but I've got too much to do today and so just took the easy route!). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Potential broad copyright issues
- Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole (history · last edit) from [7] First paragraph of article section copied almost verbatim from recent Economist article Dan Griscom (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've confirmed that this is a problem and notified the contributor, relisting under today to give him time to fix it. It's worrisome. A spot-check of the rest of the article may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've cleaned this one and am out of time, but have some concerns that the contributor may not be conversant with our standards on close paraphrasing. On 29 March, he added the following content to an article:
Vermont Yankee has reached the end of its projected lifetime operation, but the NRC favors extending its license, despite strong local opposition. On March 22, 2012, more than 1,000 people marched in protest to the plant, and about 130 engaging in civil disobedience were arrested, including the stalwart 93-year-old anti-nuclear activist Frances Crowe.
- The source he used says:
Vermont Yankee has reached the end of its projected lifetime operation, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission favors extending its license, despite strong local opposition.... On March 22, more than 1,000 people marched in protest to the plant, and about 130 engaging in civil disobedience were arrested, including the stalwart 93-year-old activist Frances Crowe.
- This prompted me to look at some of his other work. I picked one article at random from his "good" list: Requiem for a Species. Comparing the first version to his sources, I see immediately this issue:
Hamilton makes his argument in three stages. First, he reviews the evidence about how serious the situation is already and how much worse it will get. Second, he examines the roots of our denial, both in terms of our resistance to the evidence and in relation to the actors and agencies motivated to deny climate change. Last, he looks at some future scenarios and reflects on what people should do.
- His source says:
Hamilton makes this argument in stages. First, he reviews the evidence to impress on us how bad the situation is already and how much worse it will get. Then he examines the roots of our denial, both in terms of our resistance to the evidence and in relation to the actors and agencies motivated to deny the truth. Last, he looks at some likely futures and reflects on what we can do about it all.
- I'm unsure if this necessitates a more indepth check and wanted feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've copied this from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 25 as I need more time to develop it and it should not hold up the closure of that day. My concerns persist. For instance, in this 2007 edit, I see that the contributor added content sourced to this "all rights reserved" source, which includes the following text:
Energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) are the “twin pillars” of sustainable energy policy. Both resources must be developed aggressively if we are to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our lifetimes. Efficiency is essential to slowing the energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too fast, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total emissions; reducing the carbon content of energy sources is also needed. Any serious vision of a sustainable energy economy thus requires major commitments to both efficiency and renewables.
Text he added said:
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are sometimes said to be the “twin pillars” of sustainable energy policy. Both resources must be developed in order to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Efficiency slows down energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too fast, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total emissions; reducing the carbon content of energy sources is also needed. Any serious vision of a sustainable energy economy thus requires commitments to both renewables and efficiency.
No intentional plagiarism, obviously, as he cites his source, but this a very close paraphrase.
In this edit, he uses this source, which says:
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the government will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up vast areas contaminated by radiation from the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl....Japan faces the prospect of removing and disposing 29 million cubic meters of soil from a sprawling area in Fukushima, located 240 kilometers (150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, and four nearby prefectures.
He added:
In October 2011, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the government will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up vast areas contaminated by radiation from the Fukuahima nuclear disaster. Japan "faces the prospect of removing and disposing 29 million cubic meters of soil from a sprawling area in Fukushima, located 240 kilometers (150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, and four nearby prefectures".
For some reason, he only started added quotation marks with the word "faces."
I need more time to delve into this to see if it is widespread enough to merit a CCI. It looks like small passages of precisely duplicated or very closely paraphrased content throughout. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've approached the contributor about it again, although last time he removed my note without response or without taking action on the article. While these have all been relatively small amounts, the most recent issue I have found is a bit more extensive, in this edit from November 2011.
- He added this:
In the United States, new-reactor construction has also suffered—not because of public opposition but because of economics and tougher, yet-to-be-determined, safety regulations. The bottom line is that in 2007, U.S. utilities applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 nuclear-power plants before 2020; now, if more than three come online before the end of the decade, it will be a major accomplishment.
Finally, there’s France—per capita, the world’s most nuclear-powered state. Frequently heralded as a nuclear commercial model for the world, today it’s locked in a national debate over a partial nuclear phaseout. President Nicolas Sarkozy, to be sure, is still backing nuclear power, but his Socialist opponent, François Hollande, now well ahead in the polls, has proposed cutting nuclear power’s contribution to the electrical grid by more than a third by 2025. Hollande is following a clear shift in French public opinion, from two thirds who backed nuclear power before Fukushima to 62 percent who are now favoring a progressive phaseout. In addition, the French courts just awarded Greenpeace €1.5 million against the French nuclear giant EDF for illegally spying on the group. Public support of this judgment and the French Socialist Party’s wooing of the French Greens makes the likelihood of Hollande backing off his pledge minuscule.
- His copyrighted source says this:
In the United States, new-reactor construction has also suffered—not because of public opposition but because of economics. Even before Fukushima, a superabundance of relatively clean-burning natural gas and a dearth of financing for projects whose construction costs were escalating out of control suggested the nuclear renaissance was imploding. Then Fukushima threatened to be the catalyst for tougher, yet-to-be-determined safety regulations. The bottom line is that in 2007, U.S. utilities applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 nuclear-power plants before 2020; now, if more than three come online before the end of the decade, it will be a major accomplishment.
Finally, there’s France—per capita, the world’s most nuclear-powered state. Frequently heralded as a nuclear commercial model for the world, today it’s locked in a national debate over a partial nuclear phaseout. President Nicolas Sarkozy, to be sure, is still backing nuclear power, but his Socialist opponent, François Hollande, now well ahead in the polls, has proposed cutting nuclear power’s contribution to the electrical grid by more than a third by 2025. Hollande is following a clear shift in French public opinion, from two thirds who backed nuclear power before Fukushima to 62 percent who are now favoring a progressive phaseout. In addition, the French courts just awarded Greenpeace €1.5 million against the French nuclear giant EDF for illegally spying on the group. Public support of this judgment and the French Socialist Party’s wooing of the French Greens makes the likelihood of Hollande backing off his pledge minuscule.
- This last example is particularly concerning to me as it is a substantial amount of unacknowledged, duplicated text that serves no apparent transformative use. I am beginning, like User:Dpmuk, to lean towards thinking we may need a WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can assure you that your messages on my Talk page are not being ignored, and really have tried to lift my game since you previously spoke to me. And I can assure you that I am working to improve WP as best I can, even if sometimes that is not good enough. I certainly am not a perfect editor and in the heat of adding a contribution, with pressures of limited time, mistakes sometimes do occur. I am happy to go back through some of my edits with a view to re-wording if you wish, perhaps starting with the GA articles. Perhaps there is someone who specialises in copyediting, and who knows more about these things than I do, who could also help? Or I will understand if you need to block me. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just blanked Kings Canyon Solar Power Station. Looks like a CCI is necessary. MER-C 03:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Moonriddengirl for putting another note on my Talk page. I am certainly very keen to keep the communication channels open and co-operate wherever I can. I appreciate that you are willing to “minimize fuss and just get the job done” here. As a show of good faith, I have been copyediting some sections of my articles, starting with the GAs. Thank you for giving some thought as to who might be able to assist with this copyediting process, as I am certainly open to receiving advice and help from someone with more knowledge and expertise in this area than I. Johnfos (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Mark Weinberg (judge) close paraphrase?
I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at the discussion about close paraphrasing on this article. The content has clearly been copied and then tweaked from the info at The Federal Court of Australia website. However, since the content there is really only a list of dates and appointments, the contributor is maintaining that this is acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines and has removed both the CSB and the close paraphrase tag. I can see both sides of this discussion and would be grateful for some guidance as to next steps (or is this, in fact, acceptable?). BTW, From an earlier discussion on the contributor's Talk page, it is possible that a number of articles on Australian judges may have been added in a similar manner.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Structure of Freemasonry poster.jpg
Could someone please look into the attribution at [[File:Structure of Freemasonry poster.jpg]]... I am positive that this image was originally created for an article on Freemasonry that appeared in the Oct. 8, issue of Life Magazine... and does not date to the 19th century as is claimed in the file description. Two sources that I trust both give proper attribution (see: [8] and [9]). I don't know whether our hosting this image is a copyright violation or not... but at least we should credit it correctly. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)