Talk:Canadian Copyright in Contrast to American Copyright

To do. Please write a brief definition or description of this article at Canadian Copyright in Contrast to American Copyright/Definition.

Metadata here

Moved from one with the wrong title. Patrick Nikulak 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, next time we'll use the 'move' tab to move an article to a new page rather than a copy and paste. That way the history of your edits will come with the article. If you have trouble, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. D. Matt Innis 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Approval Process: failed

Call for review: :Requested by author User:Patrick Nikulak

Call for Approval: Anthony.Sebastian 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Dropped: 00:18, 29 March 2012 Anthony.Sebastian

Approval notice:

Certification of Approval:

Please discuss the article below, under 'Comments'.  Canadian Copyright in Contrast to American Copyright/Approval is for brief official referee's only!

Comments

I hope that I don't sound like a stickler for formatting ... but I don't believe that this article is ready for approval because:

• It has no "Definition" subpage. It should be created and include a definition.
• It has no "Related Articles" subpage or "Bibliography" subpage or "External Links" subpage. All 3 should at least be created and at least 2 of them should be populated to some extent.
• The references are not formatted as they should be. References should not include "raw" urls like http://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCentre/article.asp?pubID=2231 . See Help:Index/Formatting/References for a tutorial on how to create Citizendium references.
• The author, Patrick Nikulak, is not an Editor, yet he has signed the Metadata page as the "ToA Editor" nominating the article for approval. Is that kosher???

As for the writing style of the main article, a brief scan disclosed that it lacks a good number of commas and there are some other typos that need correcting. I would suggest that one of our Linguistic experts, like Ro Thorpe, review the article from the viewpoint of spelling and grammar.

I am no copyright expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the actual content of the article appears to be good and knowledgeable to me.

Overall, I would rate this article as a status 2 (Developing article) rather than a status 1 (Developed completely or nearly so). Milton Beychok 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copyedited this article to some extent. Henry A. Padleckas 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Initial comments for author Patrick Nikulak

• Patrick, any author may request a call for review for an Article Approval, which I have done for you (see above), but nominations for approval must come from an Editor, or the Approval Manager, as I understand the policy:

"An article (including subpages like Bibliography, Definition, External links, Related articles) is so well developed that it gives the Citizendium reader a good introduction and overview to its topic. An editor in the article's workgroup will be needed to nominate the article for approval." See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process#Overview

• You have not provided a definition, or developed any of the subpages of the article. Please consider whether you can improve the article by doing so.

• A few sentences in the text seem to express a personal opinion, or 'point of view'. Those expressions are best eliminated:
  • "The first, and perhaps most terrifying, is the fact that it made breaking DRM illegal."
  • "Finally, perhaps the most important part of the legislation is the limitation of liability to ISP’s." BTW: ISPs preferable to ISP's, as the context implies plural, not possessive.

• ↑ Harris, Lesley. Canadian Copyright Law. Washington Special Collections, 2001. http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.uregina.ca:2048/docview/197383124 (accessed March 1, 2012). The link to this reference does not seem correct.

• Patrick, I will remove the nomination banner, and begin looking for an Editor in Workgroups Law, Education, and Sociology to nominate the article.

• I found the article interesting.  —Anthony.Sebastian 03:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager.

Milton, your comments popped up as I was writing mine. We seem generally to agree. Anthony.Sebastian 03:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tony: Our comments are so similar that it is eerie. Milton Beychok 03:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The first, and perhaps most terrifying, is the fact that it made breaking DRM illegal." does not seem completely understandable to me. In my last copyedit, I clarified in that sentence that DRM meant Digital rights management with a link to the article. Henry A. Padleckas 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

More comment

I am uncomfortable with the fact that of the 12 references, 4 are from blogs and 2 are from news items. Personally, I don't usually consider such sources to be credible ... especially the blogs. Milton Beychok 03:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"The United States (US) Government accuses Canada of being a haven for piracy while Canadian consumers believe it is just right" sounds awkward. I believe there are handful of awkward statements throughout the article. (Chunbum Park 05:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

To me "Canadian consumers believe it is just right" seems completely unacceptable. First off, why "Canadian consumers" rather than just "Canadians"? I resent the apparent implication that our consuming behaviour defines us.

Secondly, the assertion that people "believe it is just right" requires evidence. My guess is that if you go looking for that evidence, you will find that actually the situation is far more complex than that simple assertion. Some believe it is just right, others that it is too lax, still others that it is too strict, Sandy Harris 06:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

More comment: Recommend that the Call for Approval be cancelled

Now that I have gone through each of the 14 references, it appears that only 2 or 3 are bona fide, reliable and verifiable references. Four of the references are blogs which means that they are simply someone's opinions, two are news reports which are often unreliable, one is very obviously from the website of an activist group which means that it is not unbiased, and two require having a library card from Regina, Canada which means that they are not easily verifiable.

I suggest that the Call for Approval be cancelled until much better references are provided. As of now, the article has a status of 2 (developing article) on the metadata page, so why are spending time on a Call for Approval? The article should be first be further developed. Milton Beychok 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is potential for a fine article here, but we aren't there yet.

On the other hand, one could also make a case for scrapping this article entirely and just using the best of it to expand copyright. That article currently has sections on US and UK copyright law, but nothing on Canada or other countries. Material here would make fine start on a Canada section. Sandy Harris 01:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, We shouldn't necessarily be too hard on blogs. Michael Geist,for instance, is the current "go-to" guy on Canadian Copyright. Second, It's a nuisance that third party archives like ProQuest make it difficult for people with different library cards to share references, this shouldn't influence how we assess their verifiability.

Still, I think we should gently suggest to the author that the call for approval is a little premature. As to moving material to copyright, we can do that 'and' keep this article (they're just bits) -Derek Hodges 13:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the comments made and will make an attempt to repair the article. I reject the claim that these sources are biased because they are blogged. As pointed out, Michael Geist is the go to guy on Canadian Copyright. I apologize that ProQuest does not make their articles public, but, due to the fact that Journals are more reputable than any available source online, I reject the claim that these are not bona fide. I am a full time student working full time, do not expect a response within a week. Patrick Nikulak 16:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

←UNINDENT: Given the lack response by Patrick to the many comments over a considerable period of time, and given the nature of the comments, I have temporarily removed the call for review, until we decide what to do with the article.  Anthony.Sebastian 00:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrick, regarding comments

Patrick, it is important that you respond to the comments made by Editors and other authors, otherwise the Approval Manager cannot evaluate the article and discussion for consideration of Approval. Anthony.Sebastian 03:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony, when I was an Editorial Personnel Administrator, I saw this happen a number of times. Someone would join CZ and write an article (or sometimes 2-3 articles) and then disappear completely ... making it obvious that he/she had joined us with an agenda to only write about some pet subject.

According to Patrick's "User Contributions", on March 13th he wrote his article about Canadian copyright law and then he disappeared completely for the next two weeks. I doubt that we will ever hear from him again.

I strongly suggest that the Approval process for his article be completely abandoned and removed from the green banner we all see at the top of our watchlists. Milton Beychok 16:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I am not retired like many people here, I find it insulting, your insinuation Milton that, I do not respond to comments. That being said, I would support a move to the Copyright page instead of this being a stand-alone article. Patrick Nikulak 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrick, I apologise for mis-reading your intentions. However, I would suggest that, retired or not, one could explain their absence in one or two sentences at least once during an absence of two weeks. Milton Beychok 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I will seek Editorial Council approval to relocate the article to Copyright. Anthony.Sebastian 19:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)