CZ Talk:Notice Board: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert Tito mNo edit summary |
imported>Todd Trimble (Orphans and Deletion) |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
I do not think it is a good idea for me or anyone to write legal language on the fly. May I suggest you remove the original request from the Notice Board until the license issue can be dealt with more thoroughly. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 17:07, 30 January 2007 (CST) | I do not think it is a good idea for me or anyone to write legal language on the fly. May I suggest you remove the original request from the Notice Board until the license issue can be dealt with more thoroughly. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 17:07, 30 January 2007 (CST) | ||
Lady and Gentleman, is this more appropriate? [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] 17:13, 30 January 2007 (CST) | Lady and Gentleman, is this more appropriate? [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] 17:13, 30 January 2007 (CST) | ||
== Orphans and Deletion == | |||
I see that a lot of the [[Special:Lonelypages|orphans]] are making their way into <nowiki>[[Category:Articles_for_deletion]]</nowiki> and staying there for some time. Is that category being patrolled? Are we using the WP series of discussion and events for that category? What needs to be done to get them handled? Is being in that category for 30 (or 45, or 60, or...) days without action or discussion sufficient to add them to the <nowiki>{{Template:speedydelete}}</nowiki> list?<br/> | |||
[[User:Todd Trimble|Todd Trimble]] 09:48, 6 February 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 09:48, 6 February 2007
nicely expressed notice about "calling a constable." Nancy Sculerati MD 12:38, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Wikipedia credit
User Anthony wrote under the dateline of January 24:
- Mentioning Wikipedia is neither necessary nor sufficient for GFDL compliance. Anthony 14:07, 28 January 2007 (CST)
I disagree. In any case, I want to credit WP where credit is due just as I would want to be credited for my own work. In connection with my work on the Highland Games Wikia (formerly Wikicities) I use the following template (with obvious changes) for WP material (see edit page for code):
http://www.citizendium.org/images/Smallwikipedialogo.png | This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at {{{1}}}. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Citizendium, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. |
This was written by Angela Beesley when she was with Wikipedia, so that should answer any questions about what is sufficient. See the template page of Wikia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia
James F. Perry 15:38, 28 January 2007 (CST)
- Good suggestion, James. I think it is also highly adviseable to link to Wikipedia (or whatever other wiki) in the edit summary when importing text. The format I have been using is like this: "importing Wikipedia article; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mon_language&action=history up to January 12, 2007 for authorship history".—Nat Krause 15:56, 28 January 2007 (CST)
Wikipedia does not own the copyright on the articles in question, the copyright is held by the authors of the articles. What Angela Beesley said on Wikia is really quite irrelevant.
Don't get me wrong. I think linking to Wikipedia for articles based on Wikipedia is a good idea. But it is not necessary for GFDL compliance, and it most certainly is not sufficient for GFDL compliance. Anthony 16:10, 28 January 2007 (CST)
- Well, the important thing is that we make the list of authors available somehow, right?—Nat Krause 16:21, 28 January 2007 (CST)
We have been linking to WP in articles that were automatically copied over in the first fork. There is a database flag that says whether an article is sourced from WP, and unfortunately, the code is simplemindedly written right now so that if someone starts a new page, the flag is "off." Hence the very temporary need for a template. We will remove these templates, as rendundant, as soon as the code is fixed. When fixed, we will be able to check a box and the corresponding WP article will be linked.
I don't want to use a WP logo in that pointer, by the way.
Finally I don't see what the argument is that we must link to WP's page history or credit anyone other than Wikipedia itself. --Larry Sanger 16:46, 28 January 2007 (CST)
- [thread moved to Larry's talk page]
- I'm not going to weigh in on the legal arguments. But I will say that I like the wording of the above WP template, including the link to the page history (I don't care about the logo). I want articles with significant WP content to link directly to the article and the article's page history. That is also the way I would like to see it done if CZ material is moved over to WP.
- On the other hand, if I wrote the article, and the only "contribution" of WP authors was in the form of non-copyrightable material (spelling, typos, links), then I should be able to move it over here without WP credit (article Amber Neben is an example).
- I suggest that this conversation be moved to the Forums. I don't know how to do that. James F. Perry 18:32, 28 January 2007 (CST)
- I moved it to his talk page, for now. Anthony 18:39, 28 January 2007 (CST)
January 30 photo request
In a request for photos of domestic animals, N. Sculerati requested that the donors "agree to give the copyright to Citizendium". On the actual page where the photos are to be displayed, it says: "The Gallery of Domestic Animals is an image bank that contains donated copyright free ORIGINAL WORK of pictures of domestic animals for use in Citizendium articles."
Obiously, copyright transfer to CZ is not the same as "donated copyright free" work. In fact, the latter wording is ambiguous. Does it mean "donated, copyright-free, original work"? Or "donated copyright, free original work? Or what?
I hate to sound like a nitpicking lawyer, but when dealing with license matters and copyright, it is really necessary to be precise.
But more to the point: the idea of donating the copyright to Citizendium is just plain bad. The photographer should retain the copyright and grant use rights of some specified sort, to CZ. If an individual donates copyrights to CZ, and then becomes disaffected with the project, that could spell all kinds of trouble. The trouble could be legal or, just as bad, public relations. Remember, a donated copyright, without any reservations, means the original creator could not then use his or her own work. Don't do that! And CZ should not ask anyone to do that!
James F. Perry 16:49, 30 January 2007 (CST)
- I'm sorry, and you are right, could you fix the language for me (and all of us) please. I just want to make sure that its clear that the work uploaded should not be in copyright violation, and it seems I have managed to make a muddle of it. Thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 16:55, 30 January 2007 (CST)
I do not think it is a good idea for me or anyone to write legal language on the fly. May I suggest you remove the original request from the Notice Board until the license issue can be dealt with more thoroughly. James F. Perry 17:07, 30 January 2007 (CST) Lady and Gentleman, is this more appropriate? Robert Tito 17:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Orphans and Deletion
I see that a lot of the orphans are making their way into [[Category:Articles_for_deletion]] and staying there for some time. Is that category being patrolled? Are we using the WP series of discussion and events for that category? What needs to be done to get them handled? Is being in that category for 30 (or 45, or 60, or...) days without action or discussion sufficient to add them to the {{Template:speedydelete}} list?
Todd Trimble 09:48, 6 February 2007 (CST)