I'm pretty sure that responding to well-intended and politely phrased
criticism with sarcasm is probably also not something that will help us in
avoiding losing contributors :p
I agree that this is not an immediately understandable thing about
contributions, although I think it should be more understandable by
reaearchers than It might be by the man on the Clapham omnibus (an analogy
would be 'not publishing the same paper in multiple journals') but my
concern is that information exists on an axis.
At one end we have the point at which the mass of information presented
scares people off before they even hit save. At the other is the point at
which the lack of information leads to somebody stumbling into a spiked
pit. Our goal is to find a point in the middle, and I'm pretty cautious
about attempts to add more documentation given that that's the direction
we've historically trended in.
On Wednesday, 23 July 2014, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I’m glad it’s that simple (sarcasm intended!).
Do we really expect
new/occasional contributors to figure this out? Having been on Wikipedia
for 9 years, it’s all news to me. I always thought that clicking SAVE with
By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use> and you irrevocably
agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License>
and the GFDL
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>
with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC
BY-SA 3.0 attribution.
that I was releasing **my** contribution, full stop, end of story. If we
expect people to do more than this, shouldn’t it say something at this
point like “If your contribution has previously been published elsewhere,
please click here” and take people to a form where they can supply more
details and then hit SAVE. Let’s make it easier for people to do the right
thing instead of reverting them and losing them as contributors.
Kerry
------------------------------
*From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org');>
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org');>]
*On Behalf Of *Maggie Dennis
*Sent:* Thursday, 24 July 2014 12:42 AM
*To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
*Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] Catching copy and pasting
early
Just a few points inline. :)
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:50 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jmh649@gmail.com');>> wrote:
To clarify the proposal is:
1) only looking at new edits that add blocks of text over a certain size
2) only tagging those edits on a workspace page for further follow-up by
an experienced human editor
3) only running on articles of WikiProjects that want it and are willing
to follow-up (thus only WPMED for starters)
What it is NOT is: a tool to add notices to article space, a tool to warn
users on their talk pages, or a tool to look at old edits. It is also NOT
many other things. This is a very narrow proposal.
With respect to users who are adding content they own which they have
previously had published. What you do is you get them in an email to agree
to release it under a CC BY SA license and then send that email to OTRS.
Alternatively, they can skip this step if they are reproducing materials
from their own website by adding a release to that website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DCM talks about how. I speak to
that based on my volunteer experience, not my work experience. :)
One further point - if they are the *sole* copyright holder contributing
their own text work to Wikipedia, it must be colicensed under GFDL
according to our terms of use
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content>
.
Maggie
With respect to the number of edits, WPMED gets about 1000 a day. If we
say about 10% are of a significant size (a rather high estimate) and if we
say copy and paste issues occur in 10% with a same number of false
positives we are looking at 20 edits to review a day. Those within the
project are able to handle this volume in a timely manner.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org');>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.