--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@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