---- Forwarded message from "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca ----
Date: From: "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca To: "'board@wikimedia.org'" board@wikimedia.org Cc: Reply-To: Subject: [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
---- End forwarded message ----
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
Wikimedia Foundation wrote:
---- Forwarded message from "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca ----
Date: From: "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca To: "'board@wikimedia.org'" board@wikimedia.org Cc: Reply-To: Subject: [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
---- End forwarded message ----
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
I have some serious doubts about the claims of the BC Government in this regard. 1. It is really unclear whether our contributor copied these maps (and similar ones at other articles that Mr. O'Neill did not mention) from the site in question. True our version differs in that we do not include the names for the Regional Districts, but we also do not show an inset map from their site that gives greater detail ton the more heavily populated southwestern corner of the province. 2. The Regional Districts are a creation of legislation. British Columbia does not have counties in the more traditional sense of that term. These districts when they began to be created in 1965 were in some respects equivalent to the establishment. In other jurisdictions Mr.O'neil's claim would be tantamount to claiming that a map of the counties there are not in the public domain. 3. It is not clear that legislative provisions can be copyrighted, and it would therefore seem that Mr. O'Neil's claims are ultra vires, no matter what is said ion the BC government website.
Ec (a resident of BC)
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:15:38 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wikimedia Foundation wrote:
---- Forwarded message from "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca ----
Date: From: "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca To: "'board@wikimedia.org'" board@wikimedia.org Cc: Reply-To: Subject: [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
---- End forwarded message ----
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
I have some serious doubts about the claims of the BC Government in this regard. 1. It is really unclear whether our contributor copied these maps (and similar ones at other articles that Mr. O'Neill did not mention) from the site in question. True our version differs in that we do not include the names for the Regional Districts, but we also do not show an inset map from their site that gives greater detail ton the more heavily populated southwestern corner of the province. 2. The Regional Districts are a creation of legislation. British Columbia does not have counties in the more traditional sense of that term. These districts when they began to be created in 1965 were in some respects equivalent to the establishment. In other jurisdictions Mr.O'neil's claim would be tantamount to claiming that a map of the counties there are not in the public domain. 3. It is not clear that legislative provisions can be copyrighted, and it would therefore seem that Mr. O'Neil's claims are ultra vires, no matter what is said ion the BC government website.
Ec (a resident of BC)
I hope you're right about this. However, when I mentioned the complaint on the uploader (Denelson83)'s talk page, I received a most unpleasant and uninformative response. It would seem to be easy for the uploader to help resolve the issue, rather than ranting about it...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:57:06 -0500, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you're right about this. However, when I mentioned the complaint on the uploader (Denelson83)'s talk page, I received a most unpleasant and uninformative response. It would seem to be easy for the uploader to help resolve the issue, rather than ranting about it...
Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. His/her talk page says, in part:
"any time I am sent a message with regard to bad edits, copyright violations, or any other alleged negative contributions, it is involuntarily interpreted as either an assault on my intelligence, an action I take extremely personally, or a pure threat..."
Taken at face value, this leads me to believe that Denelson83 has issues that preclude civil participation on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.
Also, Denelson83 is not the first user I've come across who insists on maintaining a blank user page. It seems that one likely motive for this is the desire for their user name to "stand out" in various listings. Another possibility is the desire to discourage the use of their talk page. Either way, I think this is a practice that we should actively discourage, with changes to the software if necessary.
-- Rich Holton en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:28:35 -0600, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on [[Wikipedia:Civility]].
I would strongly agree, having gone to look at it. This user does not answer ANY questions or comments about their behavior or actions, instead replacing the question with "<Comment deleted - General violation ("Negative criticism not tolerated")>" and the like, in red. They state: "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must be a positive comment. Any comments that I interpret as destructive will be disregarded and removed from this page. Thank you."
They also attempt to place conditions on the use of article history:
"n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted, and may not be reviewed. To review past messages, see my archive subpages."
This is, IMO, completely ridiculous.
-Matt (User:Morven)
On Monday, March 21, 2005 12:10 AM, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:28:35 -0600, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on [[Wikipedia:Civility]].
I would strongly agree, having gone to look at it. This user does not answer ANY questions or comments about their behavior or actions, instead replacing the question with "<Comment deleted - General violation ("Negative criticism not tolerated")>" and the like, in red. They state: "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must be a positive comment. Any comments that I interpret as destructive will be disregarded and removed from this page. Thank you."
They also attempt to place conditions on the use of article history:
"n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted, and may not be reviewed. To review past messages, see my archive subpages."
This is, IMO, completely ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous, though it is mildly amusing (in a rather sad way). "Ridiculous" suggests that the comments are actually evaluated in a rational light, which these do not qualify for. People making such demands have no basis to make them, and can be ignored as safely as those who demand payment for the oxygen plants on their land have produced which has found its way into one's lungs.
However, it is probably for the best for such users to be given a friendly word that their posturing and posing merely serves to make themselves look foolish in the eyes of a great many people, and does not serve their cause (which one could, perhaps somewhat unkindly, term 'Narcissism'), if only for their perceived image.
Yours,
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, James D. Forrester wrote:
On Monday, March 21, 2005 12:10 AM, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:28:35 -0600, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on [[Wikipedia:Civility]].
I would strongly agree, having gone to look at it. This user does not answer ANY questions or comments about their behavior or actions, instead replacing the question with "<Comment deleted - General violation ("Negative criticism not tolerated")>" and the like, in red. They state: "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must be a positive comment. Any comments that I interpret as destructive will be disregarded and removed from this page. Thank you."
They also attempt to place conditions on the use of article history:
"n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted, and may not be reviewed. To review past messages, see my archive subpages."
This is, IMO, completely ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous, though it is mildly amusing (in a rather sad way).
Actually, I'd say it is either suspicious or imitative. ISTR an incarnation of [[User:Lir]] doing this many moons ago.
What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity? (I don't pay attention to this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if Lir is banned, rehabilitated, or quietly making useful & valued contributions.) And if this is isn't one of Lir's identities, why would this user bother behaving in a manner that is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively disfunctional?
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity? (I don't pay attention to this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if Lir is banned, rehabilitated, or quietly making useful & valued contributions.) And if this is isn't one of Lir's identities, why would this user bother behaving in a manner that is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively disfunctional?
Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back, acting like Lir, getting noticed and resetting the ban.
- d.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity? (I don't pay attention to this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if Lir is banned,
rehabilitated,
or quietly making useful & valued contributions.) And if this is isn't one of Lir's identities, why would this user bother behaving in a manner that is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively disfunctional?
Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back, acting like Lir, getting noticed and resetting the ban.
That was meant as a rhetorical question -- mostly. Although I have to wonder why someone who wants to be annoying would adopt one of the least effective tactics that has been attempted, refuted, & is well-known to those who know. And if one does *not* want to be annoying & taken seriously, why not avoid behaving like a known nuisence.
Then David Gerard wrote later that same day:
I'm currently trying to flesh out my 'addiction' model of pathological behaviour on Wikipedia. You can see this in editors who are hardworking, but seem to love Wikipedia *just a little too much* and possibly in ways nature didn't really intend. And when they get banned, they go fucking batshit with junkie rage at being cut off from their fix, c.f. Wik and the vandalbot.
To David: You're familiar with Usenet. I'm sure it's the same psycho-social dynamic.
To everyone else: There's a phrase that Spike Lee helped to circulate, "Get a life; the one you have ain't no good." I suspect that for many of these folks that Wikipedia *is* their life. However, this is how they manage it.
Now consider that there are a fair number of folks on Wikipedia for whom this is a major part of their life -- it is that important for them. (And before anyone assumes I am being snarky or insulting here, I consider myself one of them.) Their role at Wikipedia helps give their life some meaning; it's the reason that they get out of bed in the morning.
Some people take this identification very seriously, & treat their relationship to Wikipedia seriously, hoping to leave something better after their efforts. Vandalism is dealt with. Typos get fixed. They take the time to introduce Wikipedia to potential users & contributors. And some of us try to add content.
Some people act as if they were slovenly teenagers & Wikipedia was their unkept bedroom. They do the equivalent of scattering their clothes over the floor, leave the bedsheets unwashed for months, insist on covering the walls with posters of their favorite music idols -- & get nasty when someone tries to clean things up because Wikipedia isn't really their own private bedroom.
Life, like Wikipedia, is what you make of it. Unfortunately some of us not only are unable to make our life work, we can't make Wikipedia work either. It becomes one more failure in an oppressive collection that has become too heavy, & makes the person feel trapped like a animal, & lashes out at everyone within reach. Only, unlike a trapped animal, this person does not look for an opening & escape; this person fights to keep hold of what she/he thinks is theirs -- only to find, in the end, they have nothing.
FWIW, if I were kicked off Wikipedia for some reason, it wouldn't be the end of my world. I wouldn't be happy being unable to make contributions to Wikipedia, but I would find something else to fill the loss.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
FWIW, if I were kicked off Wikipedia for some reason, it wouldn't be the end of my world. I wouldn't be happy being unable to make contributions to Wikipedia, but I would find something else to fill the loss.
Yes, but that's why such a thing is unlikely.
It'll need a link to a "Dealing with wikiholism" article, if there isn't one already. I'll add this to it:
* Stop looking at your watchlist.
My wikistress went *so far down* after that.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
FWIW, if I were kicked off Wikipedia for some reason, it wouldn't be the end of my world. I wouldn't be happy being unable to make contributions to Wikipedia, but I would find something else to fill the loss.
Yes, but that's why such a thing is unlikely.
It'll need a link to a "Dealing with wikiholism" article, if there isn't one already. I'll add this to it:
- Stop looking at your watchlist.
My wikistress went *so far down* after that.
It all depends on how you use your watchlist. If it contains more than 200 items it probably needs trimming. Maybe we should each have two watchlists. One normal watchlist would have the things we like to do, or the routine tasks for which we accept responsibility. The other, probably much longer, would be the "idiot watch" where we keep an eye on certain topics that are in constant need of high-Wikistress repair. A person who enjoys dealing with idiots could still have everything on one watchlist.
Ec
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity? (I don't pay attention to this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if Lir is banned, rehabilitated,
or quietly making useful & valued contributions.) And if this is isn't one of Lir's identities, why would this user bother behaving in a manner that is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively disfunctional?
Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back, acting like Lir, getting noticed and resetting the ban.
That was meant as a rhetorical question -- mostly. Although I have to wonder why someone who wants to be annoying would adopt one of the least effective tactics that has been attempted, refuted, & is well-known to those who know. And if one does *not* want to be annoying & taken seriously, why not avoid behaving like a known nuisence.
It can probably be summarized in one word - "maturity" ... or lack thereof.
Then David Gerard wrote later that same day:
I'm currently trying to flesh out my 'addiction' model of pathological behaviour on Wikipedia. You can see this in editors who are hardworking, but seem to love Wikipedia *just a little too much* and possibly in ways nature didn't really intend. And when they get banned, they go fucking batshit with junkie rage at being cut off from their fix, c.f. Wik and the vandalbot.
Now consider that there are a fair number of folks on Wikipedia for whom this is a major part of their life -- it is that important for them. (And before anyone assumes I am being snarky or insulting here, I consider myself one of them.) Their role at Wikipedia helps give their life some meaning; it's the reason that they get out of bed in the morning.
Some people take this identification very seriously, & treat their relationship to Wikipedia seriously, hoping to leave something better after their efforts. Vandalism is dealt with. Typos get fixed. They take the time to introduce Wikipedia to potential users & contributors. And some of us try to add content.
For some the recognition and ownership of their efforts is important. I've remarked how on some user pages there is a very long list of the articles on which they have worked. They are often dilligent about keeping it up to date. When they stop keeping it up the list it's a good sign that they have begun learning to submerge their ego.
Most of us can't be bothered to go through somebody else's list unless we are trying to track down POV warrioring.
FWIW, if I were kicked off Wikipedia for some reason, it wouldn't be the end of my world. I wouldn't be happy being unable to make contributions to Wikipedia, but I would find something else to fill the loss.
For some of us that reality doesn't even get close. We know that there is probably some room for edit wars and personal comments, but we don't carried away with it. Even more importantly, we know when to stop and take time to listen to others.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
For some the recognition and ownership of their efforts is important. I've remarked how on some user pages there is a very long list of the articles on which they have worked. They are often dilligent about keeping it up to date. When they stop keeping it up the list it's a good sign that they have begun learning to submerge their ego.
I must say it never occurred to me until I saw others doing it. I might put articles I got through FAC on such a list, because that *is* quite a personal effort. Then I could list with it the ones I failed to get through ...
- d.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Ray Saintonge wrote:
For some the recognition and ownership of their efforts is important. I've remarked how on some user pages there is a very long list of the articles on which they have worked. They are often dilligent about keeping it up to date. When they stop keeping it up the list it's a good sign that they have begun learning to submerge their ego.
While I agree with you, Ray, that it's a function of ego, I think at least some editors keep a list of articles on their Talk page to prove that they are making credible contributions to Wikipedia. Not in the sense that Rick described in another post, but to seek validation for their efforts. Wikipedia can be a very intimidating place for bookish people -- ironically, the same types we are attracted here.
Most of us can't be bothered to go through somebody else's list unless we are trying to track down POV warrioring.
I don't know. In the past when I've had the time, I would sometimes review the list of contributions of other editors whose work or erudition I admired. It was by far more interesting than sifting thru [[Recent changes]] or [[New articles]].
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Ray Saintonge wrote:
For some the recognition and ownership of their efforts is important. I've remarked how on some user pages there is a very long list of the articles on which they have worked. They are often dilligent about keeping it up to date. When they stop keeping it up the list it's a good sign that they have begun learning to submerge their ego.
While I agree with you, Ray, that it's a function of ego, I think at least some editors keep a list of articles on their Talk page to prove that they are making credible contributions to Wikipedia.
Ray's comments are pretty good nonsense. One can perfectly well 'submerge ego' - edit as an anon, for example - without thereby contributing much to the community. One can also have a personality, without making a cult of it, let's say. Mutual recognition mostly helps rather than hinders.
I don't know. In the past when I've had the time, I would sometimes review the list of contributions of other editors whose work or erudition I admired.
Me too. There are editors whose brag-lists I check, to see what has been created in an area of interest. This is a perfectly valid reason for those lists being there.
Charles
Sj wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:15:38 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wikimedia Foundation wrote:
---- Forwarded message from "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca ----
Date: From: "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca To: "'board@wikimedia.org'" board@wikimedia.org Cc: Reply-To: Subject: [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
---- End forwarded message ----
Hello, Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in your pages, when the material is taken from other sites? I noticed a map on site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png ) that originally came from our web site (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm ). The real source of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services. Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes the reality of the actual source of the image. I'm not that retentive, but we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other things).
Cheers
David O'Neil, Manager Population Section, BC Stats Service BC Ministry of Management Services
email: Dave.ONeil@gems8.gov.bc.ca tel: 250-387-0335 fax: 250-387-0329 www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
I have some serious doubts about the claims of the BC Government in this regard.
- It is really unclear whether our contributor copied these maps
(and similar ones at other articles that Mr. O'Neill did not mention) from the site in question. True our version differs in that we do not include the names for the Regional Districts, but we also do not show an inset map from their site that gives greater detail ton the more heavily populated southwestern corner of the province. 2. The Regional Districts are a creation of legislation. British Columbia does not have counties in the more traditional sense of that term. These districts when they began to be created in 1965 were in some respects equivalent to the establishment of counties. In other jurisdictions Mr.O'neil's claim would be tantamount to claiming that a map of the counties there are not in the public domain. 3. It is not clear that legislative provisions can be copyrighted, and it would therefore seem that Mr. O'Neil's claims are ultra vires, no matter what is said ion the BC government website.
Ec (a resident of BC)
I hope you're right about this. However, when I mentioned the complaint on the uploader (Denelson83)'s talk page, I received a most unpleasant and uninformative response. It would seem to be easy for the uploader to help resolve the issue, rather than ranting about it...
It looks as if our friend believes himself to be immune from criticism. :-)
He is not the only one to have used the same map. See also [[Image:Bcmap.PNG]]. This one was added by [[User:Earl Andrew]] who also claims that he created the image. The end of his talk page has a cryptic comment about not responding to inquiries about images.
Personally, I believe in a copyright policy where we give ourselves a significant benefit of the doubt. However, doing that involves an open expression of the reasons for doubting a putative claimant's rights. What irritates me most in this situation, where I believe that we have a strong argument for keeping the images, is the questionable claim that these contributors drew the maps themselves. A copyright argument based on a misrepresentation is difficult to sustain. At least one of them should site his source. I do not believe that the simple addition of a red dot implies the creation of a whole new work.
Ec