From the acknowledgements section (yes, there is one) on Kuru:
This article was adapted with permission from a report "Kuru: The Dynamics of a Prion Disease", authored by Stacy McGrath.
notes on medical virology- Timbury
Both out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) and annoying as hell to track down specific revisions, except in this case, because the copyrighted text is the base for the whole damn article. Literally the first edit, and its stuck around since 2004. The timbury one can just be wiped, he's a user who contributed it under the GFDL, the report one is more troublesome, did she give permission for GFDL, or just wikipedia? its non-free if its just permission for us. This needs some fixing, probably some oversight as well.
Any thoughts on someone coming up with a method to identify and flag or template articles to be reviewed that have an acknowledgement section, something used 'with permission' or copyright notices?
On 8/7/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
From the acknowledgements section (yes, there is one) on Kuru:
This article was adapted with permission from a report "Kuru: The Dynamics of a Prion Disease", authored by Stacy McGrath.
notes on medical virology- Timbury
Both out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) and annoying as hell to track down specific revisions, except in this case, because the copyrighted text is the base for the whole damn article. Literally the first edit, and its stuck around since 2004. The timbury one can just be wiped, he's a user who contributed it under the GFDL, the report one is more troublesome, did she give permission for GFDL, or just wikipedia? its non-free if its just permission for us. This needs some fixing, probably some oversight as well.
Any thoughts on someone coming up with a method to identify and flag or template articles to be reviewed that have an acknowledgement section, something used 'with permission' or copyright notices?
-- -Brock
So does the entire article have to be rewritten? Or what? I see the acknowledgements but don't understand the implications.
KP
The article was created with the copyrighted text, all work since then is a derivitive, and we've distributed it to hundreds of mirrors who are using it without a liscense. It's delete and rewrite, or delete till we can ascertain a free license release.
On 8/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
From the acknowledgements section (yes, there is one) on Kuru:
This article was adapted with permission from a report "Kuru: The
Dynamics
of a Prion Disease", authored by Stacy McGrath.
notes on medical virology- Timbury
Both out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) and annoying as
hell
to track down specific revisions, except in this case, because the copyrighted text is the base for the whole damn article. Literally the
first
edit, and its stuck around since 2004. The timbury one can just be
wiped,
he's a user who contributed it under the GFDL, the report one is more troublesome, did she give permission for GFDL, or just wikipedia? its non-free if its just permission for us. This needs some fixing, probably some oversight as well.
Any thoughts on someone coming up with a method to identify and flag or template articles to be reviewed that have an acknowledgement section, something used 'with permission' or copyright notices?
-- -Brock
So does the entire article have to be rewritten? Or what? I see the acknowledgements but don't understand the implications.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/7/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The article was created with the copyrighted text, all work since then is a derivitive, and we've distributed it to hundreds of mirrors who are using it without a liscense. It's delete and rewrite, or delete till we can ascertain a free license release.
On 8/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
From the acknowledgements section (yes, there is one) on Kuru:
This article was adapted with permission from a report "Kuru: The
Dynamics
of a Prion Disease", authored by Stacy McGrath.
notes on medical virology- Timbury
Both out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) and annoying as
hell
to track down specific revisions, except in this case, because the copyrighted text is the base for the whole damn article. Literally the
first
edit, and its stuck around since 2004. The timbury one can just be
wiped,
he's a user who contributed it under the GFDL, the report one is more troublesome, did she give permission for GFDL, or just wikipedia? its non-free if its just permission for us. This needs some fixing, probably some oversight as well.
Any thoughts on someone coming up with a method to identify and flag or template articles to be reviewed that have an acknowledgement section, something used 'with permission' or copyright notices?
-- -Brock
So does the entire article have to be rewritten? Or what? I see the acknowledgements but don't understand the implications.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock
Oh, I see, then it should be deleted immediately. Maybe I can at least start a stub in the next few days. I've researched prion diseases, including kuru, but haven't read anything on 'em in a few years, so don 't know what is changed. KP
On 07/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The article was created with the copyrighted text, all work since then is a derivitive, and we've distributed it to hundreds of mirrors who are using it without a liscense. It's delete and rewrite, or delete till we can ascertain a free license release.
No, we actually got permission, and it should be quoted on the talk page. I worked on this article and did a pile of the rewriting at the time. (It only missed feature for lack of a picture.)
- d.
The talk page quote is permission to wikipedia, not a free license. If there is a free license release, by all means get it into OTRS and this is done with.
On 8/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The article was created with the copyrighted text, all work since then
is a
derivitive, and we've distributed it to hundreds of mirrors who are
using it
without a liscense. It's delete and rewrite, or delete till we can
ascertain
a free license release.
No, we actually got permission, and it should be quoted on the talk page. I worked on this article and did a pile of the rewriting at the time. (It only missed feature for lack of a picture.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l