There is now a formal proposal for a criterion for speedy deletion, worded as follows:
1. unwikified 2. cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website 3. less than 48 hours old (could be relaxed if the source is verified not to be Wikipedia mirror?) 4. no assertion of permission 5. not from a known public domain or GFDL-compatible source
This appears to be an extension of the copyright infringement CSD, which is as follows:
An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
* Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service) and; * The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and; * Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely and; * The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).
This ignores the statement of permission that is made during posting of the material, and would not require the deleting administrator to make a proper investigation--unless he knows the article to be from a GFDL source or to be in the public domain, the article can be summarily deleted.
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. Under this new proposal, articles that are not even copyright infringements would stand to be deleted on mere suspicion, and without any proper investigation.
Were can I find the extension proposal you're talking about? And while it may be harsh, we really need something like that. We can't have copyvio material on Wikipedia if it's clear the material in question was copied from a source that didn't give permission regardless of whether that source is a commericial content provider.
There's now a note on all edit windows which clearly shows one cannot break copyright. People who still fail to indicate ownership upon posting shouldn't be accomodated. Waiting is how such material slips under the radar and goes undetected.
Mgm
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There is now a formal proposal for a criterion for speedy deletion, worded as follows:
- unwikified
- cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website
- less than 48 hours old (could be relaxed if the source is verified
not to be Wikipedia mirror?) 4. no assertion of permission 5. not from a known public domain or GFDL-compatible source
This appears to be an extension of the copyright infringement CSD, which is as follows:
An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
- Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial
content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service) and;
- The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation
material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and;
- Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none
seems likely and;
- The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost
or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).
This ignores the statement of permission that is made during posting of the material, and would not require the deleting administrator to make a proper investigation--unless he knows the article to be from a GFDL source or to be in the public domain, the article can be summarily deleted.
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. Under this new proposal, articles that are not even copyright infringements would stand to be deleted on mere suspicion, and without any proper investigation. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Were can I find the extension proposal you're talking about?
It's on the talk page of CSD now.
And while it may be harsh, we really need something like that.
Why? Why do we *need* to delete material before a proper check has been made? Even a forum website would normally have a discussion between moderators before deleting material that wasn't an obvious copyright violation.
There's a lot of stuff that *IS* copyrighted. And even if the submitter owned that material they may not be knowing what they are giving up. Creating some polite template to use for such deletions may help pages get proper sources and educate people about copyright at the same time.
I think just speedying text from commericial content providers is not enough. IMDB is not commericial, but they clearly state they're material is copyrighted and they do not wish it to be duplicated and I'm sure there's enough webmasters who think the same. Keeping such material is blatant violation of copyright. We need to protect people from their copyright being violated not only by others, but also by themselves (without knowing what they are doing).
Deleting the material would actually be a favor in some cases.
Mgm
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Were can I find the extension proposal you're talking about?
It's on the talk page of CSD now.
And while it may be harsh, we really need something like that.
Why? Why do we *need* to delete material before a proper check has been made? Even a forum website would normally have a discussion between moderators before deleting material that wasn't an obvious copyright violation. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I think just speedying text from commericial content providers is not enough. IMDB is not commericial, but they clearly state they're material is copyrighted and they do not wish it to be duplicated and I'm sure there's enough webmasters who think the same.
Absolutely. We should delete infringing material. But before we do so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material. That speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion* and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We should delete infringing material. But before we do so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material. That speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion* and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.
"cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website" implies a slight bit of research. However, I am with Tony on this one. I don't see what the new policy would bring other than more confusion to HD and helpdesk-l.
-- Sam
On 12/4/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We should delete infringing material. But before we do so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material. That speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion* and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.
"cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website" implies a slight bit of research. However, I am with Tony on this one. I don't see what the new policy would bring other than more confusion to HD and helpdesk-l.
It's newbie-biting, and it's putting too much meaning into a simple google search. The process is apparently this: single editor finds material that looks like a cut-and-paste job, does google, finds copy. Source doesn't look to single editor like a GFDL source, so single editor without consulting a single other human being deletes the article.
Why is it not enough to have more than one person make the decision, and the decision to be made over a reasonable period?
I've seen all kinds of excuses, but not explanation of why this extension is needed. It almost seems to me like a CSD proposal deliberately crafted to delete articles that do not infringe copyright.
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It's newbie-biting, and it's putting too much meaning into a simple google search. The process is apparently this: single editor finds material that looks like a cut-and-paste job, does google, finds copy. Source doesn't look to single editor like a GFDL source, so single editor without consulting a single other human being deletes the article.
Why is it not enough to have more than one person make the decision, and the decision to be made over a reasonable period?
I've seen all kinds of excuses, but not explanation of why this extension is needed. It almost seems to me like a CSD proposal deliberately crafted to delete articles that do not infringe copyright.
As I recall, I agreed with you...
-- Sam
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
There's a lot of stuff that *IS* copyrighted. And even if the submitter owned that material they may not be knowing what they are giving up. Creating some polite template to use for such deletions may help pages get proper sources and educate people about copyright at the same time.
I think just speedying text from commericial content providers is not enough. IMDB is not commericial, but they clearly state they're material is copyrighted and they do not wish it to be duplicated and I'm sure there's enough webmasters who think the same. Keeping such material is blatant violation of copyright. We need to protect people from their copyright being violated not only by others, but also by themselves (without knowing what they are doing).
Deleting the material would actually be a favor in some cases.
There are two sides to that story. A lot of time a copyright notice is posted without thinking when the author really doesn't give a damn. IMDB is a good example. I have added a few bits to it in the past, but copyright was the furthest thing from my mind when I did so. I'm sure that if I looked at those pages I would find the routine copyright notice whether I want it or not. Is there anything in the IMDB terms of use that says that you give up copyrights to anything you contribute to them?
The thought that anyone would sue himself for copyright infringement strikes me as a little offbeat.
Ec
I'm not bothered about imdb--obviously we should delete copyright infringing material, and stuff copied from such a source should probably be deleted for that reason.
I'm just concerned that here articles will be deleted on quite complete criteria without any requirement for proper research, and absolutely no discussion. There is absolutely no guarantee that the criterion as listed will result in solely, or even mostly, copyright infringing material, there is no requirement for timeliness here because we're not being deluged with such material. It just seems to be yet another example of people going out of their way to find a reason to delete newly contributed material without discussion.
I'm not worried about IMDB either, IMD like Amazon and a bunch of other places claims copyrights that they can't actually claim since it isn't their stuff to begin with. A good example of this is actor/actress listings in movies which aren't theirs to copyright same with book cover images since the publisher not amazon holds the right to the image on the book cover and amazon cannot take that away from them just from being a resaler of the book. It should be noted though that I am not an expert on copyright law so I could be entirely wrong on this but even though common sense and copyright law almost never go together it's just common sense that this would be the way it is.
-Jtkiefer
What bothers me is interpretation. I have seen things listed as copyvios in which the sources were clearly Wikipedia mirrors, even acknowledged Wikipedia as the soiurce. If we make it easier people are more likely to speedy things that are legit.
Ian (Guettarda)
Jtkiefer wrote:
I'm not worried about IMDB either, IMD like Amazon and a bunch of other places claims copyrights that they can't actually claim since it isn't their stuff to begin with. A good example of this is actor/actress listings in movies which aren't theirs to copyright same with book cover images since the publisher not amazon holds the right to the image on the book cover and amazon cannot take that away from them just from being a resaler of the book. It should be noted though that I am not an expert on copyright law so I could be entirely wrong on this but even though common sense and copyright law almost never go together it's just common sense that this would be the way it is.
The big problem with copyright notices is that they don't mean anything. For the US since 1989 copyright subsists whether or not there is a notice. IMDB pages are copyright only to the extent that they are copyrightable. They have a clear copyright in the general presentation of a page, the information itself is not coyrightable, and the copyright on the commentary or reviews is owned by whoever wrote it. If you want permission to use a commentary you need to ask that individual.
Ec
Where is this proposal listed?
The problem with this is we already frequently bite the newbies with respect to people uploading stuff they own that's already published on another website. Being accused of copyright infringement and having the article blanked is bad enough for them; having them deleted will make people not come back.
-Matt
I would be interested in commenting on this article.
I have seen letters on the help desk asking why they were accused of a copyvio when they owned the page in question. Usually, they submitted the edit anonymously so there is no way of knowing.
However, we need a process to ensure that they are quickly gotten rid off or edited mercilessly although speedy is taking it a bit far. I would think a fortnight would be a more suitable period.
Unless they are specifically written as encyclopedia articles (in which case they should be speedy deleted or on the public domain), most pieces on the web are not written to be used in a encyclopedia. As such, they make very problematic articles for Wikipedia as they inevitably designed to push a point of view.
Some examples of problematic articles:
(a) a piece on an elected representative copied from his or her web page will talk about all the wonderful things he and his party have done - the negatives will not get a mention:
(b) a piece copied from a corporate website will mention all the wonderful things a company or product has done leaving out the criticisms;
(c) a piece copied from an activists page about a corporation say Greenpeace will only mention the negatives about that company or its products;
(d) an article copied from a musicians web page will discuss the singers latest album in great detail while passing over a twenty year career in a couple of paragraphs.
Irrespective of copyright laws, stuff copied from other websites generally make very poor Wikipedia articles. Further, it usually takes a couple of minutes to cut and paste so it isn't as if the creator has put a lot of effort into it.
In conclusion, my suggestion is:
(a) articles that are copyright violations from sites that provide their content commercially should be speedy deleted.
(b) other material that has been identified as a copyright violation should sit in copyvio for a fortnight after which an admin should make a decision as to whether they are encyclopedic in quality and should stay or should be nominated for Afd (similar to pages needing translation). We should see if we can send an e-mail to the copyright holder advising them that this page has been uploaded and seeking their permission. If this permission is not given, the page should be speedy deletions.
In short, copyright violations are not only a breach of copyright law but usually advocate a point of view and are often original research so break other guidelines as well. We need a process that will ensure that they do not stick around.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 12/4/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Where is this proposal listed?
The problem with this is we already frequently bite the newbies with respect to people uploading stuff they own that's already published on another website. Being accused of copyright infringement and having the article blanked is bad enough for them; having them deleted will make people not come back.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote in message news:42f90dc00512040220l5885ed5bwdbe8a0b755a341c8@mail.gmail.com...
Where is this proposal listed? The problem with this is we already frequently bite the newbies with respect to people uploading stuff they own that's already published on another website. Being accused of copyright infringement and having the article blanked is bad enough for them; having them deleted will make people not come back.
I got bitten like this quite early on in my Wikipedia career.
I created [[Sharon Lee]] from material provided to me by the author, and her husband ([[Steve Miller (writer)]] and it was almost immediately torn down as a copyvio. I tried to point out that I had permission, and that the reason it was so similar to biographies on other websites, including that of the author herself, was that they all came from the same original source, to no avail. There was some delay in contacting the author because she was in the middle of a mad publishing rush. Not everybody works to Wikipedia's tight schedules: sometimes it can take a while to contact somebody.
I believe it's still a redlink. I might go back and try again some day...
The ironic thing is that Steve's article is almost, but not quite identical, and didn't get the same treatment: it's still there last I looked :-)
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]].
No they were not.
-- geni
On 12/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]].
No they were not.
-- geni
I think a lot of people will want to see a more reasoned explanation of that claim.
Personally, I think (as I said before) that having potential copyvios stick around for too long hurts WP, but the idea Keith suggested about shortening the period they're kept looks fine to me. It's not like a lot of effort went into copy-pasting and such material is easily retrievable if requested.
Mgm
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]].
No they were not.
-- geni
I think a lot of people will want to see a more reasoned explanation of that claim.
Backlog at CP and a heck of a lot were missed. A few turned up at cleanup wikify.
-- geni
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There is now a formal proposal for a criterion for speedy deletion, worded as follows:
- unwikified
- cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website
- less than 48 hours old (could be relaxed if the source is verified
not to be Wikipedia mirror?) 4. no assertion of permission 5. not from a known public domain or GFDL-compatible source
This appears to be an extension of the copyright infringement CSD, which is as follows:
An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
- Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial
content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service) and;
- The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation
material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and;
- Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none
seems likely and;
- The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost
or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).
This ignores the statement of permission that is made during posting of the material, and would not require the deleting administrator to make a proper investigation--unless he knows the article to be from a GFDL source or to be in the public domain, the article can be summarily deleted.
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. Under this new proposal, articles that are not even copyright infringements would stand to be deleted on mere suspicion, and without any proper investigation.
As long as 1) the submitter is notified of the deletion (a nicely worded template talking about copyright infringement, apologizing if the deletion was incorrect, etc. could be created for this), and 2) the url is included in the deletion notice, I don't see it as big problem, because it is easy to reverse. If you really think there's a lot of treasure being thrown away, you could go through the deletion log and make a page listing all the articles deleted this way, and then investigate them further.
I think point number five should be clarified and more tightly worded though. Just because the admin doesn't know that the source is public domain isn't really enough. There should probably be at least some evidence that the source *is* copyrighted.
Anthony