On 2/10/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
There are a lot of reasons not to give people admin powers after just 50 edits. I'm guessing that one of them is copyright. Right now there are a lot of deleted copyvios. If anyone who registers (just about) has access to those copyvios, then aren't we back to publishing the copyvios? It would also create a lot more need for oversight - we'd be opening up a huge amount of personal information to the public.
... While we probably need lots more admins, we don't need automatic admins.
Agreed, automatic admins, or granting it people with fewer than 1000s of productive edits isn't the solution.
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them. In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website. These copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such as source, contributors name, etc. All access to these copyright violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by case needs.
I expect that this would require an "Request for Expunction" process, which amounts to more bureaucracy, but if its creation allows for more admins, the net effect is fewer backlogs.
Is something like this possible with the current MediaWiki and dump creation software?
-- John
John Vandenberg wrote:
On 2/10/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote: ... I expect that this would require an "Request for Expunction" process, which amounts to more bureaucracy, but if its creation allows for more admins, the net effect is fewer backlogs.
Is something like this possible with the current MediaWiki and dump creation software?
-- John
This is pretty much just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight, is it not?
-Gurch
John Vandenberg wrote:
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them. In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website. These copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such as source, contributors name, etc. All access to these copyright violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by case needs.
Some broad access to these copyvios may still be needed for admns. Putting "COPYVIO" in big letters across its face could make it unusable except for checking out possible copyvios. Some popular pictures may very well keep being uploaded by other users who are unaware of the previous determination.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them. In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website. These copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such as source, contributors name, etc. All access to these copyright violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by case needs.
Some broad access to these copyvios may still be needed for admns. Putting "COPYVIO" in big letters across its face could make it unusable except for checking out possible copyvios. Some popular pictures may very well keep being uploaded by other users who are unaware of the previous determination.
Ec
IANAL, but this seems reasonable to me...unless there was some potential value in an image with COPYVIO emblazoned upon it.
-Rich
On 2/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them. In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website. These copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such as source, contributors name, etc. All access to these copyright violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by case needs.
Some broad access to these copyvios may still be needed for admns. Putting "COPYVIO" in big letters across its face could make it unusable except for checking out possible copyvios.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if an overprint was sufficient to bypass the copyright laws. Also, some copyright holders explicitly state that overprinting is not permitted.
Some popular pictures may very well keep being uploaded by other users who are unaware of the previous determination.
I'm not familiar with how image copyvios are tackled. For repeated attempts to upload the same image, wouldn't the URL of the source image be sufficient, maybe with some keywords to assist searching?
With regard to WP:OVER and WP:RFO, it already does cover copyright, but only on the advice of the lawyers, and all very hush-hush (for good reason in the cases of personal and libellous information). I'm guessing that amounts to requests under OCILLA (and similar) only. Are copyvios that are found by volunteers also being expunged?
-- John
John Vandenberg wrote:
On 2/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them. In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website. These copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such as source, contributors name, etc. All access to these copyright violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by case needs.
Some broad access to these copyvios may still be needed for admns. Putting "COPYVIO" in big letters across its face could make it unusable except for checking out possible copyvios.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if an overprint was sufficient to bypass the copyright laws. Also, some copyright holders explicitly state that overprinting is not permitted.
Circulation would still be limited to admins, albeit a much larger group than now. It would not be indexed for public access. The overprinting shouldn't be a factor given the purpose for doing it.
Some popular pictures may very well keep being uploaded by other users who are unaware of the previous determination.
I'm not familiar with how image copyvios are tackled. For repeated attempts to upload the same image, wouldn't the URL of the source image be sufficient, maybe with some keywords to assist searching?
No. A commonly uploaded copyvio is likely available from several sources, not just one URL.
With regard to WP:OVER and WP:RFO, it already does cover copyright, but only on the advice of the lawyers, and all very hush-hush (for good reason in the cases of personal and libellous information). I'm guessing that amounts to requests under OCILLA (and similar) only. Are copyvios that are found by volunteers also being expunged?
I don't know what you mean here.
Ec
On 2/10/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them.
I really don't think this type of "copyvio" is a serious enough problem to worry about. The major reason we don't want copyvios in the actual Wikipedia text is because it contaminates downstream content reusers. A small copyright mistake in Wikipedia can get reproduced hundreds of times, ending up in print. Once we've identified the problem and restricted it to access on the site by a smallish number of people, the scale of the problem is much smaller.
Once that happens, if some organisation is still unhappy about the state of affairs, then we could consider expunging those records. But you're talking about one or two deleted edits that might be viewed at most once or twice a day. The potential for legal action is vanishngly small.
Steve