In a message dated 4/16/2009 4:02:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Once you've released your writing, it can be "edited mercilessly" in ways which are directly counter to your intent, and you're left with the choice between abandoning credit for your work and being considered responsible for the modifications of others (or, in the case of Citizendium, you're forced to choose the latter).>>
I dont' understand about this "responsible" part. Even though I've started many articles in-project that were later put in a state that I wouldn't want, I don't feel responsible for the current state of the article.
Will Johnson
************** Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at $479 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=http...)
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:44 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/16/2009 4:02:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Once you've released your writing, it can be "edited mercilessly" in ways which are directly counter to your intent, and you're left with the choice between abandoning credit for your work and being considered responsible for the modifications of others (or, in the case of Citizendium, you're forced to choose the latter).>>
I dont' understand about this "responsible" part. Even though I've started many articles in-project that were later put in a state that I wouldn't want, I don't feel responsible for the current state of the article.
Interestingly, this feeds into a current discussion going on about the use of PD text. The discussion (which may have got a little out of hand, is on the talk page of the Signpost's article about plagiarism). The basis of part of the subthread is whether it is morally right to take someone's PD work, to republish it as a Wikipedia article (with a template at the bottom providing attribution), and to then leave it to the tender mercies of the Wiki editing process. At what point might the author of the original PD text no longer want to be credited for writing the text that "seeded" the eventual result on Wikipedia?
And does it make a difference if the author of the PD text is long dead and the text is PD "by age" or if the author is alive and the text has been released as PD by the author's employer, or if the author himself released it as a PD text?
Or to put it another way - is it acceptable for Wikipedia to co-opt other authors into the "collective credit" that the authors of a Wikipedia article take for that article?
Carcharoth
-----Original Message----- From: Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:44 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/16/2009 4:02:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wikimail@inbox.org writes:
Once you've released your writing, it can be "edited mercilessly" in ways which are directly counter to your intent, and you're left with
the
choice between abandoning credit for your work and being considered responsible for the modifications of others (or, in the case of Citizendium, you're forced to choose the latter).>>
I dont' understand about this "responsible" part. Even though I've started many articles in-project that were later put
in a
state that I wouldn't want, I don't feel responsible for the current
state
of the article.
Interestingly, this feeds into a current discussion going on about the use of PD text. The discussion (which may have got a little out of hand, is on the talk page of the Signpost's article about plagiarism). The basis of part of the subthread is whether it is morally right to take someone's PD work, to republish it as a Wikipedia article (with a template at the bottom providing attribution), and to then leave it to the tender mercies of the Wiki editing process. At what point might the author of the original PD text no longer want to be credited for writing the text that "seeded" the eventual result on Wikipedia?
And does it make a difference if the author of the PD text is long dead and the text is PD "by age" or if the author is alive and the text has been released as PD by the author's employer, or if the author himself released it as a PD text?
Or to put it another way - is it acceptable for Wikipedia to co-opt other authors into the "collective credit" that the authors of a Wikipedia article take for that article?
Carcharoth>> --------------------------------------------
To answer your last point, yes, it's acceptable.
However here is how I would do it. Put the PD item on WikiSOURCE, and then from the Wikipedia article, initially identical, point at the WikiSource article "Original version is here...."
For the 1911 EB articles we say something like "This article *incorportates* information from the 1911 EB..." or something like that.
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. I mean you can't give away your cake and then claim that it shouldn't be eaten.
Will "Marie Antoinette Didn't Say That" Johnson
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:46 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Interestingly, this feeds into a current discussion going on about the use of PD text. The discussion (which may have got a little out of hand, is on the talk page of the Signpost's article about plagiarism). The basis of part of the subthread is whether it is morally right to take someone's PD work, to republish it as a Wikipedia article (with a template at the bottom providing attribution), and to then leave it to the tender mercies of the Wiki editing process. At what point might the author of the original PD text no longer want to be credited for writing the text that "seeded" the eventual result on Wikipedia?
And does it make a difference if the author of the PD text is long dead and the text is PD "by age" or if the author is alive and the text has been released as PD by the author's employer, or if the author himself released it as a PD text?
Or to put it another way - is it acceptable for Wikipedia to co-opt other authors into the "collective credit" that the authors of a Wikipedia article take for that article?
To answer your last point, yes, it's acceptable.
However here is how I would do it. Put the PD item on WikiSOURCE, and then from the Wikipedia article, initially identical, point at the WikiSource article "Original version is here...."
That has been suggested, and is done in some articles already.
For the 1911 EB articles we say something like "This article *incorportates* information from the 1911 EB..." or something like that.
A good list of such templates is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles...
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. I mean you can't give away your cake and then claim that it shouldn't be eaten.
Agreed. But is it the whole text, parts of the texts, the ideas expressed in the text, the original wording and structure of the text, that are PD, or only some of those? Obviously, if a PD text quotes a copyrighted text, there are still restrictions on how that can be used or re-used. And if you were quoting from the main text of a PD text, you would still put the quote of PD text in quotation marks. Or would you?
How would you make a decision on whether to paraphrase, summarise, or quote verbatim, all or part of the PD text, and in which cases would you not use quotation marks to offset what you are quoting or republishing, from the rest of your work?
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:46 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. I mean you can't give away your cake and then claim that it shouldn't be eaten.
Agreed. But is it the whole text, parts of the texts, the ideas expressed in the text, the original wording and structure of the text, that are PD, or only some of those? Obviously, if a PD text quotes a copyrighted text, there are still restrictions on how that can be used or re-used. And if you were quoting from the main text of a PD text, you would still put the quote of PD text in quotation marks. Or would you?
How would you make a decision on whether to paraphrase, summarise, or quote verbatim, all or part of the PD text, and in which cases would you not use quotation marks to offset what you are quoting or republishing, from the rest of your work?
One does better by trying not to conflate copyright infringement with plagiarism. They are distinct offences either of which can exist independently of the other. One gives credit to one's sources with or without quotation marks depending on whether one is repeating the original words or paraphrasing them. It's as simple as that. If a PD text quotes or otherwise uses a copyright text why would you have restrictions? This is what fair use exists in the first place. If one's quoted source itself quotes another text then one just uses a second level of quotation. I really don't see a problem here.
Ec
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD.
The problem with plagiarism is that it's dishonest, and it remains dishonest regardless of what the original author allowed or even desired.
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wjhonson@aol.com Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM, <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't
like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. The problem with plagiarism is that it's dishonest, and it remains dishonest regardless of what the original author allowed or even desire>> -----------------
What? What does plagiarism have to do with what I said? I specifically said that you place the PD text in WikiSource and point at it. There is no way to plagiarize under those conditions, you are making it explicit. So I have no idea to what you refer here.
Will Johnson
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:21 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wjhonson@aol.com Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM, <wjhonson@aol.comlt%3Bwjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't
like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. The problem with plagiarism is that it's dishonest, and it remains dishonest regardless of what the original author allowed or even desire>>
What? What does plagiarism have to do with what I said? I specifically said that you place the PD text in WikiSource and point at it. There is no way to plagiarize under those conditions, you are making it explicit. So I have no idea to what you refer here.
Will Johnson
I've got to disagree with you, Will. If the original author places something in the PD, then there is no way to violate copyright law. But claiming to be the author of something that someone else wrote is dishonest, even if you are not violating their copyright.
Certainly you can understand this in the context of a school paper: a student submitting a paper written by someone else, even if that paper is in the PD, is still plagiarism, pure and simple.
-Rich
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:21 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wjhonson@aol.com Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:46 PM, <wjhonson@aol.comlt%3Bwjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't
like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. The problem with plagiarism is that it's dishonest, and it remains dishonest regardless of what the original author allowed or even desire>>
What? What does plagiarism have to do with what I said? I specifically said that you place the PD text in WikiSource and point at it. There is no way to plagiarize under those conditions, you are making it explicit. So I have no idea to what you refer here.
Will Johnson
I've got to disagree with you, Will. If the original author places something in the PD, then there is no way to violate copyright law. But claiming to be the author of something that someone else wrote is dishonest, even if you are not violating their copyright.
Certainly you can understand this in the context of a school paper: a student submitting a paper written by someone else, even if that paper is in the PD, is still plagiarism, pure and simple.
-Rich
Let me amend myself here. I didn't read carefully. I agree that plagiarism is dishonest, but if you're not disagreeing with that, I don't disagree with you.
I apologize for responding before understanding...
-Rich