In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har krav på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that is given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the page if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have provided the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or by an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har krav på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that is given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the page if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have provided the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or by an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in this case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text can be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct credit, as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har
krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that
is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the
page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or
by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in this case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text can be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct credit, as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites,
and
reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator
has
the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har
krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that
is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the
page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected
into
the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor
or
by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary
is
the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Citation and reuse is two different things.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in
this
case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text
can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at
least
specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
content
within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites,
and
reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator
has
the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har
krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content
that
is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to
the
page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not
the
page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent
way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected
into
the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or
part
from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor
or
by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision.
It
should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary
is
the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
another
level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license detail ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Citation and reuse is two different things.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in
this
case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text
can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may
not
even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at
least
specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
content
within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external
sites,
and
reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
creator
has
the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen
har
krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content
that
is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to
the
page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not
the
page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent
way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
injected
into
the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or
part
from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the
editor
or
by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision.
It
should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
summary
is
the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
another
level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced entirely.
On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license detail ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Citation and reuse is two different things.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where
the
text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and
in
this
case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the
text
can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If
the
share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
some
point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may
not
even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at
least
specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
content
within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external
sites,
and
reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
creator
has
the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen
har
krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
content
that
is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link
to
the
page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is
not
the
page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent
way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
injected
into
the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full
or
part
from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the
editor
or
by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
revision.
It
should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
summary
is
the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
another
level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only. Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced entirely.
On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license
detail
ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Citation and reuse is two different things.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where
the
text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and
in
this
case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the
text
can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the
by
attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If
the
share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something
the
external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
some
point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page
may
not
even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en
at
least
specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
content
within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> In some cases we need to attribute content created on external
sites,
and
> reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
creator
has
> the right to be named according to good practice"
("Opphavsmannen
har
krav > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
content
that
is > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link
to
the
page > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is
not
the
> page on our site that the external entity has provided, they
have
provided > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
consistent
way.
> > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
injected
into
> the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full
or
part
> from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the
editor
or
by > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
revision.
It
> should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
summary
is
> the description of the revision, not the source of the
revision.
> > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
another
> level that makes things more confusing? > > John Erling Blad > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Kaya
With all due respect if there are potential solutions already created then it doent matter which project or what language they are on they can be adapted and translated as necessary, even made global
On 29 August 2017 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only. Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced entirely.
On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license
detail
ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Citation and reuse is two different things.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation
where
the
text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text,
and
in
this
case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why
the
text
can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified,
the
by
attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough.
If
the
share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give
correct
credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something
the
external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
some
point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page
may
not
even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on
en
at
least
> specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed
cc-by
content
> within articles > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on
external
sites,
and > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
creator
has > > the right to be named according to good practice"
("Opphavsmannen
har
> krav > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
content
that
> is > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a
link
to
the
> page > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it
is
not
the
> > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they
have
> provided > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
consistent
way.
> > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
injected
into > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in
full
or
part
> > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by
the
editor
or > by > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
revision.
It
> > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
summary
is > > the description of the revision, not the source of the
revision.
> > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it
just
another
> > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > John Erling Blad > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Stright from the Norwegian Åndsverksloven
§ 3. The author is entitled to be named as good practice, as well as on copies of the intellectual property as when made available to the public.
Good practice on Wikipedia is a reference in the page history.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Kaya
With all due respect if there are potential solutions already created then it doent matter which project or what language they are on they can be adapted and translated as necessary, even made global
On 29 August 2017 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia
only.
Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough <richard@farmbrough.co.uk
wrote:
We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is
replaced
entirely.
On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title -
the
refn template can include anything you need to add including license
detail
ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Citation and reuse is two different things.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation
where
the
text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text,
and
in
this > case nor the author. > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why
the
text
can > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified,
the
by
> attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough.
If
the
> share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give
correct
credit, > as the request for credit can be pretty weird. > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily
something
the
> external editor has created, he or she has created a part that
at
some
> point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present
page
may
not
> even contain this content anymore. > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on
en
at
least > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed
cc-by
content > > within articles > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on
external
sites,
> and > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says
"The
creator
> has > > > the right to be named according to good practice"
("Opphavsmannen
har
> > krav > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
content
that > > is > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a
link
to
the > > page > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but
it
is
not
the > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided,
they
have
> > provided > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
consistent
way. > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
injected
> into > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in
full
or
part > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by
the
editor
> or > > by > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
revision.
It > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but
the
summary
> is > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the
revision.
> > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it
just
another > > > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > > > John Erling Blad > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org