Interestingly enough, the only time I pilfered text from an essay I
wrote (for something other than WP) that is widely available, and used
it on WP, nobody ever caught it and introduced the possibility of a
copyvio - it still stands.
Mark
On 29/05/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Kate Turner (keturner(a)livejournal.com) [050530
08:37]:
Gregory Maxwell wrote in
gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc:
> As a result our database contains large
quantities of violating
> material.
my understand of the relevant US law is that we
are not required to
aggressively remove copyright violations until requested by the copyright
holder.
If someone ever codes the facility to zap old revisions easily, we could
deal with such without great pain. The main barrier at present is that
zapping old revs entails deleting the article then restoring all revs
except the offender. On a heavily-trafficked page this present obvious
logistical problems.
Our proactive approach, though, does stand us in good stead should we ever
end up in a courtroom. Generally the copyvio page is *rabid* and that's
good. Even if on many occasions the author of a given text has to point out
they're the editor that added it to Wikipedia ;-)
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE