Some people consistently move passages (usually the entire article) of copyright violations to Talk pages. Talks may not necessarily be considered Wikipedia proper. But they are still integral part of Wikipedia operations nevertheless.
This such behaviour acceptable?
I think such people think the violated passage is still useful information that can be consulted later. But I mean, if you want to see the violation, go check out the history, or if the warning still presents, the source website.
Or is Talks actually legally not a part of Wikipedia and so we are not responsible if there's unlawful matters or craps on it?
Menchi Zh-En
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Menchi-
Some people consistently move passages (usually the entire article) of copyright violations to Talk pages. Talks may not necessarily be considered Wikipedia proper. But they are still integral part of Wikipedia operations nevertheless.
This such behaviour acceptable?
Depends on the length of the infringed text. It is completely legal to quote one or two paragraphs from a copyrighted work under virtually every jurisdiction, although such quotes should be clearly recognizable as such. However, copying an entiry copyrighted article to the talk page is not acceptable, since the talk pages are google-indexed. In that case, please blank the page. (Which raises another issue, namely copyright infringements in article histories. That could be addressed, if necessary, by implementing a deletion feature for individual article revisions, which would actually be relatively simple to do.)
Regards,
Erik
At 06:54 PM 6/18/03 -0700, Menchi Zh-en wrote:
Some people consistently move passages (usually the entire article) of copyright violations to Talk pages. Talks may not necessarily be considered Wikipedia proper. But they are still integral part of Wikipedia operations nevertheless.
This such behaviour acceptable?
Yes, because it's intended as temporary. If the passage turns out not to be a copyright violation (in some of these, the person whose page it was found on is the person who put it on Wikipedia, and wrote it, so they can release it to us under the GFDL), it can be restored. If it's confirmed as a violation, it should be deleted from the talk page as well.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 06:54 PM 6/18/03 -0700, Menchi Zh-en wrote:
Some people consistently move passages (usually the entire article) of copyright violations to Talk pages. Talks may not necessarily be considered Wikipedia proper. But they are still integral part of Wikipedia operations nevertheless.
This such behaviour acceptable?
Yes, because it's intended as temporary. If the passage turns out not to be a copyright violation (in some of these, the person whose page it was found on is the person who put it on Wikipedia, and wrote it, so they can release it to us under the GFDL), it can be restored. If it's confirmed as a violation, it should be deleted from the talk page as well.
To some extent, I would expect that these violations would be covered by fair use when they have been moved to the talk page or history to highlight the fact that there was a copyright violation. The reason for being there has changed, and that is one of the factors considered when evaluating fair use. There might be a problem if it's a very long text, but then the person posting is violating another WP rule about WP not being a Library for published texts.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org