"A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the language" sounds like your quoting me in the protologism debate. Of course I agree with that. But ok, whatever.
This sounds more as though you oppose newly made up words, but not newly made up definitions. That doesn't seem very consistent.
Um, no. Thats wrong. And I think you know that.
No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings.
In other words, you don't want your POV to be confused by facts.
Pretty much. I like the current policy.
To me, common sense says you can't go around selling a dictionary with definitions from another dictionary. I would even hope fair-use doesn't cover that.
Fair use allows for some level of such material. Definitions from another dictionary includes material from PD sources.
Whose contesting that PD isn't OK? Define "some level"? Define "some level" in five words or less to make a concise statement to put at the bottom of the edit box... or just not mention it.
If it is possible to copy definitions in a fair-use manner, IANAL and probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close. Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation. And don't expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at their table. Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of action. I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would suggest.
Avoidance of action?
Yes, you said yourself that "we shouldn't even get close." That sounds like copyright paranoia, and is somewhat cowardly.
Yes, I'm over here eating my freedom fries. I don't see whats wrong with cowardly in regards to copyright.
How is IANAL logically fallacious? It's a statement of fact.
The bare statement may be factual, but it is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It is also irrelevant.
Appealing to authority is a fallacy and irrelevant when working with the authority of international law?
It's not a question of any specific new rule but your apparently rigid approach to rules. Where is the rule to "stand by idly while folks pollute our supposedly GFDL work" that you cite? As for crusades, look to yourself; you're the one that started off with your "anti-pollution" rhetoric. To me rules should be viewed with maximum flexibility.
Copying and pasting of definitions is not allowed. I never thought that was some ground breaking idea. I think it probably isn't.
I was not referring to the GFDL which is why I said "current copyright statement" that "could be simplified" not the GFDL. From my reading you were using the GFDL to indicate that the current copyright statement is wrong. The statement makes no mention of a fair-use reason to copy and paste entire entries, quite the opposite (in big bold cap letters).
True, it does not mention fair use, but that doesn't make it invalid. The statement probably needs softening so it does not shout, and is more user friendly.
{{sofixit}}
I actually hadn't really noticed Wikipedia's statement until yesterday, the copyright part of it is good: By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Just change it to "most web pages and dictionaries" and it would work well on Wiktionary.
The statement does not now include "this does not include most web pages" as you claim. adding a reference to dictionaries would accomplish nothing.
Ec
Well, this statement I guess is a reflection of your tendency to read what you want and inability to google. I mean its right there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning And at the bottom of more then 430,000 edit pages. I think the whole statement is an improvment over the Wiktionary's rather confusing current message. Wikipedia used to have the statement we now have, but was changed within two months from the MediaWiki default for the same reason ("rephrase to avoid copyvios") I suggest we should change ours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ACopyrightwarning&d...
Merry Christmas/Saturnalia, Ian