"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&…
Merry Christmas/Saturnalia,
Ian