Now that Wiktionary 1.4 is settling in, thought I would bring up an issue thats been on the en:Beer parlor for a while, which may benefit from some ideas from other wikt's. Plus it would take a sysop, {{sofixit}} isn't an option ;)
Here it is:
Its fairly common that we find copyright infringing articles. I hypothesize this is not someone trying to poison Wiktionary, but is due to ignorance. If you are like me, you've read it once and then forget that it says the following at the buttom of every edit page:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Really I think this assumes the reader understands copyright as well as understands what folks in the Free Software movement consider to be 'free'. I mean, dictionary.com is free as in beer, but it isn't 'similar free' which is kind of expecting a bit from Joe User. The paragraph previous to that already gets the legal crap over with by stating you are releasing under the GFDL, I don't think we need to cover every case. It should talk to the anonymous junior high student who sees noctilucent doesn't have a definition. I'm not claiming to be a great wordsmith, but here is a try:
All definitions must be written by yourself or borrowed from a public domain resource. Do not use content from copyrighted resources such as dictionary.com.
I think dictionary.com is the biggest culprit, so naming it specifically will be helpful. Also its a good example of what a copyrighted resource is. We could also throw on something nice to it, like 'we want to know what you think' or 'we apperciate your input'. I'm not sure how to put it. Just to be nice and to reiterate the 'your'. --- There wasn't any further discussion of it, though Eclecticology stated his belief in their being legal gray area around copyrights on dictionaries.
Any ideas?
Ian Monroe wrote:
Now that Wiktionary 1.4 is settling in, thought I would bring up an issue thats been on the en:Beer parlor for a while, which may benefit from some ideas from other wikt's. Plus it would take a sysop, {{sofixit}} isn't an option ;)
Here it is:
Its fairly common that we find copyright infringing articles. I hypothesize this is not someone trying to poison Wiktionary, but is due to ignorance. If you are like me, you've read it once and then forget that it says the following at the buttom of every edit page:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Really I think this assumes the reader understands copyright as well as understands what folks in the Free Software movement consider to be 'free'. I mean, dictionary.com is free as in beer, but it isn't 'similar free' which is kind of expecting a bit from Joe User. The paragraph previous to that already gets the legal crap over with by stating you are releasing under the GFDL, I don't think we need to cover every case. It should talk to the anonymous junior high student who sees noctilucent doesn't have a definition. I'm not claiming to be a great wordsmith, but here is a try:
All definitions must be written by yourself or borrowed from a public domain resource. Do not use content from copyrighted resources such as dictionary.com.
I think dictionary.com is the biggest culprit, so naming it specifically will be helpful. Also its a good example of what a copyrighted resource is. We could also throw on something nice to it, like 'we want to know what you think' or 'we apperciate your input'. I'm not sure how to put it. Just to be nice and to reiterate the 'your'.
There wasn't any further discussion of it, though Eclecticology stated his belief in their being legal gray area around copyrights on dictionaries.
Any ideas?
I really don't think that the problem is as bad as Ian makes out. The copying of any single definition from another dictionary may just as easily be fair use. Though when the definition is copied from another source that source needs to be referenced. Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour. Writing one's own brand new definitions is not as sound a practice as Ian suggests. If one is to do that it should properly be accompanied by evidence of identified quotations that illustrate the use of the word in just that way.
We've already had the argument about protologisms as original work, but so too are definitions that take a word into areas where it has never been used before. Writing one's own definitions is not as easy as it seems.
A significant statement in the GFDL license is "You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law." Fair use does not require these permissions.
Ec
I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to divine the definitions of words. How are you not saying that a dictionary has no place being developed in a wiki-way?
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make sure I got it right. Information isn't under copyright, expressions of information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever extending, quite the opposite.
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.
"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what I had in mind. Ex. http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and could be simplified.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:04:06 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Monroe wrote:
Now that Wiktionary 1.4 is settling in, thought I would bring up an issue thats been on the en:Beer parlor for a while, which may benefit from some ideas from other wikt's. Plus it would take a sysop, {{sofixit}} isn't an option ;)
Here it is:
Its fairly common that we find copyright infringing articles. I hypothesize this is not someone trying to poison Wiktionary, but is due to ignorance. If you are like me, you've read it once and then forget that it says the following at the buttom of every edit page:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Really I think this assumes the reader understands copyright as well as understands what folks in the Free Software movement consider to be 'free'. I mean, dictionary.com is free as in beer, but it isn't 'similar free' which is kind of expecting a bit from Joe User. The paragraph previous to that already gets the legal crap over with by stating you are releasing under the GFDL, I don't think we need to cover every case. It should talk to the anonymous junior high student who sees noctilucent doesn't have a definition. I'm not claiming to be a great wordsmith, but here is a try:
All definitions must be written by yourself or borrowed from a public domain resource. Do not use content from copyrighted resources such as dictionary.com.
I think dictionary.com is the biggest culprit, so naming it specifically will be helpful. Also its a good example of what a copyrighted resource is. We could also throw on something nice to it, like 'we want to know what you think' or 'we apperciate your input'. I'm not sure how to put it. Just to be nice and to reiterate the 'your'.
There wasn't any further discussion of it, though Eclecticology stated his belief in their being legal gray area around copyrights on dictionaries.
Any ideas?
I really don't think that the problem is as bad as Ian makes out. The copying of any single definition from another dictionary may just as easily be fair use. Though when the definition is copied from another source that source needs to be referenced. Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour. Writing one's own brand new definitions is not as sound a practice as Ian suggests. If one is to do that it should properly be accompanied by evidence of identified quotations that illustrate the use of the word in just that way.
We've already had the argument about protologisms as original work, but so too are definitions that take a word into areas where it has never been used before. Writing one's own definitions is not as easy as it seems.
A significant statement in the GFDL license is "You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law." Fair use does not require these permissions.
Ec
Ian Monroe wrote:
I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to divine the definitions of words.
I can't say; I never use it. I do have 20 or 30 other books that I can reference as required.
How are you not saying that a dictionary has no place being developed in a wiki-way?
I nver said that.
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make sure I got it right.
I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct. I frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with that and the OED. The big advantage of these works is their use of quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the language.... certainly not to create original definitions.
Information isn't under copyright, expressions of information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever extending, quite the opposite.
I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary. Fair use (at least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is substantiality. Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code § 107.) You need to consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases. Whether fair us will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable. It is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot less restrictive than what people think it is.
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.
Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright dictionaries. The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source) were in need of repair. But we also haven't seen him in a week, and don't know if he will ever come back. Maybe he found that even a straightforward copying was too boring. Your technique for discouraging newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all. If he is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you might just as well quietly fix the affected articles. If he's a registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will be a lot more productive.
"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what I had in mind. Ex. http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and could be simplified.
??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:04:06 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Monroe wrote:
Now that Wiktionary 1.4 is settling in, thought I would bring up an issue thats been on the en:Beer parlor for a while, which may benefit
from some ideas from other wikt's. Plus it would take a sysop,
{{sofixit}} isn't an option ;)
Here it is:
Its fairly common that we find copyright infringing articles. I hypothesize this is not someone trying to poison Wiktionary, but is due to ignorance. If you are like me, you've read it once and then forget that it says the following at the buttom of every edit page:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Really I think this assumes the reader understands copyright as well as understands what folks in the Free Software movement consider to be 'free'. I mean, dictionary.com is free as in beer, but it isn't 'similar free' which is kind of expecting a bit from Joe User. The paragraph previous to that already gets the legal crap over with by stating you are releasing under the GFDL, I don't think we need to cover every case. It should talk to the anonymous junior high student who sees noctilucent doesn't have a definition. I'm not claiming to be a great wordsmith, but here is a try:
All definitions must be written by yourself or borrowed from a public domain resource. Do not use content from copyrighted resources such as dictionary.com.
I think dictionary.com is the biggest culprit, so naming it specifically will be helpful. Also its a good example of what a copyrighted resource is. We could also throw on something nice to it, like 'we want to know what you think' or 'we apperciate your input'. I'm not sure how to put it. Just to be nice and to reiterate the 'your'.
There wasn't any further discussion of it, though Eclecticology stated his belief in their being legal gray area around copyrights on dictionaries.
Any ideas?
I really don't think that the problem is as bad as Ian makes out. The copying of any single definition from another dictionary may just as easily be fair use. Though when the definition is copied from another source that source needs to be referenced. Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour. Writing one's own brand new definitions is not as sound a practice as Ian suggests. If one is to do that it should properly be accompanied by evidence of identified quotations that illustrate the use of the word in just that way.
We've already had the argument about protologisms as original work, but so too are definitions that take a word into areas where it has never been used before. Writing one's own definitions is not as easy as it seems.
A significant statement in the GFDL license is "You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law." Fair use does not require these permissions.
Ec
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:22:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Monroe wrote:
I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to divine the definitions of words.
I can't say; I never use it. I do have 20 or 30 other books that I can reference as required.
How are you not saying that a dictionary has no place being developed in a wiki-way?
I nver said that.
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make sure I got it right.
I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct. I frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with that and the OED. The big advantage of these works is their use of quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the language.... certainly not to create original definitions
"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.
Information isn't under copyright, expressions of information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever extending, quite the opposite.
I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary. Fair use (at least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is substantiality. Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code § 107.) You need to consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases. Whether fair us will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable. It is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot less restrictive than what people think it is.
No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings. 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.
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?
How is IANAL logically fallacious? It's a statement of fact.
Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright dictionaries. The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source) were in need of repair. But we also haven't seen him in a week, and don't know if he will ever come back. Maybe he found that even a straightforward copying was too boring. Your technique for discouraging newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all. If he is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you might just as well quietly fix the affected articles. If he's a registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will be a lot more productive.
What is my new rule exactly? Aren't you the one making a new rule? Is the current rule "stand by idly while folks pollute our supposedly GFDL work"? All I'm trying to do is rephrase the statement at the bottom of the edit box. Not trying to change the substance of what it says (as is your apparent crusade, though I suspect its just being contrary) - just make it more clear.
"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what I had in mind. Ex. http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and could be simplified.
??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them
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).
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.
Ian Monroe wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:22:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ian Monroe wrote:
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make sure I got it right.
I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct. I frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with that and the OED. The big advantage of these works is their use of quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the language.... certainly not to create original definitions
"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.
Information isn't under copyright, expressions of information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever extending, quite the opposite.
I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary. Fair use (at least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is substantiality. Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code § 107.) You need to consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases. Whether fair us will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable. It is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot less restrictive than what people think it is.
No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings.
In other words, you don't want your POV to be confused by facts.
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.
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.
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.
Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying from copyright dictionaries. The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source) were in need of repair. But we also haven't seen him in a week, and don't know if he will ever come back. Maybe he found that even a straightforward copying was too boring. Your technique for discouraging newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all. If he is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you might just as well quietly fix the affected articles. If he's a registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will be a lot more productive.
What is my new rule exactly? Aren't you the one making a new rule? Is the current rule "stand by idly while folks pollute our supposedly GFDL work"? All I'm trying to do is rephrase the statement at the bottom of the edit box. Not trying to change the substance of what it says (as is your apparent crusade, though I suspect its just being contrary) - just make it more clear.
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.
"Copyright infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what I had in mind. Ex. http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and could be simplified.
??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them
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.
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
"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
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:00:07 -0600 Ian Monroe ian.monroe@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if I have a spark of inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally).
Wordnet is an awful source, that lumps together multiple words as though they had identical meanings, when there truly are few words that have an identical meaning to another word. Anyway, the definitions it uses are severely flawed anyway and are no where near as good as authoritative sources like Webster and OED. The definitions in Wordnet are more appropriate to a desk reference for middle school students than an authoritative dictionary.
Cheers,
Chris Hagar
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org