[WikiEN-l] Re: votes for deletion

[koyaanis qatsi]

zoe writes:
>I twice deleted a newbie's article called
> [[First Bull Run]].  The first time, it
> was deleted because it was a copright
> violation.

Yes, that's all well and good, but sometimes apparent
copyright violations are actually not violations at
all.  That happened today with a Czech Republic
article--someone at another site had claimed copyright
on writeups from the U.S. State Department, which are
in the public domain.  The text was removed, listed
for deletion, and restored.  I thought you noticed
when that happened.  :-)

Again, let me stress: I'm as concerned about copyright
violations as anyone else, if not moreso: personally,
I have misgivings about all the "fair use" photographs
and would prefer not to have them.  But we must give
people time to explain themselves when they upload
apparently "copyrighted" material.  In some cases, the
copyright is theirs.  In others, they're claiming
copyright on something that's in the public domain. 
And then, in yet other cases, it's a violation that
needs to be taken down or rewritten completely.

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com