Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it. You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their reply could possibly be seen as).
And you are wrong in your assertion. I am interested in the article subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its entirety.
You have more than once referred to the list as "cruft" (or at least suggested that it was). To me "cruft" is a term of disparagement. Others have pointed out that you seem to be looking for a good reason to get rid of the list (your original post suggested that it was either copyvio, OR, or "cruft").
While I may have stepped over the line by stating as a given what I perceive to see as your motives, I still hold the opinion that if you thought this information to be more important than "cruft", you would be more willing to listen to those opinions that differ from yours. After asking for "guidance", you have argued strenuously that it is in fact copyvio (or original research).
Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request. I am prepared to eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in only when it is established that it does not violate copyright. We get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we generally *do* remove them.
No, I don't really think you are. I think that, before you acted on *any" asserted copyright, you would check things out. If someone said that certain content was from their web page, you would first go to their web page, would you not? Before deleting the information? And you'd see if the content was "really" a copyvio? If it was paraphrased, wouldn't you try to explain to the complainant why it was not copyvio? If the alleged source was a printed book that you happened to have on a shelf, wouldn't you look at the book first? If you didn't have the book, wouldn't you at least check to see if anyone else had quick access to it? These things seem to be minimal steps to take before acting on "any" asserted copyright violation. Even though you're not a copyright lawyer, you still see if it is an obvious case (one way or the other) before acting on it.
In fact, isn't that why you're asking here now?
I really don't *know* what you'd do in any of these cases, but I sure hope that you are not so paranoid about copyrights that you immediately act on any allegation of copyvio.
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of copyright is not the way to do that.
You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We are not allowed to include content that violates other people's copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with Wikipedia's mission.
No, I understand the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech. Of course we're not "allowed" to include content that violates copyright, nor am I suggesting that we do. But I am suggesting that we not cave to unreasonable claims of copyright. I'd even go as far as saying that we should push back when copyright claims are not obvious and go against free-as-in-speech.
This is *not* a clear copyvio. We should fight to include it, and relent only when it is established that it is a copyvio, which in my mind requires more than a reply to your inquiry. We have a process for authors who believe that their copyright is being violated. See [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright]]. Again, I don't know how the volunteers at info-en-c@wikimedia.org behave, but I'd be surprise if they removed without some level of verification.
The subject of the Cool Wall can be discussed perfectly satisfactorily without including the list, just as we can discuss popular songs without including mp3s or lyrics of the songs.
In fact, that is probably a good example: a song is part of an album, as the Cool Wall is part of Top Gear; the song is published in the form of a performance; the lyrics are in some cases transcribed by fans; it is generally accepted that these lyrics are copyright. Not only do we not allow them to be included, we don't even allow links to them unless on the official site of the band.
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of this case. As I said before, I am not a copyright lawyer. Nor do I consider myself to have anything beyond a basic acquaintance with copyright law.
Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere request should result in our removing the information, when the question of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
Yes. The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating, proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting. Someone is right now claiming that some material in [[KRISTI snowcat]] violates his copyright. After taking advice from Brad, I removed some and left other facts in with {{fact}} tags.
Guy (JzG)
You see, I was right about you. You didn't "eliminate on request". You got Brad's advice, and then only partially complied with the request for removal (if I understand correctly). Something led you to ask for Brad's advice--could it be that it was not an obvious copyvio (i.e. not a direct copy-and-paste)?
We do make decisions about removing non-free content from Wikipedia. In some cases (biographies of living people), we often remove first and ask questions later. In those sort of cases, we need to begin from a position of not causing harm via unsubstantiated/unreferenced "facts".
But this is a different type of situation, and our position should not be so quick-to-delete. We can be more deliberate (at least, until we get an official take-down-request). We can be more assertive of our rights and of our mission.
-Rich