To have an admin change the page, include {{Editprotected}} in your request.

Archives

Archive 1

[Incompatible licence conditions?]

This page says "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

But the page at Wikipedia:Copyrights says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."

This would seem to indicate that Wikipedia is applying conditions to the licence after the fact that the contributor hasn't agreed to. Unless I've missed something (which is possible), that's a serious problem. Irrevenant 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One character change

{{editprotected}} add * just after GFDL and add *<nowiki>*<nowiki>Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. to MediaWiki:Edittools.Geni 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest using an anchor link. For example:

[[#copyright|*]]

here, and

<nowiki /><span id="copyright" />*Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

to Edittools, if this change is correct, copyright-wise. Gracenotes^T § 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - added anchor link as well as reverse anchor link, plus nifty CSS highlighting when clicked. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 09:09Z

Remove asterisk.

{{Editprotected}}How about linking "GFDL" to #copyright, and then link Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License at the #copyright section? -- Jeandré, 2007-03-17t11:28z

 Done —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 11:47Z

I think all Wikipedians should be reminded each time they edit an article that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I know that this is not Wikipedia's most important policy/guideline, but I have seen quite a few articles lately in which excessive external links seem to have been a problem. Among them have been pro-life and transsexualism. I don't know if it would be feasible to include a statement about this on the editing page, but it's just an idea.

Andrea Parton 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that Wikipedia has a fairly weak copyright warning (compared to other Wikis), and we do get hundreds of copy and paste copyvios a day, so I think stronger wording is needed. Meta uses:

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!

I would like to change the current wording to something like that. If there's no discussion in a day or two I will do it. --W.marsh 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen numerous Wikipedia pages that appear to have been copied, more or less directly, from copyrighted websites. I agree that a stronger warning is necessary. Andrea Parton 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; the usage on meta is the MediaWiki default. The reason that isn't used is because we the current version is brief and concise, while conveying the same information. (See above discussion for why a short message, conveying the same info as a long one, is better.) In addition, we don't want to scare off any newcomers. Meta is very unlike Wikipedia; most people there are already experienced editors. On the other hand, we shouldn't discourage new people who stumble upon Wikipedia from editing because of a harsh and excessive warning when a much more polite and shorter one will suffice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. People aren't getting the message that copying and pasting articles from random websites is not supposed to happen... doing newpage patrol or any kind of maintenence will make this rather clear. So it would seem that a better warning is needed. Moreover, many of these people will rewrite the article once warned about the copyright issues, it's just that we rarely warn them quickly enough, due to the massive flood of new pages. --W.marsh 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People will still submit copyrighted material, but a line must be drawn at how big and bold the warning should be. The briefer and more concise (while conveying the same information), the better. The current version does that, and the point is reiterated below the char box ("Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages."). I don't think there's a reason to change this wording. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not being clear? The most popular Wiki should not have the weakest and least informative warnings. Most people don't think of copying and pasting random text as a copyvio, after all, they do it on their blog, forums, etc. and no one ever bats an eyebrow. The copyvio notice should tell them specifically not to do that. We get hundreds of copyvios every day... obviously the current warning isn't doing a good enough job, so I think we need to at least try something stronger and see if that helps. --W.marsh 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what is our goal with this warning? From my view, the goal is to protect Wikipedia from vicarious liability for coyright infringement, which the existing warning effectively does. Folks been warned - that's our duty. We hunt and knock out copyvios to make the encyclopedia better, but it is the poster of such material who bears whatever legal risk accompanies such posting. BD2412T 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But copyvios can cause a lot of problems. If they aren't detected, that can get slightly altered over time and eventually integrated into articles, and a year later we discover we have to scrap a good article because copyvio text is entrenched in it. Also it presents a poor picture of Wikipedia if people find lots of obvious copy and pastes from other websites sitting out in the open. I don't think we should be okay with hundreds of copyvios a day, many of them sitting undetected for months. --W.marsh 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree that copyvios can cause a lot of problems, having seen quite a few and removed some that were unnoticed initially. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere; we could easily ask a user to confirm ten times that what they submitted wasn't a copyvio. While that example is a bit extreme, I'm just using it to point out that the warning should convey the appropriate information in as consise a statement as possible. In addition, we also need to consider the ramifications of using an excessively blunt and strong statement; we don't want to scare away potential new contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a point where warnings are pointless, some people will never read them or care... but I don't think until we try it that we can say that a more informative notice wouldn't help, because most people don't mean to do anything wrong, they just don't see copying and pasting stuff as a copyvio. And right now, I don't think the article creation process does much to tell them that it is a copyvio... we have very soft messages, softer than the defaults, softer than most any Wiki out there... and our maintenence backlogs are bigger than the entire contents of almost any Wiki (partially) as a result. We should be careful of having soft, unhelpful messages... doing very little to help well intentioned people avoid creating bad articles is bad for the project long-term. --W.marsh 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia is three times larger than the German Wikipedia, and gets twice as much traffic as all other Wikipedias combined. That might have something to do with the problems it's having. --Carnildo 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh, but I don't think having much softer warnings helps, especially considering our traffic level. Consider Commons [1] and Wikinews [2]. I honestly don't understand the resistance against a more obvious and helpful message on Wikipedia-en. --W.marsh 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't disagree at all that copyvios are a problem and should absolutely not be allowed. However, I disagree that the proposed changes would be helpful: it makes a consise statement longer while saying the same thing, won't necessarily help reduce the problem, and is quite strong, scaring away potentially contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't currently explain that copying and pasting IS a copyvio, like I've said. I think most "copyvios" are just simple misunderstands... many of which would be stopped with a better warning. So the proposed changes would be helpful. At least in my opinion. We'd only really know if we tried. --W.marsh 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the text further down does sort of explain that... not sure that everyknow knows what public domain means. Still, I think ginormous letters and more obvious placement might be our only hope... though I understand that would never happen. :-) --W.marsh 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add that copyrighted content will be deleted.

In order to make clear that copyrighted content will not just sit there in what users think is the laissez-faire freedom of a wiki, it should be added that: "Content must not violate any copyright or it will be deleted." (emphasis added) Perhaps having "deleted" be in bold. —Centrx→talk • 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be a good idea. It would prevent (to a certain extent) new users from adding copyright content indiscriminately. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the warning is long enough as it is, and that the "will be deleted", while true, isn't entirely necessary. JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the length is the only issue I think. The purpose is, though, that under the current message a user will very well think "Whatever, I will still add it and, look there it is on the page. So nothing happened, yay, the message was a scare tactic and I got away with it." Saying it will be deleted tells them that there is an effective reason why there is no point in posting it: it will disappear. I do like the nice short current message though. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can't we put thin in below "Your changes will be visible immediately."?Geni 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many people read that now that the Insert character box is so big. There are a ton of copyvio's, almost all by well-meaning people who at least would not have uploaded the inevitably deleted copyvio, and best would have rewritten or summarized the addition and would not have been scared off by the rapid deleting response to their contributions. "Content must not violate any copyright" is clear from a professional or legal standpoint, but it doesn't make anyone pause to think that just about everything, including that website they just read, is copyrighted and can't be uploaded here. It would save a lot of everyone's time to have an effective message in the first place that informs them they can't upload that. Something like "Do not post text you copied from a website, it will be deleted." —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have a message DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!. Perhaps it does not need to be so capitally bold, but something strong is needed. —Centrx→talk • 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the term deleted should be bolded as well as capitalized to emphasis the action which will be taken. This will definitely deter users on posting copyright content. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, on the other side of the coin, we should also not accept works that are *not* copyrighted (short of public domain). GFDL only works for copyrighted content. :-) Kim Bruning 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why it is not right to accept works that are NOT copyrighted? Could the reason be that the copyright status of such works are unclear? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL and CC* are licences for copyrighted information. No copyright, no licence. :-) Kim Bruning 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone who does newpage patrol can tell you, a lot of people aren't getting the message that pasting articles from other websites is rarely a good thing. Many people who do it don't see it as a copyvio, because hey, they do that on their blog, their favorite web forum, etc. and no one ever cares. So when we say "Don't violate a copyright" they say "Okay, I won't!" yet do it anyway. We can have gigantic warning text, similar to the image warning screen, and that would probably help explain what a copyvio actually is. But ultimately, as we see with images, some people are just gonna do it anyway... so the solution will unfortunatly just be that we have to deal with copyvios better. User:Where has a bot that maintains Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, I think we need A) more patrollers there and B) maybe another bot, if Where thinks it would improve the yield.

We also should probably have a warning screen when someone tries to upload an article with no formatting. But that will essentially never happen..... --W.marsh 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify why you think this will never happen? What are the negative consequences of having a warning screen? Would it discourage the newbies from staying in this project? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's huge resistance towards changing the article creation process, for whatever reason. People think it would mean fewer articles if say, a screen said "You didn't format this article at all" and so on, or even if there was bigger warning text and so on. We still give people just a blank box and no real help... apparently there's little interest from the devs/powers that be in improving this situation. --W.marsh 05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:HD:

Does content on talk pages have to be based on verifiable sources? Does it have to be under the GFDL? The edit page says it does but that doesn't make sense. MUSICAL 10:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this I tweaked the wording [3] (including adding "Article" to the first sentence) to:

Article content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. You agree to license all contributions under the GFDL.

BD2412 deleted "Article" [4] on the grounds that all contributions must not violate any copyrights. Does anyone object to:

You agree to not violate any copyright and to license your contributions under the GFDL. Articles must be based on verifiable sources.

If anyone can shorten the text, please do. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that all content, whether on a user page, a talk page, wherever, must be released under the GFDL. Last year we banned a good contributor because he insisted on asserting a copyright interest in his talk page comments. As for verifiability, there are circumstances where this would apply to things not in the article space - some categories have headers which include assertions of fact, and the content of some templates has the same effect (e.g. if a template lists all the #1 songs by a band, I'd better be able to verify that this status applies to the songs so listed. Also, Portal space falls under the same constraints as article space - is there a term that captures all of the space where people can look for facty stuff? bd2412 T 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Content", in its technical, Wikipedic sense. Whilst precise enough in the "jargon", it's not so clear to newbies. -Splash - tk 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. not so clear to those at whom the warning is most directly aimed. bd2412 T 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I hearing the suggested version is not acceptable? I agree about all contributions being GFDL and mean for the suggested version to say this (I guess it could say all submissions rather than your contributions). Assuming the first sentence is OK, would we rather have the second sentence be more precise (but wordier), e.g. Encyclopedic content must be based on verifiable sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, better, but that sounds like a truism - how about Encyclopedia content instead of Encyclopedic content? bd2412 T 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing the discussion, as I've been extremely busy and haven't had a chance to edit in quite a while... only two weeks late! :-) Seriously, though, I don't like the current version and wording. It seems like the discussion just dropped off suddenly after June became July. The current version sounds like a command (well, it is a command): it uses the imperative mood (twice), along with an exclamation point. The overall feel of the message is somewhat terse and "scary-sounding" to new users, while we should be promoting an opposite feeling: welcome to new contributors. I've gone ahead and been bold, rewording the message slightly while we (hopefully) continue the discussion. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion_criterion_for_unsourced_articles of including a warning that unsourced content may be deleted. If this is done, it should be above the wiki mark-up, so that new editors will see it. There are several suggestions on wording. Septentrionalis 17:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple message, like adding to the "encyclopedic content must be verifiable: cite your sources or it may be removed." with a link to WP:CITE would probably suffice. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done this on MediaWiki:Newarticletext. As a blanket speedy deletion criteria the proposal is unworkable. This should not be displayed for all edits because there are many kinds of edits that would never warrant providing a source, and even for the ones that would it is not absolutely necessary that we put up a discouragement to editing. The bozos will still add their unsourced crap, but the kind of person who would actually be adding legitimate information would be the ones discouraged. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the goal is to get the editors, like I was, who mean well but forget that they have to specify where they got their information from. Not everyone adding good but unsourced information is a bozo, of course. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to having a policy of deleting all unsourced articles or all unsourced information. Adding a more explicit message about citing sources could be good, along the lines of "Please cite your sources", but nothing at all like "Any unsourced information will be deleted". —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V already says that anything dubious and uncited may be removed, so it would be good to advise people what may happen if they don't cite, I think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One text could be Unsourced information may be removed without notice. Since this is true now under WP:V, as NightGyr points out, it may be a kindness to say so. Note the may, as opposed to will in the copyvio notice. Septentrionalis 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. It might be a bit better to have Uncited information may be removed because I'm not sure "unsourced" is a real word, and we should try to keep this short. Thus (with a little rearranging to keep the GFDL release early), the whole text could be:

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable; uncited information may be removed.

What does everyone think? Superm401 - Talk 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too long. We're trying to keep this short enough that people might actually read it. --Carnildo 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favoured wording for this is "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. Encyclopedic content must provide sources"; one word longer than the current version, and clearer about what is required. --ais523 16:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about situations where a person is helping by adding information, because regular editors of the article will notice it added and see a gap in the article coverage? Sometimes people don't have the sources right on hand, but they know the subject. Sources are needed, but the information should be there. Sometimes people don't even realize they can add a suggestion to the talk page. Also, we don't need people to add sources for re-wording or patently obvious descriptions. —Centrx→talk • 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long term all information should have sources. Editors can achieve this by finding sources for info already in the article, or by removing unverified info (perhaps temporarily). Unverified ideas are probably best suggested on Talk. As for the warning itself, I like ais523's formulation. But a still shorter version could be:

How about a simple "Uncited information may be removed." ? Not too harsh. True. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Content that violates any copyright, or lacks sources, can be deleted. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." --Superm401 - Talk 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But copyright infringements will be deleted (though, to a lesser extent unsourced articles will be deleted—or they will get sources and no longer be "unsourced") —Centrx→talk • 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that this warning doesn't say people should credit sources if they are copying and pasting from them, even if that source has a free liscense. We've recently caught some flack for articles that do this and never mention where the text came from, as that is plagiarism. Also, many people upload stuff assuming they have permission, but never assert it... and this leads to a lot of wheel spinning as their stuff is quickly deleted.

I think better wording would help at least a little bit:

Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted. Credit any source you legally copy from in the article.

But that seems to convoluted... any ideas? --W.marsh 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just make it "Credit any source you legally copy." —Centrx→talk • 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the page and added an archive box. --Meno25 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attribution has replaced Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please replace "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." with "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." -- Jeandré, 2007-02-23t21:00z

Even better would be "Encyclopedic content must be attributed to a reliable source." -- Jeandré, 2007-02-23t21:08z

Done. Remember to use {{editprotected}} to get administrators' attention quicker. I only came here because I was going to make a similar change of my own accord! Picaroon 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the above, per heavy discussion on WP:ATT's talk page. >Radiant< 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend removing the link to Wikipedia:Attribution in favor of the old link to Wikipedia:Verifiability. As it stands right now, ATT is a proposed policy. Frise 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote about GFDL (linking to MediaWiki:Edittools#copyright) seems slightly superfluous, might that be removed? In the interests of not overwhelming the editpage foot-instructions... We're used to its size (or hide it with css) but it's really quite overwhelming for new editors, as it currently is, and every reduction helps.

Also the superscript * causes an extra-large gap above the wordwrapped GFDL (at 1024x768 in firefox/linux): Example screenshot (see top left, above GFDL^*). Anything that can be done to shorten that line, would be beneficial. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]