• MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning/Archive

Soon (in less than 24 hours?), this template will appear above the Edit summary box. This change was decided by MediaWiki/Wikimedia so that they could be assured editors were seeing a copyright warning before clicking submit (on lower resolution screens, the warning is off-screen). The character-insert toolbox that is currently here will exist at MediaWiki:Edittools. Thus, not only should the character-insert toolbox be removed from here, but this template should also be drastically shortened. Only the key points should be here, while the rest of the content should be moved below the Submit button, which would mean putting them in the Edittools template. So, what are the key points that should remain here?

Based on our most recent endeavors, I think the key points should include: copyright warning and citing sources notice, at least.

Maybe it could be worded in a way to look like an agreement, such as "I confirm that this text was not copied directly from a copyrighted source, and that citations have been included."... or something along those lines. Didn't the image upload page used to say something like that?

— BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-30 11:48

I've moved the charinsert bits out, but this message could still use some cleanup. --Brion 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch - I can't speak for anyone else, but don't care for it. Slows me down some. But, if this is the way it is to be, I'll learn to cope. BD2412 T 03:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One-liner version

I've made this much shorter like I said earlier, but please discuss it further. This is simply a temporary change so that the whole place doesn't go bonkers over the large chunk of text. We all know it should be shorter than it was, but what should be kept/removed/changed? Note: anything that should be removed can go into MediaWiki:Edittools, like it is now. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 03:48

BD2412's reply

For me, this is much better, with a single line between the text box and the edit summary - I don't have to scroll very far down just to save the page. I think a second line would fit just as well, with no ill effect. BD2412 T 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. What else from the old list do you think should be in these lines? Obviously a copyright warning. I also think that citing verifiable, reliable sources should be there. Maybe a link to the sandbox? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 03:56
  • Why not just a notice that there are additional comments further down the page? BD2412 T 04:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be a good idea, though a bit redundant. Let's see what others suggest. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 04:13

Carnildo's reply

It's got a few problems. The big one I see is the "does not contain copyrighted work". Taken literally, that means that nobody can edit any page: all previous versions of the page are copyrighted, but licensed under the GFDL. It also means that people can't import articles from other GFDL sources, such as the Comixpedia wiki. --Carnildo 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly. It says "this edit", not "this page". Maybe "my changes" instead? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 04:12
  • Carnildo's point could be covered by saying instead "I affirm that this edit does not violate any copyright". BD2412 T 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, that sounds good. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 04:24

Geni's reply

I don't affirm anything. I'm trying to clean up some vadalism thats all. I have no idea if the edit is based on verifiable sources or not and at best I can say it doesn't read like a copyvio. Inserdently It looks stupid on tlak pages. What was wrong with what we had before? just kill the who thing and put it in the edit tools template.Geni 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's up above to make sure there's *something* where a visible link to the privacy and copyright policies can be put that will in fact be visible on screen before you submit an edit. On a small screen it's very easy to make edits without ever scrolling below the buttons, and if we want to pretend we really mean it with the existence of privacy policies and the license they need to be visible. --Brion 04:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's essential for the foundation to inform people about what they are allowed or forbidden to do... and this warning has to be displayed above a long tail of twenty templates. --Elian (told to quote from IRC) 04:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion (not involving myself) led to this being put above the Edit summary field though. Don't kill it just because you don't like the current form. It can be made workable, so help make it workable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 04:17
  • Can it with the "I affirm" stuff. After the last mess caused by people useing overly legalistic terms I think it is safe to say they are best avoided.
    • But what do you suggest it be replaced with? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 05:04
      • have a look.Geni 05:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd still put copyright first (it's a more serious concern) - and bold it: Please make sure your changes do not violate any copyright and are are based on verifiable sources. (note also period at end). BD2412 T 05:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 05:18

Could the GFDL link be bolded, perhaps? The other links are, which makes it look a little unbalanced. BD2412 T 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sean|Black 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks. BD2412 T 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite particularly like the changes. First, there's already a link to Wikipedia:Cite sources below; isn't that redundant? Can't one or the other be removed? Second, there's also a link to Wikipedia:Copyrights below, under a huge title that already says "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION" It's redundant to restate the same thing with the same link again. Finally, I don't exactly like the warning right above the edit summary box. It makes it look cluttered, in my opinion; haven't all warnings been agreed to be below? (Oh, by the way, Brian, can you point me to the previous discussion you mentioned above?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. Also, the "Templates used on this page" link is now too low to be very useful. But it's not a big enough deal to really bother me.--Sean|Black 22:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought copyright was infringed rather than violated. I wish someone had had the good mind to announce this somewhere before the change. I mean, who ever added this page to their watchlist? -Splash^talk 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. When I saw the changes, it took me quite a while to track down this MediaWiki page; I posted a notice on WP:AN today to draw more people to the right spot. To be frank, I don't really like the changes because of the aforementioned reasons. Thoughts? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not all infringements are actionable - a fair use might technically infringe but nevertheless not violate. I prefer violate anyway, as it's got a harsher sound, which I find more likely to dissuade potential copyers. BD2412 T 22:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage to having a short message before the edit box is that there's no way you can submit without reading it. What I would like is a quick mention of the GFDL. Superm401 | Talk 23:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But all that is already mentioned below - do we need to have redundant messages? Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not redundant. The need for it to be above the Submit button is so that everyone can be assured that people actually saw the copyright warning before clicking submit. On most lower resolutions, the warning is off-screen. Didn't you read any of the long discussion above??? (not being harsh, just can't believe you missed it) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 00:15

A GFDL notice might be good, although it is clearly mentioned at the top of Wikipedia:Copyrights. Let's see what others think of this idea before going forward with it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 00:30

See Brion's comments above. This wasn't a change by an admin, but by the MediaWiki/Wikimedia people. Unless you hear otherwise from the MediaWiki/Wikimedia folks, it's safe to assume that it is to remain intact as it currently is, at least providing a copyright warning. We had sufficient warning about this (here, on Village pump, and earliest of all, in at least one of the mailing lists), so I don't understand why nobody bothered to reply before it came about (See #New version above). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 23:59

(afer edit conflict) But there is already a copyright warning below the edit summary box. I'm glad that our developers added the capability for us to add a warning, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to use it. Did the Board mandate that we needed a new warning? Unless the Board mandates us to do so, I don't think we should feel compelled to add in the changes — sure, it gives us more options and might be a good idea, but that doesn't mean we have to do it. I, for one, feel that it is a bit redundant and clutters up the page even more. Regarding the notice — I know there was some discussion about this on the mailing list a few weeks ago and a change was made and then reverted, but today (when I clicked edit) was the first I was aware of the changes. Did you announce them anywhere else? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My message above said that I announced it here and on Village Pump, and there was an announcement about it on the mailing lists and in IRC. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 00:15
• Alright, if your complaint is the duplication of the same message, the 2nd message can be change so it isn't a duplicate. This was also just suggested by brion on #mediawiki. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 00:17
• The point is not to have duplicate bits, after all. The point is to have a brief link to the copyright and privacy policies in a visible place. That's it. --brion (copied with permission from #mediawiki) 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, please note that I do not feel compelled in any way. I have been in favor of such changes for quite a while now, and support this completely. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 00:25

Ok, the duplicate copyright notice in MediaWiki:Edittools has been removed as per the complaints above. Any other suggestions for improvements? How about making the text here <small>? This would make the text less conspicuous, and allow the option to add more if people want. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 00:22

OK, that's better. Thanks! I still don't agree with having the line above the rest of the warnings, however — is there a specific reason (besides emphasizing it) why the line shouldn't be moved to the last section? It shouldn't take importance over the other tips and warnings, and is very awkward above the edit summary box. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've stated the reason 3 times now, Brion has stated it twice, and another user has stated it once: Before this change, the copyright warning was off the screen for most people (below everything else), so they did not even have to see it before clicking Submit. This forces them to read the copyright warning, and to have links to the copyright policy above the Submit button. It's that simple. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 01:00

The reason is WP:CP. Anything that might reduce that is worth a try.Geni 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You may compare the german version perhaps. - Peter 08:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyway to prevent the warning from spilling over onto a second line?--Sean|Black 05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should the GFDL link point to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License rather than to the Wikipedia article on the GFDL? --Carnildo 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think it should - after all the Copyright link points to Wikipedia:Copyrights rather than our article on the same. BD2412 T 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, and Google all point clearly to License. Our article on GFDL is even called the GNU Free Documentation License. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 00:23

My original rationale for changing it is that licence is a noun form and license is a verb form. [[Sam Korn]] 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford says the verb is an s. And they're British :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 00:33

I say we split the difference and spell it with a 'k': "licenke" --Carnildo 01:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer license, for no reason that I can reduce to specifics. I suppose we could evade the question by using "release" instead, but that's a legally different proposition. BD2412 T 01:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Carnildo, if we were going to split the difference it would be licensce. Or, um, Lisencse. Or maybe licenxe. Wait... I have it! L1c3nz! BD2412 T 13:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. authorities follow Webster in prescribing license for all cases, of course. As for the U.K. authorities: Gowers doesn't cover the subject, but Fowler, Partridge, and Reader's Digest all say to use license for the verb, which is the case here. Uncle G 02:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both licence and license are equally acceptable. Brian0918, please familiarise yourself with the Manual of Style's guidelines, which states if something "...is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another". Licence is a valid spelling, and all you appear to be doing here is pushing your own spelling on top of others (and accusing others of "nonsense"[1]). I don't think you're conducting yourself as an administrator should. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that, were it a noun, "licence" would be acceptable. However, here it is a verb, and "license" is the far more common verbal form in the U.K., as Uncle G demonstrates above. "Licence" is valid, but very rare. Why not use the more common and equally correct version? It has the added advantage of also not annoying our American cousins. I changed it, I am British, and I changed it because that is the normal British spelling of the word. [[Sam Korn]] 12:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is you who are provoking conflict by pushing an unsourced spelling for the verb form. You have yet to provide one source that says licence is the proper spelling for the verb in America OR in Britain. Meanwhile, we have provided numerous sources which show that, whether in America or Britain, the preferred spelling for the verb is license. Can you provide one source for the proper verb spelling? I acknowledge that it can be spelled with a c in noun form, but not in verb form. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 13:30

I hereby nominate this exchange for WP:LAME. android79 13:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second the nomination.--Sean|Black 21:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it a break, there's nothing to talk about - whether you speak American or British English, the verb form is undeniably spelt with an 's'. Enochlau 14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't provide a source, Brian0918, because you yourself said you used dictionary.com. Searching for licence on that website says quite clearly "n. & v." - which means noun and verb. I agree that license is an acceptable alternate spelling. The point remains that Brian0918 has acted in bad faith, accusing people of "pushing nonsense" or "provoking conflict", defined edits as minor when in a dispute, selectively ignored evidence, and ignored the manual of style which makes it quite clear what should be done in the case of spelling disputes. I am very disappointed in the way Brian0918 has behaved. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, tho, license makes more sense - it's not incorrect in British English, whereas licence is certainly incorrect in American English. Of course, I am biased... but trying very hard not to be! BD2412 T 14:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, he had sources to back up his position. You had none. You acted in bad faith, he did not. Just let this go before you lose all respect you have. You are causing an edit war over one letter. Even if you weren't wrong, edit warring over such silly stuff is not helpful in the least. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As has clearly been shown, license is the only predominant spelling of the verb form. That should be the end of it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:41

We've attempted to resolve this on IRC, and I am quite happy for 'license' to be used. We discussed whether 'licence' is a valid form for the verb, and Brian0918 didn't accept that licence could ever be a verb. I'm still a bit disappointed about the way this has progressed, but I feel it's been much ado about nothing. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 15:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This controversy aside, I respectfully request that editors not replace the word license with another term - a license creates a specific kind of legal relationship, and an agreement to license has different connotations than an agreement to "place" or "put" or "release". Please trust your IP lawyer on this one. BD2412 T 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, does that mean I'm too late? Kim Bruning 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you're creating a new section on a page (for example, [2]), the warning is currently between the edit box and the "Save Page" buttons. This makes it easy to ignore, particularly since the edit box can be taller than the page. Could this warning be moved to the *top* of the section-edit page layout instead? I wasn't able to figure out how to do this. -- Creidieki 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the above wording because I think it's needed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Needed, maybe, but redundant to what's at the bottom of the page - and it clutters up that space between the edit window and the save/preview buttons. I think it was fine where it was. BD2412 T 14:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • This is exactly what I was afraid of - instruction creep. We already have all that material below the edit summary box, and repeating it above not only is redundant but clutters up the page even more. The only reason material was moved above the box was to place emphasis on the GFDL and sources. I've gone ahead and reverted until we can get a consensus about whether this should stay below the edit summary or be moved. THanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I've archived this talk page, as it was getting pretty long. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, but reverted where? I still see it! BD2412 T 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of no original research was added to the warning today. I'm not too sure I agree with the change, because we already have a warning about sources - original research, by definition, has no sources. Thoughts on whether we should mention WP:NOR? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly speaking, original research may have sources, but the sources are tertiary to the point of the research - I can point to sources, for example, supporting point A and point B, and contend that if these are true, that proves my point C. On the other hand, I don't think the original research warning is necessary in this section - maybe further down, below the edit buttons? BD2412 T 15:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, OK. I agree with moving it down - that seems like a good idea. Thoughts, or should I be bold and go ahead and do it? Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boldness rocks! BD2412 T 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I'll be bold and move it. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree; leave it out. — Dan | talk 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? Dan100 (Talk) 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, no reason. I just thought, since we're both named Dan, that I'd take the opposite side as you in order to confuse anyone who happens to be reading this discussion. — Dan | talk 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep it in the copyrightwarning. It's a fact that IPs love to add OR, and we need a prominent warning. It's true that asking for sources precludes OR, but I didn't think of that when I read it and don't expect everyone else does either.

What's the down side to having it there?

BTW I wonder how many people notice, let alone read, the text below the character selector... Dan100 (Talk) 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction creep. The point of having the copyright warning was to add more prominence to the copyright links and GFDL, not to add every single warning we need in that area. It's best to keep the space between the edit box and edit summary as short as possible; that's why we have the warnings beneath. And sorry for taking so long to reply; it must have slipped my watchlist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But adding the NOR warning doesn't add extra lines! And this isn't instruction creep in its true sense. Dan100 (Talk) 13:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, true that the shorter something is, the more people read it. [[Sam Korn]] 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that, but we're talking about four extra words! That's taking that logic to the extreme, no? Dan100 (Talk) 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is already too long, at a line and a half on a 1024x768 screen. If there's any re-wording that could get it down to a single line, I'd be all for it. --Carnildo 20:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you lot have managed to do to this particular message (which should just be left alone, dammit), but at present I get three successive warnings about different parts of enwiki policy before I can commit an edit. And yes, I've force-refreshed and purged and closed by browser and logged out. Stop playing. -Splash^talk 05:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out (by a user called Rob on the talk page of WP:V) that while it's policy that information must be verifiable, it's only a guideline that you should quote a source. To quote SlimVirgin's response from the same talk page:

Regarding whether citing sources is mandatory, the policy is that people ought to (ideally) cite sources when they make an edit, but it's not mandatory. That is, if someone makes an edit and doesn't cite a source, you can't take them to the arbcom for a policy violation.

Therefore I've removed the sources link, as how it was worded before suggested that providing a source was mandatory. Dan100 (Talk) 10:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I re-added sources. The statement says "Content...must be based on verifiable sources." This doesn't say that the content must cite sources, just that the content must be based on verifiable sources. It may seem redundant, but it is an excuse to add a link to the page for citing sources, which was one of reasons this Copyrightwarning was created. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 13:36

The current version is:

Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL.

It would be better if it said:

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

The latter is more legally valid, and only a tiny bit longer. Superm401 | Talk 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the rest of the talk page. This has already been discussed. Uncle G 03:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the entire page. Can give me the section where this specific issue was discussed? I am not referring to the dispute over the spelling of "license." Note that my proposal uses the same spelling, just a different form. Superm401 | Talk 10:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to nitpick but... "Your agree to license"? R.Koot 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, but now that we have that out of the way, I would really like the actual change to be made. Superm401 | Talk 03:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I wonder if it warrants a semicolon or a dash between the two sentences now? --HappyCamper 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for making the change. As for punctuation, I'd prefer to keep it as is. Superm401 | Talk 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 [3] and Wikinews [4]. 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]

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 [5] (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" [6] 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]