CZ Talk:Notice Board

nicely expressed notice about "calling a constable." Nancy Sculerati MD 12:38, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Wikipedia credit

User Anthony wrote under the dateline of January 24:

Mentioning Wikipedia is neither necessary nor sufficient for GFDL compliance. Anthony 14:07, 28 January 2007 (CST)

I disagree. In any case, I want to credit WP where credit is due just as I would want to be credited for my own work. In connection with my work on the Highland Games Wikia (formerly Wikicities) I use the following template (with obvious changes) for WP material (see edit page for code):

http://www.citizendium.org/images/Smallwikipedialogo.png

This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at {{{1}}}. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Citizendium, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

This was written by Angela Beesley when she was with Wikipedia, so that should answer any questions about what is sufficient. See the template page of Wikia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia

James F. Perry 15:38, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Good suggestion, James. I think it is also highly adviseable to link to Wikipedia (or whatever other wiki) in the edit summary when importing text. The format I have been using is like this: "importing Wikipedia article; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mon_language&action=history up to January 12, 2007 for authorship history".—Nat Krause 15:56, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Wikipedia does not own the copyright on the articles in question, the copyright is held by the authors of the articles. What Angela Beesley said on Wikia is really quite irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong. I think linking to Wikipedia for articles based on Wikipedia is a good idea. But it is not necessary for GFDL compliance, and it most certainly is not sufficient for GFDL compliance. Anthony 16:10, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Well, the important thing is that we make the list of authors available somehow, right?—Nat Krause 16:21, 28 January 2007 (CST)

We have been linking to WP in articles that were automatically copied over in the first fork. There is a database flag that says whether an article is sourced from WP, and unfortunately, the code is simplemindedly written right now so that if someone starts a new page, the flag is "off." Hence the very temporary need for a template. We will remove these templates, as rendundant, as soon as the code is fixed. When fixed, we will be able to check a box and the corresponding WP article will be linked.

I don't want to use a WP logo in that pointer, by the way.

Finally I don't see what the argument is that we must link to WP's page history or credit anyone other than Wikipedia itself. --Larry Sanger 16:46, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Have you read the GFDL, Larry? Section 4 explains how to fork an article which is released under it. It says, in relevant part, that "If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence." It doesn't say anything about linking to the place where the document first appeared. Anthony 16:57, 28 January 2007 (CST)

As the person whose job it was to choose the license for Wikipedia, I find this funny. In other words, make your argument; don't insult your audience. I am still not convinced; an argument on this frankly means a legal brief, not one short, condescending paragraph. If you want to attempt it, please do so on the Forums. --Larry Sanger 17:07, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Larry? C'mon. You said that you don't see what the argument is that "we must...credit anyone other than Wikipedia itself". I provided a quote from the GFDL which says that you have to credit the authors. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. If you'd like me to remove the first sentence from my post because you feel it's condescending, I'll do so. If not, then I apologize for that, though honestly knowing that you chose the license for Wikipedia really doesn't make me any more sure of the answer to the question. Anthony 17:17, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Anthony, if you do engage in anything that really is abusive, it will simply be removed by a Constable (other than me); I won't ask you to remove it. The matter is quite obviously not simple and does belongs on the Forums: the GFDL seems to require all sorts of stuff that people very routinely ignore, because the GFDL was written for the usual sort of software documentation and bandies about all sorts of categories that do not apply to sets of encyclopedia articles. It was adopted by WP only because that was a way to get endorsement from Stallman and it was something ready to hand. Are we required to have a Title Page? What constitutes "the Document" when we are speaking about a Wikipedia article rather than software documentation? Given all this, one has to wonder if it makes the slightest bit of sense for individuals to say that they "license their own edits under the GFDL." Does that mean each one of their edits is a Document as described by the GFDL? None of these questions is easy. --Larry Sanger 17:36, 28 January 2007 (CST)

First of all, I'm fully aware that something "really abusive" will be removed. I don't think my comment amounts to that at all. But I do agree that it was unnecessarily condescending, and this being a wiki and all I see no problem with refactoring my comments to spare future readers the trouble of reading this portion of the the thread.

Anyway, I completely agree with you that the GFDL raises all sorts of difficult questions. Hopefully you or someone you trust will consult with a legal professional to answer some of those questions. In the mean time, ignoring a requirement which is explicitly spelled out in the GFDL seems like a quite dangerous position to take. But that's not my problem, so I'm not interested in starting a discussion in the forums over it. If someone else starts one there I might participate to the extent I feel confident in my comments.

Finally, I think I can provide an answer to at least one of your questions. You asked "Are we required to have a Title Page?" The answer is yes, since you have a title page by definition: "The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text." So see, one of those "difficult" questions is actually quite simple after all (what the title page actually is is a difficult question, though). Anthony 18:02, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Hmm. GFDL sect. 4 says we "must do these things in the Modified Version", then there is a list the first item of which is: "Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document)." Explain to me how this part of the license should be interpreted in our case, if you can. It seems no clearer than B: "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." By your interpretation of the definition of "Title Page," are we then obligated to list bunches of names up near the top of every article?

Clear as mud! I agree that a lawyer's services are necessary. --Larry Sanger 18:12, 28 January 2007 (CST)