CZ Talk:Reusing Citizendium Content

This page was first created and discussed in this forum thread. --Warren Schudy 09:02, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Notes

Removed "approximately 15% of its total corpus." This number is likely to change, and whatever we write should be extensible. (I thought it was much higher, besides.)

"While anyone anywhere may reuse CC-by-sa and GFDL texts, within certain conditions, the two may not be intermixed...yet." This is just false. (We intermix them.)

I think whoever wrote interpreted "intermix" as mixing them within one article, whereas you've interpreted it as mixing them within one encyclopedia. Warren Schudy 10:00, 5 January 2008 (CST)

The Q&A format is a bit constraining...

If you're going to make a {{cz}} template for the use of reusers, please rename it (and delete {{cz}}) to {{cz-gfdl}}, and then also create a similar {{cz-ccbysa}} template.

What's the use of the cz-ccbysa template since they aren't allowed to import cz-ccbysa material? Warren Schudy 10:00, 5 January 2008 (CST)

This whole article should actually live at CZ:Reusing Citizendium Content and should not be titled so that it specifically concerns Wikipedia. --Larry Sanger 08:54, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Purpose of page?

Now that I've included text from the license essay on CZ:License (I asked someone to do this and thought it was already done, but apparently not), my question to those of you working on this page is: what exactly is the purpose of this page? Is it an "instruction page" that just necessarily repeats and overlaps with the official license information page? --Larry Sanger 09:22, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I'm just going to consider it an instructional page. A little bit of overlap is OK, I guess. --Larry Sanger 09:44, 5 January 2008 (CST)

My feeling is that the license page should be the official policy, whereas this page provides a summary of that policy for Wikipedians. One use case I'd imagine for this article is referring Wikipedians to it when we discover copyright violations. For that use case, the article should specifically and directly discuss the consequences for Wikipedia. Warren Schudy 10:12, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Good point (the latter). We should add a section to that effect. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 5 January 2008 (CST)

More notes

"We require this sort of attribution because we all contribute with our real names and have experts on board with real-life reputations to maintain." Interesting claim, but I've removed it. I've never heard of such a thing before. I don't see how attributing content to CZ either supports or undermines the real-life reputations of our editors. In any case, no one has ever offered that as a reason for the "by" part of CC-by-sa; it was quite simply taken for granted, as far as I recall. So the claim ("...because...") is strictly speaking false! --Larry Sanger 09:44, 5 January 2008 (CST)

This section just seems unnecessary--I removed it:

I can't wait until the CC-by-sa and GFDL are compatible. What can I do?

Until the CC-by-sa and GFDL are made explicitly compatible, Citizendium content licensed under the CC-by-sa may not be imported into Wikipedia. However, like Wikipedians, Citizens retain copyright to their work. Therefore, if the authors of a CC-by-sa article give permission for it, you can reuse their work under the GFDL (or any other terms to which they agree, for that matter). You might also check the userpages of individual authors, since some have multi-licensed their contributions. If you receive permission from Citizendium authors to release their work under the GFDL, you should attribute their content in the manner to which they agree, or in the absence of such, follow the selfsame guidelines as for media in the below section.

Do we really need to explain to people how they can do this? I don't think so. So few people will want to do it, or care, that it just wastes the reader's time. --Larry Sanger 09:48, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Reusing articles with content from both Citizendium and Wikipedia

The article writes:

Note that this will change after Wikipedia finalizes its decision to allow relicensing of its contents under CC-by-sa.

How so? --Warren Schudy 10:15, 5 January 2008 (CST)