Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9 December 2010

[edit]
Reviewed

SCV for 2010-12-09 Edit

[edit]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]
  • Well, I'm looking at this one, and complicated the matter here is that the pdf is dated to 2009, while the content was added here in 2008. I've found similar content on several other websites; one official site in Colorado acknowledges us as the source. Others clearly postdate us. The governmental page, meanwhile, is not loading. I am inclined to think that, since we evidently postdate the pdf, we should presume this one is okay, but perhaps note the complication at the article's talk page. Before closing, though, I'd like to get other feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only concern would be that the article could copy from an older document replaced by the 2009 document. That the PDF is formatted better than the wikipedia article - insofar as the relevant words are concerned - would suggest to me that the article is a copy of the PDF or an earlier version of it. An earlier but different looking article article created by a different account (but apparently the same person[2]) was G12'd. The current version was worked on in userspace before being moved to the mainspace. It was worked on extensively in userspace, but what stands out is the original large dump of text.[3] --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Those are good causes of concern. :/ In cases like this, I usually follow the "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble" provision (I've rewritten a good many articles), but generally the articles have been blanked before I've done so. I feel like rewriting for copyright concerns is an admin action, and I prefer to let "regular" editing deal with it before I do that. Since the contributor isn't around much, do you think the content should be blanked to let them have a shot at it, or do you think I should go ahead, given reasonable doubt? Your opinion would be much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think blanking it for a week and relisting it here would be the better, and potentially MRG-time-saving approach. It averages 20 page-views a day so chances are the writer or someone interested might notice.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my talk page:

Hello, Moonriddengirl,

This is Preventionbetterthancure, the author of the article about Communities That Care.

Thanks for your note about the copyright issues. If I understand correctly, the copyright issue is because the Blueprints for Violence Prevention website now has a PDF summary of Communities That Care posted on their website. Since I wrote the article, CTC has been found to be effective in an experimental, controlled trial in 24 communities. Blueprints has subsequently reviewed the research and has decided to declare CTC as one of its 'promising' programs. Hence their post. I think if you review the article I wrote about CTC, you won't find exactly the same language between the Wiki article and the Blueprints PDF.

CTC is in the public domain, and CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention) of the US Govt officially owns all the CTC manuals and materials. They had posted those materials on their website, but have recently revised their website and in so doing (temporarily) lost the link to the CTC materials. The materials can temporarily be found at www.communitiesthatcare.org.

I hope this explanation is sufficient to have you remove the block on the article! It is encouraging to me to see from your comments that there are 20 page views per day, telling me that at least some people out there in communities trying to do something to help their youth are looking for info about CTC.

Please let me know if this explanation is not sufficient, and I will see what I can do. thanks very much,

Preventionbetterthancure (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. It is difficult to follow the intricate net of connections for CTC. Relevant material appears to be hosted on an university website, stuff is cross-linked but the trails are somewhat flimsy. Clearing this for now but I would urge the editor of the material to ensure with CTC's webmaster that the appropriate notices and US government affiliation be clearly indicated in all relevant places to avoid any future issues of the same nature. --MLauba (Talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I can't see the source, either, but I've rewritten just in case. Just as well, since it was unsourced. Now it's not. And I've corrected the man's date of death. I don't think if his death was reported on 9/22/1923 that he died on 9/23/1923. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: I'm not so sure most of these really violate WP:NFCC - I believe in this case we're in the realm of "brief textual excerpts". We're also not in article space, so I'm less fussed about having a page made entirely of quotes from other works, in particular since they are all attributed. However, all three seem to be long time storage for PoV or preferred version reasons. I'm inclined to send them all to MfD actually, but would like other opinions here. MLauba (Talk) 11:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these quotes are long enough that I would clean them up in article space on the basis of WP:NFC. Moreover, while they may be collected for the purposes of scholarship, their use in general is not transformative. I'm afraid that their "fair use" defense is even thinner than quotes in article space. :/ While we do allow quotes (as opposed to other non-free content) outside of article space, I don't think we can allow quotes to be used in a way that we would not permit in an article. I think they need to be deleted. But since there is some dissent here and since this involves several pages, I'll seek a fourth opinion. (Have asked User:Dcoetzee to weigh in.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really tough. Looking closely at it, it appears to contain a limited amount of information from any one source, at most a few paragraphs. A few extensively quoted books have had many excerpts paraphrased. Moreover, if the excerpts are indeed being used in an ongoing discussion involving editorial decisions, I would find it very difficult to delete the content; as a practical matter, it would be difficult to engage in discussions regarding sources without access to those sources. On the other hand, WP:NFC does not presently contain any special exception for non-free content being used in an ongoing editorial discussion. As an alternative, we might choose to delete the content and ask the editors to exchange source content along private channels such as the e-mail feature only. Dcoetzee 10:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_December_9&oldid=1138425395"