Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9 March 2010

[edit]
Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2010-03-09 Edit

[edit]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]

DSM Complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817)

[edit]

(For the regularly daily listings for the 9th, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 9a)

The Wikimedia Foundation has received a complaint about widespread replication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria throughout Wikipedia's articles. The problematic sections are currently blanked, waiting further instructions. I contacted Mike Godwin about this; the ticket has been reassigned to the legal queue and is in his hands at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to help
[edit]

All of the articles that were identified have been evaluated. In some, content has been removed or rewritten. Others did not seem to have copyright concerns and have been restored unless the correspondent identifies specific passages that prove to be problematic.

At this point, assistance would be most valuable in rewriting content that has had to be removed. The list of articles below details what actions were taken with which article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles affected
[edit]
Articles addressed
[edit]
Discussion
[edit]
Extended content
  • Comment: Looking at the blanked section of the obsessive-compulsive disorder article, I don't see a single "replication" of the DSM. I see a little bit of paraphrasing--but this is something that every abnormal psychology textbook has done for ages in just about every single chapter. In fact, some textbooks will quote the DSM verbatim in most chapters. If these practices have led to copyright complaints, the complaints certainly have not been sufficient to change the practices. The DSM provides some bare-bones (albeit official) portraits of (perceived) mental illnesses. An article on just about any psychopathology is going to be essentially an elaboration on the DSM, in the same sense that Wikipedia's apple builds upon Wiktionary's apple. In a word, there is no public-domain alternative. My understanding would be that, unless Wikipedia is quoting gargantuan excerpts from the DSM, it is in full compliance with fair-use guidelines. Admittedly I know less about copyright law than about the DSM; but I do think that in this case, "extensive quotation of copyrighted text" (as in WP:NFC) is unlikely to occur unless it is done in bad faith and to extreme proportions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for looking at the OCD article. Not being able to view the sources, i can't determine how extensive the taking is. The problem for the WMF is that material that may be fair use in one article becomes a different issue in aggregate. If we replicate their diagnostic criteria in each article related to the disorders, it seems like we could wind up reproducing the entire book--or at least most of it--which is decidedly not fair use. :/ Given the widespread implications here, I'll ask the Foundation's attorney for feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything further we can do or provide? I have a full copy of the DSM-IV-TR. Really the parts I feel are the most justified in keeping on Wikipedia the diagnostic criteria, which consist of short bulleted lists, usually half a book page long or less. Now, each disorder has lengthy, multi-page descriptions of each disorder, and it is understandably copyvio to used the whole section, but the criteria themselves are quite short and are used EVERYWHERE in print and web like it's nothing as long as attribution is given. Academic textbooks, pop-sci books, self-help, professional and amateur websites, forums. These criteria are often the backbone of what defines a disorder and changing a single word can alter the meaning harmfully.Legitimus (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we probably just need to wait to see what happens at this point. There would be nothing wrong with removing the bullet lists for now, just to get the disputed content and the "copyright problems template" both out of the articles, but we can leave it as it is for a day or two to see if word is handed down. If not, I'll certainly follow up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protest about the procedure
[edit]

Why is text being embargoed on the basis of an argument (or is it a mere allegation?) we cannot even read? We don't even know WHO is making the argument/allegation or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, if the article on which I've spent so much time PTSD is to be altered so severely, someone had better have presented a copy of the supposedly infringed original marked to show the portion "copied" into Wikipedia, thus achieving a copyright violation. No copy, no violation Now, since that presentation cannot be done, because such copying is simply non-existent in the article, I know that such an argument was NOT made.

So, we have an article defaced on the basis of an allegation? Why? Conclusions must be argued for, not merely alleged. That's basic to logic, jurisprudence, and common sense in our culture. Why is it the culture of Wikipedia to put the cowboy in jail (and remember, this cowboy cannot run away!) until he proves he's innocent? That's nuts. How about someone offering something resembling an argument that we actually have a problem. And yes, on a per-article basis. By argument, I mean precisely this: premises (data), and logic, leading to a conclusion. I seen none such here. That rankles.

I'm placed in the position of responding to invisible allegations. That's not fair process in any venue I've ever heard of. And, no, I don't accept someone's paraphrase of the allegations. I want the words - the exact text. Only then do I know what I'm dealing with. In the case of the PTSD article, where I know there is no copyright violation, either an specific argument was NOT made about that article (which I suspect), or the author of the allegation has scrambled eggs for brains. (These are hypotheses, not arguments, since I'm lacking data!)

It's reasonable to question the material. It's not reasonable to ban it until it's verified as OK. That's not how these processes usual go forward. Instead, why not show there's a problem, THEN embargo it until it's fixed? That would seem like reasonable process.

As for copyrighting "order of facts and facts chosen", we're dealing in the DSM with concepts, not facts, when it come to the diagnostic criteria. And how is blazes might we discuss a given diagnostic criteria without bringing the order of them into the discussion. In many cases, the order is a necessary part of a given criteria set. Scramble the order and you have a plain representation of what's being discussed. Recapitulation of the DSM diagnostic criteria for various disorders, as paraphrases, in the original order, is so widely done that I couldn't even begin to count the instances. It's everywhere. IF, as suggested elsewhere on this page, the APA is behind this complaint, they know this, and we have to ask why they are picking on Wikipedia. Maybe they need medication. :)

Finally, the DSM is a compendium of separate chapters on separate subjects, by a great multitude of people. For reasons which I should think would be obvious, each chapter, and often parts of chapters dealing with individual disorders, must be discussed in detail here if we're to do our job. What we write here is in the nature of review, at a fairly granular level, to be sure, but a review in any case. Unless there has been copying how can there be a copyright violation?

I strongly suggest that a different procedure be adopted for dealing with such protests. I would be happy to assist in arguing for this procedural change if someone could direct me to the proper venue. I've looked for it and not found it, and my time IS limited.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the place to go. This procedure, however, is years old and was established (long before I arrived; what I know about its establishing is simply what I'm told) in part because Wikipedia is widely mirrored and reproduced, and removing content from publication that may be a copyright problem helps to prevent downstream damage from our claim that this content is free for reuse. It also demonstrates due diligence on the part of the Foundation, which helps to prevent contributory infringement prosecution. Any contributor may raise copyright concerns; in this particular case, the concerns were raised via e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm sorry that these are not publicly available, but at this point they are not. I do not know if they ever will be. If you do manage to change procedure, it won't be done immediately; we need to address this particular concern in the procedures that have been established for doing so. Do you have access to this book? Are you able to help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the summary version many of us carry when in the field, and that's not enough to do this job. The full text version is at home, and I'll have to dig it out when I get a minute, which will be tomorrow afternoon. Will do it then for sure. Will also then visit Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to see if I can get the ball rolling. I appreciate much your comments above. I do not appreciate Wikipedia's keeping the complaint private. As I have said, it is not possible to allege that PTSD contains copyright violations in the section discussing diagnosis, as there is no copying there. So, someone is simply sweeping through Wikipedia and grabbing everything indiscriminately. I have to object to that. That's de facto prejudicial.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is; certainly some of these articles don't seem to be real concerns. But if it is, it's a matter of a couple of days and some coordinated effort to sort it out. I'm afraid I know considerably less about the OTRS privacy policy and its reasons than I do the copyright process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tic disorder
[edit]
Can someone who has a copy of the DSM please look at Talk:Tic disorder? I don't even have a copy of the DSM, and I summarized that text from this source. I want "my" article back :) Has a general notice been posted at WP:PSYCH? They would be the origin of most of these issues; we've been battling this for a long time on MED articles, and I'm proud to note that none of our FAs appear on this list. Eubulides (talk · contribs) may also be helpful on these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides has already been very helpful and has rewritten some of the content here. I did leave a note at WP:PSYCH. Did not occur to me to leave one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as well! If Mike says we can't have the content as is, I will, since we'll then be faced with more rewriting/replacement in some of these more extensive issues. Maybe Legitimus can take a look at Tic disorder? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that all DSM diagnostic criterias are available here, including Tic disorder http://behavenet.com/capsules --Penbat (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not there (and I'm almost certain I summarized that content myself from the above-listed source). When can I have "my" article back :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it gives diagnostic criteria for
307.21 Transient Tic Disorder
307.22 Chronic Motor or Vocal Tic Disorder
307.23 Tourette's Disorder
--Penbat (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed text is:

  • Transient tic disorder consists of multiple motor and/or phonic tics with duration of at least 4 weeks, but less than 12 months.
  • Chronic tic disorder is either single or multiple motor or phonic tics, but not both, which are present for more than a year.
  • Tourette's disorder is diagnosed when both motor and phonic tics are present for more than a year.
  • Tic Disorder NOS is diagnosed when tics are present, but do not meet the criteria for any specific tic disorder.

Where's the copyvio? May I have "my" article back?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Legitimus to take a look, since he says he has a copy of the book. Penbat, do you have it, too? The more the better. :) It seems that their list may be overzealous based on OCD; I haven't seen the content myself, but Cosmic Latte up above says there is no content replicated. OTOH, Eubulides believes this one might be quite a problem. I don't believe for a minute, Sandy, that you would have copied the content, but I don't know what's going on with legal, since I can't see the letter now that it's in their hands. Would you mind waiting for somebody who can see the book to verify? I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of extensive complaint, but it seems that if we get an official letter we might want to be able to say, "Yes, we looked, and it was fine" if we're going to restore it to publication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, you know how much I appreciate your work :) I'm just being smartaleck because 1) I was quite proud of how I sorted and summarized that text to something digestible, and 2) it gives an example that they are certainly overzealous in their copyvio allegations :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG i dont have the manual itself but i think all info from the DSM likely to be used in Wikipedia (basically just diagnostic critera) can be found in http://behavenet.com/capsules (click on links next to "DSM-IV-TR" for example or use search box).--Penbat (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I think I misunderstood you, Sandy, when you respond "Not there" to Penbat. When he said "I am pretty sure that all DSM diagnostic criterias are available" at the website, I thought you meant "They are not all available" at the website, so I didn't even follow the link. That's why I said we needed somebody who could access the book. I suspect now that you meant, "This language is not there." I'll restore that content unless we receive word from on high that it must get gone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy confused me as well. --Penbat (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to both ... got into a messy edit conflict and made a mess of this ... you didn't have to do that, MRG, but I do appreciate it! That tag is ugly-scary! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, I know. I took the tag off of OCD because I'm told its properly paraphrased. But, again, we wait word from on high. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm Tic Disorder is not copyvio. That text appearing in our article does not appear in the DSM-IV-TR. These disorders are covered in pages 108-116.Legitimus (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (I'm still trying to rub that big red scarlet letter off my forehead :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Legitimus; I appreciate the verification. There's no scarlet letter appended to this, Sandy. :) I'd have been dismayed, too, but this is not a routine copyright problem situation. Some of these articles do seem to have taken from the DSM and some of them may have taken quite a lot, but, say, Mental retardation? I've blanked the section, but I kind of wonder if this one is like OCD. We just need it sorted out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mental retardation
[edit]

you can find mental retardation in http://behavenet.com/capsules at http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/mentretard.htm --Penbat (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but while I haven't myself ever even looked at the DSM, Legitimus says above that "each disorder has lengthy, multi-page descriptions". I'm not sure if some of the text in the article is disputed. It would be good to have somebody compare. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mental retardation is fine too. The criteria under the dispute are non-copyvio paraphrase and not a copy-paste from the book.Legitimus (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PTSD - Post-traumatic stress disorder
[edit]
  1. The disputed material is in a single section - "Diagnosis" - all of which is currently blanked, inexplicably.
  2. As a mental health professional specializing in treating PTSD, I use these diagnostic criteria daily, and know them very well. I wrote much of the disputed section. I also know US copyright law right well (for a non-lawyer). There is NO violation in the disputed section. No part of this section, or any other having to do with diagnosis is baldly copied from the DSM-IV or the provisional DSM-V. I'd have noticed this, and fixed it on the spot, had it been present when I joined the article's editors. One is ALWAYS allowed to paraphrase in writing about published material, and that's what's done there, except for very brief, clearly marked and credited quotes. And if one's going to flag this section, why not also the article's lead-off section - "Signs and Symptoms", which contains a far more detailed discussion of the diagnostic criteria? (While also not being a copyright violation, for Pete's sake. It IS, however, a verbatim copy of text from an NIMH site, where the content is public domain, so...no problem there either.
  3. I especially protest the blanking of the subsection titled "Proposed changes to current DSM-IV criteria". This is my own summary of the content of several pages of the public DSM-V website, as is clearly cited. Not by any stretch of the imagination can this be a copyright violation. The source material is published on a public website. Read the Terms and Conditions of Use page of the DSM-V website. It's brief, and even a cursory reading, to those familiar with copyright law, reveals that there's nothing here that is unexpected, special, unusual, or beyond the sort of thing usually covered by that law. If this is a copyright violation, then so is much of the rest of this article, which is an absurd notion.
  4. I request reversion of the blocking this material at the earliest opportunity. It appears to me to be wholly unjustified.
  5. Finally, could someone please make publicly available the text of the formal protest. Ordinary editors such as me don't even know WHO lodged it, much less its text or substance. That seems unfair, and simply poor procedure. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of us all. Tom Cloyd (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking with Moonriddengirl above, but let's try not to shoot the messenger in this sticky wicket ... she does a great job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hat's off to those who tend to technical matters - those who grease the wheels make the trip bearable. Still, wouldn't being "moonridden" suggest something akin to lunacy? (heh heh) I humbly suggest that that was involved in blanking out the second sub- section of "Diagnosis" section, which couldn't possibly have been lifted from a set of diagnostic criteria. It was obviously commentary. Perhaps in having to cover to many articles there was a bit of shotgunning. Understandable. Forgivable. And immediately revertable (!). As in now. I thank you. Tom Cloyd (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The admin that "marked" the section (the text is still there underneath) is just carrying out orders based on a complaint allegedly given to Wikimedia by the APA. The template is simply indiscriminate in how large of an area it covers. Now, because you are able to confirm that there is no copy-vio, my understanding from the thread above and other articles is that you may remove the template or shrink it to possible problem areas. I too hope we can read the letter soon and hope Mike (Wikipedia's lawyer) can give us an update soon.Legitimus (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I realize that the blanking of content is disconcerting, but it's standard procedure when we receive such complaints while the matter is investigated. I don't myself have access to this book, but it will be addressed as quickly as possible. Several of these articles have already been cleared as individuals who do have access to the source material (including, with thanks, Legitimus!) have looked and indicated that the content does not infringe on the DSM. It's a good idea, if you wrote the content, to have somebody else take a look at this article, Tom, not because I doubt that you're right about the copyright status, but because that serves to better protect both you and the Foundation. Obsessive compulsive disorder, Tic disorder, and now Mental retardation have all been restored following such independent review. I do think it's worth noting, though, that while some of these articles do not seem to constitute a concern, some of them do seem to have more extensive duplication (and a few have been rewritten accordingly).
As to the "Proposed changes to current DSM-IV criteria", I'm sorry if this has been blanked improperly. Since I do not have access to the source material, I am unsure of the specific areas contested in some of these articles. This is why I have requested assistance at the talk page of each article involved from people with access to the book. If perchance you have access to it, Tom Cloyd, your assistance, too, would be most welcome. While it's probably best for all involved if reviewers work on articles that they have not authored, there are quite a lot of articles still waiting review.
Oh, and my username could suggest that, but what it really says is that I like beat poetry and I was born in July. That said, the amount of time I put into copyright cleanup on Wikipedia can't really say anything good about my mental state, I'm afraid. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: my assisting with this mess:
  • the procedure for clearing a diagnosis isn't exactly clear. How about making it so, in a special section, here, to expedite the process? I'd like to do it right the first time.
  • I much rather invest my time in improving my pet article than trying to dispute allegations I cannot ever read (the more I think about that the madder I get) - am I REALLY put in the position of having to demonstrate that we DON'T have a problem? Isn't that exactly backwards?
  • I'd be happy to review articles for copyright issues, but cannot do this until tomorrow afternoon. "I'll be back." (And hopefully there will then be here an explicit procedure for clearly articles.)
Re: your devotion to copyright issues - I'm frankly amazed, as it looks like a bit of a dry subject. And it IS unfair that glory goes more to those who grow the veggies than to those who pull the weeds. Thanks for your work. Please understand that my distress is about the procedure, not the person. Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that, but thank you for saying so. :) Sorry I missed this note; it was tucked up behind Sandy's, and I overlooked it. Thank you very much for your willingness to help; sorry you can't see the complaint. I don't have access to it myself anymore now that it's escalated to legal, but even if I did I couldn't reproduce it here unless I were released from my confidentiality agreement.
And copyright work is probably far more tedious than it looks. I'm afraid I do have an over developed sense of "somebody's got to do it." I had a lot more fun when I was writing articles about old jazz men. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to see how the APA is going to respond ... I'm wondering if their objection at tic disorder was to the fact that I listed the diagnostic codes? (Scroll down on this page to 307.20). MRG, what is your opinion there? it looks like a legit Fair Use extract to me ... but do I need to reword? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that could be a copyright problem. I really don't know how they came up with the list. I don't know what's coming next, but I remember what happened with Nielsen. I was only on the fringes of that one picking up fallout at CP, but it was not fun. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Narcissistic personality disorder
[edit]

The DSM section in Narcissistic personality disorder has been completely removed which IMO completely rips the heart out of the article. Is this a stopgap measure or an edict from Mike Godwin? As a fallback position I am sure a paraphrased version of the DSM diagnostic criteria would be allowed at the very least. I am not too sure why the APA have lodged this complaint in the first place, for a start Wikipedia is non-profit making so nobody is making money off the back of this. --Penbat (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You consider a paraphrased version a "fallback position"? No, that's a legal way to talk about the content. Other than use of brief quotes, anything BUT a paraphrase, and a careful one at that, is (obviously) a copyright violation. It's a COPY. And non-profit orgs don't have special dispensation to ignore copyright law. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the template noting the removal at the article's talk page says, as long as the material is properly rewritten, utilizing quotations as necessary, we can use it. The last communication from Mike Godwin on this, earlier today, suggests handling it according to the usual community processes pending some change imposed through his communications. That particular content was copied in entirety, I'm afraid. That I was able to verify from the link you provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_March_9&oldid=1138425614"