User talk:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage
Copyright judo[edit]
- Er, doesn't a company's act of placing their copyrighted work on Wikipedia implicitly confer permission for Wikipedia to use the content, regardless of what the company site claims? There is, after all, a notice on the edit page to inform them their submitted work will be licensed under the GFDL. "Copyright judo" is a nice term, but I don't think the point you're making is valid. ‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 19:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, it does not convey that permission. Certainly there's no statute law saying such. Whilst the "implied licence" doctrine (one that, ironically, is based upon the very same "even if there's nothing in writing, the implications of you doing this are" argument as shrink wrap licences) has been widely proposed, it has never been tested in court. And even on Usenet, people generally come to the conclusion that any implied licence is limited to the act of distributing and publication a posting in the normal Usenet manner, and does not extend to redistribution of modified versions. [1] So even if the Usenet interpretation were found to be valid (It has not been fully tested in court.), there's no way that an implied licence extends to granting all of the permissions that the GFDL encompasses, or would be GFDL compatible. Uncle G 19:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- In particular, we have no way of verifying whether the person uploading copyrighted material is in fact authorized to release that material under the GFDL (as Wikipedia requires for text). To be a free encyclopedia, we need a clear licence for the external material we use. Physchim62 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, it does not convey that permission. Certainly there's no statute law saying such. Whilst the "implied licence" doctrine (one that, ironically, is based upon the very same "even if there's nothing in writing, the implications of you doing this are" argument as shrink wrap licences) has been widely proposed, it has never been tested in court. And even on Usenet, people generally come to the conclusion that any implied licence is limited to the act of distributing and publication a posting in the normal Usenet manner, and does not extend to redistribution of modified versions. [1] So even if the Usenet interpretation were found to be valid (It has not been fully tested in court.), there's no way that an implied licence extends to granting all of the permissions that the GFDL encompasses, or would be GFDL compatible. Uncle G 19:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
.gif){kind=small}
Nice idea[edit]
I like this article, and I think there might could be a full WikiProject for NewPage triage. I was amused to find this article, as I had been doing pretty much what you described, so I was thinking maybe there could be some benefit from organizing it into a WikiProject. What do you think? EvilPhoenix talk 05:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- A WikiProject seems excessive. However, if enough people supported the idea, simply renaming the article to Wikipedia:New page triage or some such might be a possibility. In the meantime, I've added a link to Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Uncle G 20:07:18, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
- Excellent stuff. I've been doing well on the first couple of steps, but you've got some other ideas and suggestions in here that I'll be putting into effect in my NPP activities. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Very nice[edit]
This article shows that there are some weaknesses in the search form that need to be addressed to make it more idiot-proof (or perhaps novice-friendly is more PC). Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
copyvio[edit]
Thanks Uncle, nice essay, I hope you don't mind if I add it to a list on my userpage. One query though, I never saw the point of delete on site for copyvios - what would be the problem in stubyfying them? ϢereSpielChequers 20:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have a read of the discussion of that CSD criterion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material and its talk page. The problem with editing a copyright violation is that a derivative work is a copyright violation too. Note that the CSD criterion is tangential to Copyright Judo, whose major thrust is that an advertiser's own copyrights can be used against xyr advertisements. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)