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)

[thread moved to Larry's talk page]

I'm not going to weigh in on the legal arguments. But I will say that I like the wording of the above WP template, including the link to the page history (I don't care about the logo). I want articles with significant WP content to link directly to the article and the article's page history. That is also the way I would like to see it done if CZ material is moved over to WP.

On the other hand, if I wrote the article, and the only "contribution" of WP authors was in the form of non-copyrightable material (spelling, typos, links), then I should be able to move it over here without WP credit (article Amber Neben is an example).

I suggest that this conversation be moved to the Forums. I don't know how to do that. James F. Perry 18:32, 28 January 2007 (CST)

I moved it to his talk page, for now. Anthony 18:39, 28 January 2007 (CST)

January 30 photo request

In a request for photos of domestic animals, N. Sculerati requested that the donors "agree to give the copyright to Citizendium". On the actual page where the photos are to be displayed, it says: "The Gallery of Domestic Animals is an image bank that contains donated copyright free ORIGINAL WORK of pictures of domestic animals for use in Citizendium articles."

Obiously, copyright transfer to CZ is not the same as "donated copyright free" work. In fact, the latter wording is ambiguous. Does it mean "donated, copyright-free, original work"? Or "donated copyright, free original work? Or what?

I hate to sound like a nitpicking lawyer, but when dealing with license matters and copyright, it is really necessary to be precise.

But more to the point: the idea of donating the copyright to Citizendium is just plain bad. The photographer should retain the copyright and grant use rights of some specified sort, to CZ. If an individual donates copyrights to CZ, and then becomes disaffected with the project, that could spell all kinds of trouble. The trouble could be legal or, just as bad, public relations. Remember, a donated copyright, without any reservations, means the original creator could not then use his or her own work. Don't do that! And CZ should not ask anyone to do that!

James F. Perry 16:49, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I'm sorry, and you are right, could you fix the language for me (and all of us) please. I just want to make sure that its clear that the work uploaded should not be in copyright violation, and it seems I have managed to make a muddle of it. Thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 16:55, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I do not think it is a good idea for me or anyone to write legal language on the fly. May I suggest you remove the original request from the Notice Board until the license issue can be dealt with more thoroughly. James F. Perry 17:07, 30 January 2007 (CST) Lady and Gentleman, is this more appropriate? Robert Tito 17:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Orphans and Deletion

I see that a lot of the orphans are making their way into [[Category:Articles_for_deletion]] and staying there for some time. Is that category being patrolled? Are we using the WP series of discussion and events for that category? What needs to be done to get them handled? Is being in that category for 30 (or 45, or 60, or...) days without action or discussion sufficient to add them to the {{Template:speedydelete}} list?
Todd Trimble 09:48, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Todd, I don't really know of a "speedydelete" list here on CZ. Please do not assume that CZ will necessarily have any processes similar to WP's. One thing I'd like to do when I return is to work with the constables and the community on a deletion policy and process--before we start doing any mass deletion. That said, I think you're right that we will need some sort of speedy deletion process. I think the "speedy delete"-marked articles you find on Wikipedia (that are so marked correctly/in good faith) are articles that frankly editors per se need not be bothered with; constables will be able to identify clear cases when the creation of an article is more of a behavior problem than an editorial problem, for example in cases where a biography is made that is simply abusive of its subject. Constables will also be able to do administrative deletion, e.g., if we decide to delete all WP-sourced articles that have not been edited once by anyone on CZ (except to be tagged), then it will be constables that make the deletions. --Larry Sanger 11:44, 6 February 2007 (CST)

I'm a bit confused here since there is a speedy delete being used here in citizendium. See the following category Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests using the Template:speedydelete. We shouldn't be using this? Also why did the articles that populate the Category:Articles_for_deletion not get deleted in the purge/blanking since the ones i checked are not tagged with the CZ live category? Chris Day (Talk) 13:47, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Wikipedia credit revisited

Here is a list of most often viewed articles that do not credit Wikipedia and still are suspected of containing a number of WP-identical sentences (given after the title)

This one is done. More to come.

I think that there are _many more articles with incorrect status. More complete/reliable list soon (when alpha version of the script is released, now it's just an experiment). --AlekStos 17:01, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Wow, what a fantastic service to have that script! Thanks so much! --Larry Sanger 13:23, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Meanwhile, why does Biology have the tag at the bottom attributing wikipedia? It is true that some of the pictures are from Wikipedia commons-is that why? The text is not from Wikipedia. Nancy Sculerati 13:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

No identical sentences detected. BTW, if there were any, it could mean that the transfer was in the other direction ;-) (i.e. from CZ to WP)--AlekStos 15:31, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

I think that using images where we're relying on Wikipedia for licensing information would require us to credit Wikipedia in the articles where those images appear, even if no text is from Wikipedia. If we find a nice NASA (or other verifiably public domain) image on Wikipedia I don't think we need to cite Wikipedia as a source. But I could be wrong about that. Anthony Argyriou 18:59, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

As best I can tell, with images found on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons placed into CZ articles, one DOES NOT need to credit Wikipedia in the article. One credits the uploader of the image. However, not all images at those two sources (and others) are actually usable within Citizendium (etc.). We have to apply a special two-pronged test to them first, attribute them, and place a link to the original location (source) at the image page. ----Stephen Ewen 15:37, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

If you click on an image and it was uploaded from Wikipedia commons- it will say so, so in that sense there is attribution, already and always. Nancy Sculerati 19:18, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

A rule of thumb often used with software (I really have no idea of whether or not it makes sense legally) is that if you incorporate GPL code (e.g., through linking to a GPL library), your code must be released under GPL, but if you merely reference it (e.g., by calling a routine through a shell script) then you are not required to do so. I often here it clamed that static linking requires that the code be covered by GPL but dynamic linking does not. (I'm not a lawyer, but while this seems like common sense from an engineering perspective, I wouldn't be too confident that the criterion could withstand a legal challenge). Anyway, the obvious analog for documentation seems to be that if you incorporate text from Wikipedia through cut and paste, then your article must be licensed under GPDL, but linking to a document (including an image) covered by GPDL doesn't impose the same requirement. Now, images are displayed inline (instead of as hyperlinks), but isn't this just an artifact of the softsware used to view the article? Whether linked documents are displayed inline or not can vary from viewer to viewer. Of course MediaWiki is server side software that renders the text as HTML, which complicates the argument quite a bit, perhap to the point of rendering it moot. Having saids all of that, there's the issue of fair use. In theory, if linked documents were dispslayed inline, you could consruct a whole article consisting of nothing but links. This is clearly not fair use. Greg Woodhouse 16:43, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Archive?

Could some enterprising soul please create an archive for this page? --Larry Sanger 11:17, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Done. I just copied the page content to new pages; since there's no cross-editing on this page (or at least, shouldn't be any), the editing history hopefully isn't important. Fredrik Johansson 15:16, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

SVG and OGG?

what are these? Tom Kelly 14:19, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

SVG are vector diagrams (Unlike png or jpg). OGG files can be audio or video. Chris Day (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Please bring this back!

It was really very useful to have a list of announcements available here, in context, rather than having to chase around to forums and mailing lists with separate registration requirements and dig through discussions to find the essential stuff. If anyone is listening, please reactivate this page, even if it's just to announce policy changes. Those, at least, need to be as accessible as possible. Petréa Mitchell 22:45, 6 March 2008 (CST)

There aren't so many policy changes happening all the time that we need a place to announce them (apart from Citizendium-L). The problem is that there were simply three different places to make "general CZ announcements": Citizendium-L, the blog, and the notice board. That's too much. Citizendium-L is focused on our community, the blog on everyone else; what exactly is the notice board for? What do you think?

As I see it, there is exactly one place that Citizens need to be subscribed to, to receive *all* major announcements: Citizendium-L. --Larry Sanger 22:50, 6 March 2008 (CST)

But everyone involved is already here, by definition. And there is value in having that information available in the same context as the work. Petréa Mitchell 23:09, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Well, we could by habit post everything that is on Citizendium-L to CZ:Notice Board just for convenience... --Larry Sanger 23:15, 6 March 2008 (CST)

One idea is to not post content on CZ-l but links to the wiki containing the message. This will "push" in two ways. :-) Stephen Ewen 02:16, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Or perhaps partial content on the list. You have to click through to read it all. Stephen Ewen 02:19, 7 March 2008 (CST)

That would work. 22:04, 7 March 2008 (CST)