Talk:Ngarrabullgan

Intellectual Property Statement

It is noted that some/much of the cultural landscape material relied upon in compiling this natural and cultural history (ranging from the 'naming' of places, to the stories/mythology for the places, plus the content of both the names and the stories) should properly be considered the intellectual and cultural property of those Aboriginal people's who first gave the material to be documented and recorded.

It is also recognised and noted that within local Aboriginal economies of knowledge great store is placed on the act of performing or presenting knowledge, and it is in fact by performing or presenting knowledge (or some version of it), that the ownership of the knowledge is established. The more frequently and effectively particular stories, knowledges, designs or skills are performed, the more they become stamped and owned by the performer, plus, the more the performers performances will be to 'purchase 'obligatory relationships against which claims to real world benefits can be drawn/demanded.

Recognising and acknowledging the above, it is not the authors intention, nor can it be considered Wikipedia's organisation's intention to rob the original performers, tellers, knowledge holders of their 'ownership' of those names, stories, or knowledge that may be used in this article. Instead, it is here asserted that any use made of the names etc in this article can not be considered a genuine, authentic, authorised use, and should, rather, be regarded as more of a charactiture of the original, promotional in nature, leading readers towards the actual, authentic knowledge holders, potentially increasing the value of their intellectual and cultural property .. As a matter of practice, in accessing and using such names, stories or knowledges I undertake, whereverpossible, to either name the person/s or family who have originally given the performances/knowledge, and/or the families/group from amongst whom the performances/knowledges find their source.

Bruceanthro (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a valid statement to make for information appearing in Wikipedia. Information in many (possibly most) articles may have some kind of 'traditional' ownership, but if the information is still in the public domain, there is no requirement for Wikipedia to make specific acknowledgement. If there is information that is not in the public domain, and is specific intellectual property, it should not be included in Wikipedia. Additionally, informal traditional ownership rights are likely not recognised in the United States, where Wikipedia's content is stored.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)