Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Writing of identical articles in different wikipedias by same user

Hello,

my question is if it is allowed to rewrite an article written by me in the German wikipedia (Liste der neo-hethitischen Könige) by using copy-paste to fill the same lack of information in the field of Neo-Hittites as existed in the other wikipedia before. When I would write it completely new I surely would use the same sources as I did before. So, is it allowed to do copy-paste and translation of an article written by me for such purposes?--Tarchunes (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, you have created everything there, except from some typographical modifications which are below the threshold of originality. You are therefore the copyright holder to the article, so you can use it in any way you wish. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the "Other reasons for attributing text" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Temporarily Withdrawn. pending resolution of the question of whether splits, merges, etc. constitute the addition of novel claims into Wikipedia -Thibbs (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC) -Thibbs (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose adding the following text after the first paragraph and above the second paragraph of the "Other reasons for attributing text" section: Likewise, if a parent article contains text using sources that are difficult to independently verify, attributing the copy in the child article as specified below helps editors identify when an unsupported claim was added, and that the editor who made the copy did so without knowledge that it was unsupported. It is important to note, however, that it is the affirmative duty of editors to independently verify sources if the use of the text copied within Wikipedia is novel or transformative. Simple copying or rearrangement does not always require re-verification of all sources, but the novel use of a source places responsibility with the novel user to verify the claims of the original source. This comes as the result of a discussion several of us are having at WT:CITE regarding when it is mandatory to reverify difficult-to-verify (e.g. offline, paywalled, or other WP:SOURCEACCESS) sources. I have invited editors there to discuss the above proposal here. Please also feel free to suggest alterations to the text of the proposed addition if the phrasing is unclear or misleading. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)   What is the need for this proposed test text? It arises not from any need in this guideline, but from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#A related offense, where Thibbs cited this guideline for a position it does not support.

  This guideline is about Wikipedia's licensing requirement that attribution "be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page." It is about tracking the authorship of Wikipedia text. It is not about verification of sources, which is a totally different topic, not even mentioned in this guideline. Thibbs has confused these different issues in the other discussion (regarding copying citations without verifying them), citing this policy in support. That this guideline does not support his position he is now attemping to fix by adding ... It arises from contested issues in another discussion, (regarding copying citations without verifying them), where this guideline has been invoked, and thus any changes here affect that current discussion. This proposal would add poorly formulated text that text is unneeded, unuseful, and even irrelevant to this guideline. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Revised statement following clarification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no test involved [Sorry; see correction above. -JJ], and it was User:Prototime who cited this guideline. In fact what I said about this guideline is that "it's largely silent on the specific issue." This guideline is entitled "Copying within Wikipedia". The issue that underlies this question is one of copying within Wikipedia. It makes sense to discuss this issue in this guideline. It's true that this guideline currently focuses on copyright issues, but immediately following the "Attribution is required for copyright" subsection is a subsection titled "Other reasons for attributing text". My proposal is plainly about "Copying within Wikipedia" and it is an "other reason for attributing text". Regarding what you see as "poorly formulated text", J. Johnson perhaps you might consider proposing alterations to the text before rejecting it out of hand. -Thibbs (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I endorse this proposal--in large part because I think the line between "novel" and "not novel" is very difficult to ascertain--and I'm still mulling it over, I absolutely agree with Thibbs that this guideline is the appropriate place to incorporate such a proposal if it's accepted. The topic of this guideline is "Copying within Wikipedia", not "Copyright concerns of copying within Wikipedia"; regardless of this guideline's current focus on copyright issues, this is the logical place for editors seeking guidance on "copying within Wikipedia" to come, and it should cover all relevant aspects of the subject matter. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this guideline is most definitely and solely about the copyright concerns (more particularly, copyright licensing concerns) of copying WP material. Note the lead sentence (emphasis added): "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page." Note also the title of first section: "Attribution is required for copyright". What is not clear about this?

That this guideline is about copyright licensing and not citation verification is also shown by the relative use of the key terms:

• license/licensing: 16
• copyright: 13
• citation: 2
• verify/verification: 0

That the title of this guideline encompasses more than the content actually covers can be fixed most easily by properly qualifying the title. Alternately, the content could be expanded. But there has been no showing here that any such expansion is needed or useful. The proposal is driven entirely by partisan concerns in a discussion elsewhere, not a good-faith concern arising from any issues in this guideline. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: can you please cool it with the assumptions of bad faith? I linked the "discussions elsewhere" in my original post here, and whatever partisanship you are associating with me is a figment of your imagination. [Struck as moot per J. Johnson's apology.] Let's just stick to discussing the content of this proposal. I agree that the lead sentence says Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given. But that's completely compatible with my proposal. In fact my proposal is suggesting specific and potentially unintuitive examples of cases where attribution should be given. And yes the title of the first subsection is "Attribution is required for copyright", but that's not the subsection I was proposing to add the above text into. I would like to add it to the "Other reasons for attributing text" section.

You stated previously that you found the proposed text to be poorly formulated. Could you be a bit more specific about that? Is it unclear? Momentarily putting aside the fact that it has nothing to do with copyright, is there a way to improve the basic formulation of the text? Or is the poor formulation a direct result of the fact that it has nothing to do with copyright? To give some insight here, I modeled the text on the current first paragraph of the "Other reasons" subsection so even if this proposal fails it would be good to repair any poor formulation in the original that I used as a model. -Thibbs (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I make no assumption of bad faith. But regardless of whether your intent was good, bad, or oblivious, the fact remains that this proposal did not arise from any disinterested consideration of this guideline. It arises directly from an on-going discussion in which you are a participant. Even if you were entirely innocent of any intent to sway that discussion, to change a guideline during a discussion where it has been invoked is akin to moving the goal posts during a scrimmage. This is bad in itself, even if your motivation was totally innocent. (And even if there is merit to the proposal.) I prefer to assume that you did act innocently, but without fully considering that this proposal, at this time, is ill-advised in that it affects the discussion. To persist in this error with awareness would be to embrace it, but hopefully you understand it would be best to drop the proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Although everyone seems to agree that an editor who has no access to a source cannot base new claims on the source without reviewing it, there is apparently disagreement about what is meant by "new claims." The second issue is whether it is appropriate to address the first issue within this guideline or whether this guideline should be restricted to copyright issues.
As far as I know we have only ever discussed blatant circular ref situations and never purely mechanical copy&paste jobs (e.g. in the context of a WP:SPLIT or WP:MERGE), so I may have mispredicted your view. My guess was that it was something that we would all agree on so I had restricted the above proposed text to these simple copying and rearrangement instances. This was the rationale behind my starting this thread. I assure you that there was no vested partisan interests or underhanded goalpost shifting efforts involved. If you do believe that mere rearrangement or the verbatim copy&pastes I described just now constitute "new claims" then please indicate so and I will cease discussion of the text of the proposal and restrict my comments to the related issue of whether or not this guideline is the correct place to address the first issue once consensus is formed. Here I believe our differences run deeper as you're indicated a strong desire to limit this guideline to copyright issues alone. I would be interested in hearing from others whether they though this was necessary or a good idea. -Thibbs (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  I do not question that the issues you raise (concerning re-verification) need some clarification. What I question is that this is the proper place. For sure, the title of this guideline (as I said above) is broad. But re-verification is only incidental to copying. And this guideline is fairly well focused on a specific aspect of that broad topic that has minimal overlap with issues of re-verification. To mix these separate topics would be to dilute and confuse them. Especially regarding citation, which is already splatted across too many topics to fully comprehend. WP:V would be more appropriate.

  Regardless of the merits or proper venue of this proposal, it is too closely related to a current discussion to be without impact. Therefore it should withdrawn until there is resolution of the other discussion. Even then it will need reformulation, and submission elsewhere. Withdrawing this proposal is the simplest and cleanest way of resolving this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at the talk page at WP:CITE appears to be petering out. I believe you are the only editor who is still maintaining the minority view that re-verification of sources is always required whenever they are moved from one article to another. I have repeatedly asked for clarification regarding whether this strict interpretation of mandatory re-verification also applies in the case of merges, splits, and other mechanical acts of verbatim copying, but as yet I've received no response. This puts me in a tough spot because the premise underlying this proposal is that you would in fact concede that simple splits and merges do not constitute the addition of novel claims into Wikipedia. Your silence on the issue means that there can be no resolution. I hope you address the question soon but I recognize that as long as you maintain silence on the accuracy of this key assumption, this proposal risks rendering what may possibly be your objection moot. And that simply wouldn't be fair to you. I also note that there has been very little discussion of the merits of the proposal here and that there has been no further explanation about its shortcomings in formulation. There have instead been long conversations about the motivations of the proposer, the finer points of Wikipedia's procedural technicalities, and the propriety of this venue. So for all of these reasons it has become apparent to me that the proposal must be temporarily withdrawn. I do so now. Below I have created a subsection for discussion of the unrelated topic of whether this is a proper venue for clarification of the basic issue (irrespective of whether splits, merges, etc. constitute novel claims). -Thibbs (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this will be the easiest way to move forward. I have held off discussing merges, splits, and other details to avoid complicating the several discussions, and because I have been some what busy of late, but will try to give more attention to these, and to the other discussion, within a day or two. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• See JJ's first (Nov 15) and second (Nov 18) remarks addressing the topic of "merges, splits, and other details". -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this even the correct venue in the first place?

• This discussion has been isolated and continued from the above section. Please read above for further context.
  

I do not question that the issues you raise (concerning re-verification) need some clarification. What I question is that this is the proper place. For sure, the title of this guideline (as I said above) is broad. But re-verification is only incidental to copying. And this guideline is fairly well focused on a specific aspect of that broad topic that has minimal overlap with issues of re-verification. To mix these separate topics would be to dilute and confuse them. Especially regarding citation, which is already splatted across too many topics to fully comprehend. WP:V would be more appropriate. (quote from User:J. Johnson above)
By the same logic copyright matters (presented in detail where they would be expected - at WP:COPYRIGHT) are also merely incidental to copying. The thrust of this guideline is that attribution is required when copying within Wikipedia. There are several reasons given for this and naturally the most important one - copyright requirements - is listed first. But then shortly afterward, a number of other reasons are presented in the "Other reasons for attributing text" section. Examine the current second paragraph in that section, for instance. It has nothing to do with copyright issues. Rather it is strictly about verification issues. It is used to help expand on the thesis of the guideline (i.e. that attribution is required when copying within Wikipedia) by providing an example of an unrelated area where attribution is helpful outside the remit of copyright. I believe the fact that attribution may help identify an editor who provided hard-to-access sources in the context of re-verification is another useful example. Examples like these neither dilute the central message nor confuse careful readers. -Thibbs (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question posed in the heading: yes, this is the correct venue. This page is the logical place for editors to come seeking guidance on "copying within Wikipedia". I'm not sure I agree with the proposal, but I would much prefer to discuss and consider its merits than continue to spin wheels about where it should go if adopted. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your logic depends on the title of this page (CWW) actually corresponding to the its topic. In fact it does not: this guideline is (as I have shown above) fairly well focused on attribution of authorship (as driven by licensing requirements). The issue here is about when citations must be re-verified (see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#A related offense). Now I will allow that if someone wanted to "copy within Wikipedia" they should certainly be advised if re-verification might be required, and so I would agree that it should be mentioned here (perhaps as a "see also"). But verification has never before been addressed in this guideline; editors interested in this topic are not necessarily watching this page. I believe WP:V is the most appropriate venue for discussing this. When there is some resolution of the issue a suitable link can be added here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification is addressed directly in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text. -Thibbs (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not all [should have been "not at all"]; please read that section more carefully. It is about copyright violation (mentioned twice, and "copyright" three more times), while there is still (just as I previously noted) zero mention of verify or verification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Not all" is precisely the point. This isn't a guideline that only covers verification nor is it a guideline that only covers copyright. The first paragraph in that section emphasizes the tracking of editorial conduct in copyvio situations. The second paragraph (and the one I was talking about) emphasizes manifestly verification-based reasons for attribution. Concerning the statistics based on word counts, I can only say that it improper to use text searches as a proxy for trying to understand the meaning of the text. A commonsense reading of this guideline suggests that whereas copyright-related reasons for attributing text during an internal-to-Wikipedia copy are covered in the first section (entitled "Attribution is required for copyright"), other reasons for attribution including disclaimer and verification-related reasons are covered in the second section (entitled "Other reasons for attributing text"). -Thibbs (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

JJ, I couldn't care less how narrow the current material on this page is. It is the logical place for editors to look for information concerning copying within Wikipedia. If you're so convinced that this page should be limited to only copyright because that is its current focus, then I suggest you propose changing the name of this page to "Copyright concerns of copying within Wikipedia" (which I would likely oppose). Otherwise, I find this venue conversation to be a distraction, and I have no interest in continuing to discuss it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 "Not all" (implying "not 100%") is incorrect; the correct statement is "not at all", meaning zero. The plainly evident absence of any mention of verification in the referenced text (or anywhere else in this guideline) is prima facie evidence that it is not addressed, neither directly nor indirectly. Your reasoning that the "other reasons" section covers the "other reasons" for attribution is a naive expectation that the header is (or should be?) accurate, and that such reasons are in fact present. In fact, as has been manifestly demonstrated, "verfication" is not present. Which might be a further demonstration that no editor has ever considered verification to be a reason for attribution.

 And I rather resent your characterization of a basic, objective observation as "improper". Perhaps you favor numerological methods of finding phantom presences? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe we're looking at the same second paragraph. I reproduce it here so that there is no ambiguity about the paragraph that I believe covers a verification issue and that you believe doesn't:

If text with one or more short citations is copied from one or more parent articles into a child article, but the corresponding full reference in the parent's references section are not copied across, without appropriate attribution as specified below, it can be difficult to identify the full reference needed to support the short citations (see here for an example).

We will have to agree to disagree on whether "to identify the full reference needed to support the short citations" is a matter of verification or not. The comments about numerology and phantom hunting are needlessly insulting. -Thibbs (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a matter of differing opinions, but a matter of fact: is this paragraph — which is to say, any part of this guideline — about verification, or not? Is there even a mention of verification? There is not. Sure, citations are mentioned, which are the basis of verification, but that mention does reach verfication. Only your over-imaginative interpretation translates that into "emphasizes manifestly verification-based reasons for attribution." My objective demonstration of non-presence you denigrate as an "improper ... proxy for trying to understand the meaning of the text", though you offer no better proxy for something you evidently do not understand. Your obstinate persistence in a blatantly false position is a waste of time, and becomes disruptive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down, J. Johnson. When the purpose of "identif[ing] the full reference" is "to support the short citations" then in my view verification is quite obviously the basis. I understand that you are unable to see this connection, and I am sorry that my contrary view appears to be ruffling your feathers, but that's why I said that we will agree to disagree. I am not disrupting anything. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a matter of connection, but of what this guideline, and even this particular paragarph, is about. The paragraph is about why full references should be copied with the short citations they support. It does not address verification, neither directly (as you explictly claimed) nor indirectly. Your connection is irrelevant. That I do not see "verification" here very simple: it is not present. The real question of interest here is why you see that which is not. To return to the larger question: this guideline does not address verification. The disruption is your continued insistence on that which is not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of longform citations instead of short form citations is not simply an aesthetic requirement or one that is done simply for the sake of doing it. The reason to provide a minimum set of details for any source is so that readers can verify that what the article claims is not something that some nobody just made up one day. To maintain that a requirement to provide full citations isn't even implicitly about verification is either the demonstration of a startlingly clouded understanding of why we provide sources or it's a legalistic hairsplitting of such assiduity that it has reduced the discussion to an absurdity. The same is true for a word-count based means of determining the meaning of a sentence. You may as well say that Guy Fawkes isn't an article about a human because that word isn't used in that article. Anyway at this stage the whole thing is pointless. The prior discussion has reached a total impasse and there is no longer any reason to discuss venue for a clarificatory text that will never come to be. Despite the fact that every single editor except J. Johnson (that's 9 out of 10 editors thus far) agrees at a minimum that splits and merges need not be reverified, consensus is impossible because Wikipedia is not a democracy and a zealously held singular perspective can bar changes to the guidelines. I now concede that J. Johnson was correct on the ripeness issue. I had hoped something fruitful would emerge from the discussion at WT:CITE, but I have been proven wrong. I'm withdrawing my proposal and closing this discussion now as it has outlived any possible potential for further use. My thanks to the three other editors who participated in this discussion here. -Thibbs (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thibbs, your statements are so far off-topic they become false. E.g., your comment re "10 editors" does not accord with the objective reality that in this section the only editors to be seen are you, me, Prototime, and PBS. What you probably meant was the CS discussion, which is where reverification itself, including application to splits and merges, was being discussed. But this thread is about whether this venue is the correct place to discuss reverification. I still maintain that the CWW guideline does not cover verification, as evidenced by the utter absence of any mention verification (as I have demonstrated), and that your best argument (that one paragraph mentions citations, which are used for verification, and that connection amounts to the guideline being about verification — is that a fair statement of your argument?), is fallacious. BTW, your name- calling ("legalistic hairsplitting of such assiduity") is entirely unwarranted and not conducive to any determination of the correct venue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson, finding a proper venue for nothing (i.e. the outcome of the discussion at WT:CITE) is a waste of my time. That is why I closed this discussion. I understand that you think you've proved your case with indisputable facts. Congratulations to you. I don't think your word-count proof amounts to anything and there is really nothing more to say on the topic. I have previously suggested that we might "agree to disagree". You declined to agree to even this. That's where we'll have to leave it. We've had a lively and spirited discussion over this topic for close to a month but let's give the community a rest now, shall we? If you'd like to, you should feel free to come post further thoughts at my talk page. Nobody but the two of us have made any comment on this topic in 5 days. Considering that the entire thread is now moot, I don't think anyone else is likely to. With your permission I'd like to close the thread again right now instead of in four days. Do I have your permission to close the thread now? -Thibbs (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• The answer is apparently "no". See below. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really, but apparently you still want to discuss this, eh? Apparently you do not yet understand that any discussion (or clarification, annotation, comment; in fact, any edit) keeps the discussion open. Okay, I think no one else is interested in any of this, so I make an offer: if no one, including yourself, makes any edits here, after five days I will close this for you. It's irregular, but seems to be the merciful thing to do. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's closed, the discussion remains open until it is archived (archiving details available here). Obviously I have no personal objections to anybody closing this thread at any time, JJ. I have had lingering doubts regarding the helpfulness of the discussion since it was re-opened. Regardless, you may want to run this plan by User:PBS first since he's expressed concern that a closure could be seen as deceptive. I leave it up to you. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You just can't sit tight. Well, you did wait a whole week, there has been no other participation, nor indication of interest, so as an act of mercy I will close this for you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. PBS' objections notwithstanding it seems like an eminently sensible move. -Thibbs (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Other reasons for attributing text

@Thibbs I added the section "Other reasons for attributing text" on 26 August 2013. I did this because of my experiences of where attributing copies was useful.

I copied some text from one article to another (here]). The text was found to be a copyright infringement, but because I had attributed in the history of the article from whence I had copied it in good faith, I was free from accusations of breaching copyright and the earlier copyright infringement could be easily found and deleted as well. So article attribution in the history protected me from accusations of deliberately breaching copyright by copying from a third party source.

The second paragraph was introduced because of this: Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations.

So both of the paragraphs I introduced are also specifically about additional copyright problems. However for our own internal editorial reasons the edit history of an article is much more than just a log of copyright. Without attribution of internal copies the edit history is lost not only for copyright but for all the other things for which it is used. Perhaps we need an introductory sentence/paragraph in the section explaining that.

Your suggested additional text is one of the reasons that article history is useful for editors, but is it significantly different/unique from other reasons why one might wish to ask an editor something about their contribution to an article? -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, PBS.
I guess my initial thought was that attribution as required for reasons of copyright problems would be covered in the "Attribution is required for copyright" section and that attribution seen as desirable for other reasons would be covered in the "Other reasons for attributing text" section. If both sections discussed attribution for reasons of copyright then I wonder what the difference between them is.
Honestly I'm still of the view that the second paragraph as written is not about copyright even though I now know that it originated from a copyright concern. Without the background story, the stated rationale for attribution given by the second "Other reasons" paragraph is "to identify the full reference needed to support [] short citations". This is squarely a verification issue. There is certainly overlap between verification and copyright in certain scenarios and your example (indeed the example that inspired the text) highlights how the two intersect. Of course it would be easy to construct a hypothetical scenario where failure to give proper attribution during a mechanical transfer (split, merge, etc.) would result in the merging or splitting editor being accused of deliberately breaching copyright by copying from a third party source, or where reverification of sources during an act of copying within Wikipedia resulted in the discovery of copyright problems, but that wouldn't transform these into copyright issues. -Thibbs (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning your question "is it significantly different/unique from other reasons why one might wish to ask an editor something about their contribution to an article?" I would say that it is likely to have rather more significant consequences than most cases where a previous editor would be sought. The failure to attribute text copied during a merge would be regarded as an addition of novel claims into Wikipedia. An editor who introduces novel claims without verifying the sources would not only risk the removal of all unverified sources (typically an NPOV-weakening removal of everything other than modern online sources), but the editor also opens himself to accusations of deliberately introducing unsupportable claims - an act that could lead to the imposition of editing restrictions. I may be thinking too narrowly in scope here, but I'm trying to imagine other reasons why one would wish to track down a previous editor who added a claim and all I can think of are cases where one is hoping to gain additional information on a source need to expand/create a new article. Are there other equally consequential reasons why one might wish to ask editors something about their contributions to an article? -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is more of a problem than it is for any other reason when copying text loosing the edit history for that section of text, and your "also opens himself to accusations of deliberately introducing unsupportable claims" is for the person making the accusation a breach of Assume Good Faith. -- PBS (talk)

What other reasons are you thinking of? In the only example I could come up with (i.e. "where one is hoping to gain additional information...") the problems amount to frustration of one's efforts to create or expand a new article whereas the problems attending a failure to attribute when copying material during a split or merge would be the removal of all offline sources and the garnering of possible editing restrictions. Those aren't really comparable consequences. Regarding the "accusations of deliberately introducing unsupportable claims": Didn't you say that it was the protection "from accusations of deliberately breaching copyright by copying from a third party source" that prompted you to add material to the guideline in the first place? Sometimes AGF is not practiced and then it's good to have attribution to fall back on. -Thibbs (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The point about copying from Wikipedia when the text to be copied is a copyright violation, there is no way for someone to prove from whence it came. It could have come from an internal Wikipedia copy, or it could have been directly sourced from the third party source. However it gets worse if in the meantime the original copied source has been deleted from Wikipeida (as a copyright violation) and one can not remember from whence it came, then it would not be unreasonable for another person to assume that it was copied from the original copyright source, as one would not be able to show from where on Wikipeida it came. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously (Wikipedia:Copyright problems). Above you write "I may be thinking too narrowly in scope here, but I'm trying to imagine other reasons why one would wish to track down a previous editor" a simple example might be some some information which is not supported with an in-line citation to ask the original author what source was used in its creation, just as one might do that by using WikiBlame on the edit history of an article to find the author of text in any article (this is a particularly common problem with older text when it was considered acceptable either not to include any sources or just a handful of general references). -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise when someone copies over unverified material from another article without providing attribution then there is also no way to prove from whence it came, and it is also not unreasonable for another person to assume that the copying editor had written the text (possibly containing falsified sources) herself. And just as Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, it also takes the falsification of sources and similar trust-related violations of its policies and guidelines seriously. The example you give is a great reason why the original editor should include sources, but the consequences resulting from unattributed and unverified copying of unsupported claims (i.e. the appropriate deletion of the unsupported claim) are quite small compared to the consequences resulting from unattributed and unverified copying of properly sourced but difficult to access claims (described above). The consequences associated with your example exert at best a trivial deterrent effect on editors who fail to attribute copied text and thus provides a more trivial example of an "other reason for attributing text", whereas the consequences of failing to give attribution for the source of unverified material supported by hard-to-access claims (i.e. blame for falsified sources and/or the removal of sourced material from the encylcopedia) might be sufficient to provide a good example of why attribution is necessary in those cases. Anyway I wouldn't be opposed to adding a few words covering the example you give as an additional "other reason", but it isn't as pressing an issue. -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. For lots of reasons, but primarily because I think you are making a distinction between "mechanical transfer (split, merge ..." and other types of copying between articles that I do not see as relevant. All of them should be attributed primarily for copyright reasons, but secondarily because there are editing advantages that can be obtained through having access to the edit history of the text and that is true for all types of inter Wikipedia copying whatever the reason. Also there is no "consequences resulting from unattributed and unverified copying of unsupported claims" any more than there is in "inserting unattributed and unverified claims" -- unless it is deleted from the article, in which case there is a WP:BURDEN before it can be reinserted. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well from the sound of it we're actually mostly in agreement. We're in agreement for example regarding the "consequences resulting from unattributed and unverified copying of unsupported claims". They are very minor compared to the consequences resulting from unattributed and unverified copying of properly sourced but difficult to access claims. That's the very distinction I was drawing. We're also in agreement that "All of them should be attributed primarily for copyright reasons, but secondarily because there are editing advantages that can be obtained through having access to the edit history of the text". The only difference between our views is whether the unverified copying of properly sourced but difficult to access claims should be offered as an example in the "other reasons" section just like the short citation example is offered in the second paragraph of "other reasons". You had asked why this issue should be offered as an example and I tried to explain that the gravity of the consequences is sufficient to elevate it to the status of a good example. -Thibbs (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @PBS: - What would you think of the idea of covering the reasons for attribution during splits and merges within Wikipedia:COPYWITHIN#Merging and splitting? I still think the "Other reasons" section is the best place for this information but if the intention is to provide an alert to those conducting splits and merges then presumably they would go directly to the "Merging and splitting" section after reading the basic rule at the top. Recognizing that I'm interested in including coverage of this topic regardless of the details of the community consensus at WP:CITE, do you think this would work as a compromise location for this coverage, PBS? -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @PBS: - Sorry to bother you, but I'd like to reach a resolution here. Would my above suggestion work? I won't ping you here again if you ignore this. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh well. This is now moot. I'm closing the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-opening the closed discussion for additional comments

And I am re-opening the thread. I concur (and thank you) for withdrawing the proposal, and would agree to closing this discussion if there were no more comments. But you added comments that are not a neutral summary at the same time you closed, which looks like you are trying to make a statement, and then close discussion so no one else can reply. I will reply (above). If there are no further comments for three or four days then go ahead and close. But please don't be so quick to shut out any reply. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I provided no summary at all. How long shall we continue to discuss this, J. Johnson? This thread is no longer serving any useful purpose. -Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your addition of a partisan comment constituted a continuation of the discussion, so your simultaneous closing of the discussion was not only premature, but certainly looks like an attempt to preclude any reply. When there has been no further discussion for some period (I suggest at least three days), then it can be closed. But I would suggest you not do it. I will do it if that is okay with you. Alternately, I would suggest we ask @PBS: to close this at his discretion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just been the two of us talking back and forth without reaching any common understanding for the last five days by this point. I suggested that we could just agree to disagree a week ago already, but you didn't like that. I see no point to this conversation. PBS is welcome to close the thread. You are welcome to close it. It serves no purpose at all any more. -Thibbs (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have nothing further to say, say nothing. After a suitable interval of non-discussion it can be closed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe that now is a suitable time. There is likely nothing to be gained from keeping it open any longer. Do I have your permission to close it again? -Thibbs (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that a template closing this conversation is necessary, and could be seen as deceptive making it appear to be a more formal conversation than it was. This was a conversation between a few editors which reached no clear consensus. I suggest that it is just left as is, and it will be archived in due course. -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that if it's not closed other well-intentioned editors will think it's still an active topic and may post comments designed to help achieve consensus. Because the proposal is founded on a predicted consensus that in fact failed to emerged at WP:CITE, there can be no possible benefit gained from continuing to discuss whether this guideline is the correct venue for the incorrectly predicted consensus. Closing the discussion either without a summary (as I did earlier) or with a short summary stating "No consensus." would prevent further wasting of the community's time. I really can't believe that closing the discussion at this point would be seen as deceptive. It has run its course and we've gotten to the point where further discussion has been described as disruptive. Can there possibly be a reason to continue discussing the topic of the thread? Does this page even have auto-archiving set up? -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To make an incorrect, non-neutral "summary", and then immediately close off any response, smacks of trying to spin the result in your favor. If you think there is nothing more to be said, you can say so, but it is not for you to decide that no one else has anything to say. And as discussion of verification is not limited to either your proposal or the the discussion from CS, it is not inconceivable (though currently unlikely) that something else could be said on the matter. I don't know why you should be concerned about that, but "inactive" status follows from lack of activity, not any single edtior's fiat. If you are concerned about someone traipsing on by in the next several days, simply make a a statement that, in your opinion, there is nothing further to discuss. (Who knows, the rest of us might concur in that.) To force closure certainly looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive. If that is not your intent, the best approach would be not to continue in the suspect behavior, nor to argue about it, but to simply back off. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the closure we are talking about, yes? No summary of any sort was given. If editors here would prefer to keep the thread open to allow others to comment on the moot topic then so be it. -Thibbs (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, you did not do an actual summary (such as is typical for a closure). It seemed to me that you may have thought you were summarizing, and I presumed to credit you with that intent. That you were only commenting, well, the point is the same: making a non-neutral comment, and then immediately (or even simultaneously) precluding anyone else from commenting, just isn't good form. Also, please note: although in your first draft of your last comment you refer to "my [i.e., yours] deceptive efforts" neither PBS nor I have accused you of intentional deception; you have (once again) assumed what is not there. On the basis of WP:AGF I presume you were just caried away (hysterical??). But that does not excuse the behavior. If this presumption is correct then we might well expect you to state that it was not intended, and cease trying to persist in it. I have no clue why you will not do either, but your persistence serves no good, looks bad, and further delays when this thread would be automatically archived (which amounts to closoure). If you must comment, perhaps you would explain you think it is so urgent to close this immediately. Are you afraind of further comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice that I've already explained above, J. Johnson. This is a moot topic of discussion premised on my incorrect presumption that there was consensus over the needlessness of reverifying every offline source during a split or merge. Recall that this thread began life as a proposal to codify this presumed consensus in the COPYWITHIN guideline. You convinced me to temporarily withdraw the proposal in anticipation of your pronouncement on the issue, and in the meantime the discussion here continued over the propriety of this guideline as a venue for explanatory text arising from a presumed consensus of any sort on the issue. A week later, after you had provided your considered opinion and demonstrated your strength of conviction, it became obvious to all parties that a consensus would not be formed. The proposal which had been based on this presumed consensus was then fully withdrawn and the discussion of the venue was simultaneously rendered meaningless. Why, you ask, have I sought to immediately close the now-moot proposal over which two editors who have been disagreeing for several weeks are the only ones still bickering? Why, indeed? I don't see the value to it, but if you feel strongly about it then you can continue to go right ahead filling the thread with your good faith comments and objectively factual observations to enlighten the community. The automatic archiving of this thread won't take place until four more threads are created so we have plenty of time to wait for further thoughts on this moot topic. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You say "moot" a lot, but you should consider that one of its meanings is to open for discussion or debate. Sure, you seem to intend the opposite meaning ("no longer relevant"), but such ambiguous usage can lead to misinterpretation of what is meant.

Your concern that some editor will wander into this thread is touching, but fails to explain the strength of your need for immediate closure. By the way, if you were to agree that CWW is not the proper venue for discussing verification I would be please to close this thread for you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you consider this apparent ambiguity worth raising. It's as if you hadn't read any of my comments since the 25th of last month... Does it make any sense to you at all that I would close the thread as moot if I really intended for it to serve as a moot courtroom for you? No, you have correctly guessed that my intention was the opposite. Since you re-opened the thread we have seen an excellent example of the kind of acrimonious time-wasting disruption that comes as a consequence of leaving a moot discussion open for an editor with an axe to grind to carry on disagreeing with his favorite target far beyond the point where it became apparent to all that the difference of opinion that initiated the discussion was in fact irreconcilable. Of course I won't agree with you that the guideline on Copying Within Wikipedia should fail to provide instruction on one of the most common forms of copying within Wikipedia. What nonsense. And I don't want to participate in further moot debates with you over the topic. It's a waste of my time and the time of every editor who has watchlisted this page and who, since the 25th of November, have been treated to regular doses of this nonsense. I maintain that this thread should have been closed when I closed it, but please notice that I have agreed to let it remain open because PBS, who I regard as a neutral party here, has opined that he believes closing is not necessary and because he worries that closing would be regarded as deceptive (a concern that you have expressed in even stronger terms, J. Johnson). We are now waiting for the thread to become archived, and I've now added this page to my watchlist in case others in the months prior to the archiving event should wish to comment on whether the text of a non-existent consensus should be added to this guideline or not. You have expressed your views on the topic. I have expressed mine. We all understand one another now. There is no need for you to continue belittling and pestering me to continue explaining to you over and over again why it was that I wanted to close the thread. If you are unable to understand my reasons by now then I don't think you ever will understand them. And frankly I don't care. We'll have to leave it there. -Thibbs (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"By the way, if you were to agree that CWW is not the proper venue for discussing verification I would be please to close this thread for you." Fascinating that after all your moralizing about how this conversation should not be closed to other editors' participation, you're more than happy to give that up if someone else decides to agree with your view (which, by the way, I also participated in this conversation and continue to disagree with you). That said, it is well past the time for this useless conversation on thread-closing to end, and I will say no more. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Prototime: I believe the gist of your position (without rehasing all the details) is that because editors who copy material within WP would be coming here, this is where they should be advised (among other things) about any re-verification requirements. As far as that goes, I am actually in agreement with you, at least to the extent of providing a link to (say) WP:V. Where I disagree is that this is the proper place to disucssion verification, in part because this is not where verification has been discussed before.

You are quite incorrect, and wrong, to say that I would be "more than happy to to give up" (i.e., preclude) "other editors' participation" if Thibbs agrees with me. I said I would be pleased to close the discussion, but you should not assume I would do so in as high-handed fashion as Thibbs did. (Don't forget WP:AGF.) Perhaps you would go so far as to clarify that was just a misunderstanding, and even retract your imputation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Dodge Tomahawk"

A new article has replaced the edit history at Dodge Tomahawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (created December 2015) whose old history is now at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (created August 2005). Does making a new draft mean the old article's history is no longer relevant, and should be moved away, with a new history taking its place, or should MERGE and ATTRIBUTION be used to place the new content atop the old history? For the discussion, see talk:Dodge Tomahawk -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Material that will be reverted and deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki.

Can some one explain in what instances of "Material that will be reverted and deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki." if it is not attributed in the history of the article, when it would be copied without in text attribution? -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree; the bullet point is far from clear. I can tell you by interpretation what I think was meant, which then might help with an edit to clarify it. When people post content without proper attribution and it is being retained, the missing attribution can be supplied by repairing it—most directly by a dummy edit, stating the copying taking place and linking to the source of copying (for belt and suspenders, though it far less direct attribution under our licenses, this can be coupled with placing a relevant template on the talk page, e.g., {{copied}}} for everyday copying without attribution; {{Translated page}} for unattributed translations; {{wikia content}} for suitably-free Wikia content, etc.) See WP:RIA. The intended meaning of this passage, then, appears to be to the effect that when you come upon improperly or completely unattributed text, you don't need to bother repair the missing attribution if it is to be deleted entirely anyway, including by redaction of the page history (e.g., under RD1). In other words, if a copyvio has been entirely scrubbed, including from the page history, then repairing the missing attribution becomes moot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As for your addition to the bullet point "Material that has been deleted in full..." is not true for the "history must be deleted" I think you are confusing copyright violations with the requirements of WP:BLP and liable. It is commonly done when cleaning up articles that if an article contains copyright material inserted after a certain date or in a certain section that the offending material is deleted but the history is not deleted. There are only two times when that happens (1) if the copyright violation is so large and from the time of creation that the only practical quick way way is to delete the article, and another is to meet certain requirements of copyleft licences (such as wikipedia's) that have derivative clauses. For example just over 10 years ago I deleted about 40 articles that were not a copyright violation but were from David Plant' BCW Project which does not allow commercial copying and so is not compatible with Wikipedia's licence. In the case of copying something from one place on Wikipedia to another and then it is deleted AFAICT it does not need to have attribution even if a copy exists in the history.-- PBS (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You were given incorrect information in the past. I am not confusing this with anything to do with BLP or libel issues. This is purely a matter of copyright law, interpretation, and potential for liability. We do not host accessible copyright violations – if they can be avoided. That qualification needs explaining and I'll get to that. Yes, we do hide copyright violations from page histories. That is what {{Copyvio-revdel}} is for. (It's under-use is another issue). Leaving copyright violations in a page history results in those revision being able to be accessed. That content is copyright infringement and should be removed from all public view, if at all possible.

The problem we have is one of a tension between two aspects of copyright. On the one hand, leaving revisions in the page history allows illegal content to remain accessible. On the other, we have a technical problem, which is that in order to hide every revision that contains that illegal content, we may violate a second aspect of copyright: suitable credit to the authors, which comes from the page history. There are very cumbersome ways to solve this, that I'm not going to get into at this moment.

So, at times, we must strike a balance between leaving illegal content in the page history, which is a copyright violation, or hiding it, and thereby potentially causing the secondary copyright problem in fixing the first. This is not always the case but depends on the nature of the intervening edits, if any, such as if they meet threshold of originality. When they do, and you hide them to scrub the infringement, the suitable credit to the authors that is required (e.g., under § 4(c) of the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License) is lost. Regardless of which balance is a struck, if what you are left with is content that is unattributed from its source, but publicly available—able to be accessed—it requires attribution.

This issue is chiefly one of legalities, and not of Wikipedia policy or guideline, though of course, we do our best to instruct users through policy and guideline to follow and not violate applicable law. One more thing on that balancing issue. The potential for legal liability is not equal here; not even close. As pragmatists, we need to inject that into the equation. The Wikimedia Foundation, or Wikipedia users' potential legal liability is so much greater from leaving infringement from an external source in the page history, than it is from our aspiration to internally honor the free license our users grant when they contribute protectable creative content, by making sure the page history remains visible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As it happens on a completely different quest I came across this article just now. Its history shows a classic example of what I meant by the editor who for many years was the driving force behind fixing copyright violations. Here is the history of the article Notice that it was created with a copy of some text from ODNB so Moonriddengirl removed the text at 13:13, 11 March 2010. This is the standard practice for removing sections of copyright violations like that, one of the reason why it remain so is because there are nowhere near enough editors able to alter the history of articles if the visible copyright violations are to be removed from an article. It gets much more complicated if only part of an edit was a copyright infringement and more has been added to the non-copyrighted text since. Trying to sort out such problems is time consuming, a much more effective method is to delete the offending text. -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Simple, finite, lists of information

I do not see why "Simple, finite, lists of information,..." ought not to be attributed like other information copied from one place to another, even if uncreative lists do not require copyright. Basically because it removes the fallacy of the heap in selecting which lists simple and finite and which are not. Failing that then a citation from a reliable source that the list is complete should be required. Copier "Here is a complete list of actors in a television program", Questioner "how do you know it is complete list"? -- PBS (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging user:Tryptofish and user:Fuhghettaboutit as you have been editing the bullet point. -- PBS (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Actually, all I intended at the time of my edit was to copyedit it for clarity, and I have not given much thought to the substance of it. It's fine with me if anyone wants to change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think removal entirely was warranted and was precipitous. After all, the issue you are here about is not that the item is wrong, and it's not. Lists that are non-creative do not meet threshold of originality and therefore, do not require copyright attribution. Removing a correct item from a list of things that don't require attribution because you think it might be misunderstood throws the baby out with the bathwater. The call here is possibly for further clarification than my edit, as tweaked by Tryptofish did (maybe through a footnote).

Despite my misgivings about the removal, the reason for my edit was to make it hew more closely to legal standards for not meeting threshold of originality in lists, and my worry it would result in copyvios. Yes, more lists are creative and thus subject to copyright protection than many people may realize; and what it said before I edited it: "Simple, non-creative lists of information..." was uninformative because what is "non-creative" is not completely intuitive. Just for fodder for thinking about the clarification, the standards to be considered creative are very low. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.:

"The standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright."

See also User talk:Fuhghettaboutit#A copyright question, where I explained that a particular use of a list, though it might not have seemed creative at a first glance, seemed to me to be a copyright violation, and discussed that determining that something is non-creative, and thus not subject to copyright protection, is not so easy after all.

Nevertheless, I just can't agree with removal of this correct item because ... it's complicated. Let's clarify it further through more information. Addressing your concern—proof of indicia of non-creativity, such as that it's a complete list, can be addressed as well. So I am returning the item, as clarified, and I'll be composing a footnote to add to it, that I have not drafted yet (but that I will add).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that our hand are tide with what has to be done to meet copyright requirements, but with things that do not require copyright it can still be desirable for other reasons such as having the edit history of the list in the article from which is was copied. For such reasons it seems sensible to expect to have easy access to the list history whether or not it is a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that as a proper reason not to give correct copyright information. And it's deceptive, where we are all about transparency. Not giving full disclosure because you think the disclosure may cause a problem for some other reason always strike me as wrong. To use an analogy of a well known issue: doctors sometimes decide it's best not to tell people some information about their condition, because they think it will likely give false hope, or not be understood correctly. And they may be right as to the majority of people. It's still wrong not the give the full disclosure. Instead, give the information, and try to provide it in a manner that does your best to avoid the secondary reasons you think giving it might harm or be subject to misinterpretation or abuse.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am talking about lists that if copied without stating the source may not be a copyright infringement, but I am suggesting that even if that is the case, there are good reasons (other than copyright) for stating in the history of the article from where the text was copied. So I am not sure where "Not giving full disclosure because you think the disclosure may cause a problem for some other reason always strike me as wrong" comes from, or why we need the bullet point at all -- as this is about copying within Wikipedia not about copyright. -- PBS (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom cases and attribution

One issue I've noticed is that many ArbCom case results contain unattributed text from elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, the following text can be found in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. This section, word for word, can be found in Wikipedia:Administrators, in the version which was, at the time, the most recent. Similarly, the following text can be found in many cases - including Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement: The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. There are many other cases of statements in ArbCom case results which include such unatrtributed quotes from policy pages or esrlier cases. I believe this to be a copyright violation - since all content on Wikipedia can be used only if properly attributed. Does anyone else see this as a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have managed to trace the first sentence of my second quote as far back as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, both from Feb-March 2008; the second sentence appears to come from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, as a rewording of a workshop proposal in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a bigger issue than arbcom cases. Policy quotes are often used in talk pages, discussion forums, etc. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as their quoted with a reference to their source, on any website which uses a compatable license (including Wikipedia), it's not an issue. Please read the bottom of the edit page (from MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning), where it says that You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. The issue here is that these staements are quoted with no attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that there are some ways in which WP:IAR and WP:AGF come into play here. Obviously, the Arb decisions are made in good faith and not with the intention to violate attribution – just as the raising of the issue here is made with good intentions. I'm trying to think of all the times that I have referred other editors to things that are written on policy or guideline pages, and where sometimes I might not have given attribution (example: "I'm going to AGF about this", without a link). And there are undoubtedly myriad examples of copying content from one article to another without attribution, which is technically contrary to policy but not worth making a big deal about. I'm more bothered by this kind of thing when material is used without attribution at other websites. It seems to me that this is an instance of something that is not really broken and does not need fixing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your AGF statement here - I would never accuse ArbCom of intentionally violating our rules, let alone US copyright law. Yes, we're talking here about US copyright law, since our policy and guideline pages are clearly copyrightable. They are released under a license which allows use under specific conditions - specificly, the rights of others on your work must be the same as yours on the previous works, and you must give appropriate attribution. To use texts from our policies, or from earlier ArbCom cases, without attribution, is not just a violation of our policies where we can use a little bit of IAR; it's a violation of US law, where IAR doesn't apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that the equivalent of IAR in copyright law is “fair use“ (or “fair dealing”), and a typical use of project-related content (be it by ArbCom or anyone else on-site) will check several of the boxes to make a case for such: instructional purpose, vital reference or critical commentary, no more quoted than needed for said purposes, no impairment of owner’s ability to exploit, &c. … Most of the time the source will be linked nearby, or at least easy to find or infer from the context. As for WP policy, it’s supposed to be a codification of practice: has any policy-writer or other member of the community objected to the sort of licence-infringement under discussion here? That said, I think it behooves ArbCom–along with those responsible for the Signpost and the Main-Page, for example—to set the best possible example of scrupulousness in honouring the conditons attached to donated content.—Odysseus1479 07:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

meta:Copyright paranoia taken to the extreme. Yes, in theory we should attribute copying within Wikipedia. In practice, since this is cumbersome and not easily supported from the technical sides, next to nobody cares about using the right templates. Sometimes people mention source in edit summaries, sometimes directly in text, and often enough, not at all. It is a widespread problem, but fortunately, one that is simply not important. Nobody is going to sue anyone over this, so I'd even oppose allocating any WMF resources to making this easier - they need to get us a working Visual Editor for talk pages and a dozen other things that actually are semi-useful first. This entire page (Copying within Wikipedia) is an exercise in futility, about as useful as painting bricks on the inside. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I see 2 major problems with your "Nobody is going to sue anyone over this". Firstly, do you really think that it's okay to violate the law, as long as no one will sue you over it? I don't. Secondly, keep in mind that before some one can sue the Foundation for Wikipedia's content, they must email a demand that the violation be removed, and only if the Foundation refuses to remove it can this person sue th e Foundation. Now imagine that some user who has helped write the text of our policy pages gets penalized by ArbCom for some reason, and they come up with the perfect revenge: demand that the Foundation remove all violations of their copyright, which can be found in many ArbCom pages. The Foundation may come to the conclusion that, in order to avoid being sued, they muyst start by deleting all pages that may contain these violations, and then review them one at a time before restoring them. This process could take several weeks before we have all the ArbCom pages back. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding in the context of the opening question: "Does anyone else see this as a problem?" It seems to me that to treat this as a violation of law is over-the-top. Here, we are talking about Wikipedians quoting other Wikipedians, many of whom, like me, do not even edit under our own names. Would "Tryptofish" feel legally abused after being quoted on site without attribution? No. As for the hypothetical user who uses the threat of a suit to retaliate against having been sanctioned, it's not clear to me what damages they could actually seek. I'd be very surprised if they could seek monetary damages, particularly because they would have to proportionally divide any payments among all the editors who had edited the policy page. But, since I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, please let me suggest asking WMF Legal what they think about the matter, as opposed to editors speculating here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Piotrus There are good reasons why the history of article content should have a full traceable history. For the reasons listed in this guideline. The most important of which is protection of Wikipedia against accusations of copyright violations. I came here today because I have just added a comment to the history of Samuel Butler (novelist). The original copy was made back in 2004 and it is unlikely that someone is likely to accuse Wikipedia of copying that content, but have a look at the category Category:Wikipedia article talk pages incorporating the backwardscopy template that is over a 1000 articles that are known to be backwards copies because of the edit history, where the person who made the copy has not acknowledged that they have. There are also practical editorial reasons why recording that an internal copy have been made in the guideline section "Other reasons for attributing text". I have fixed dozens of articles where paragraphs have been copied from one article to another with short inline citations without the supporting long citations. Without the copy attribution it can make what would have been a simple cut and past into a task that takes hours. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@user:Od Mishehu. A lot of quotes about editor's comments already carry in-text attribution in the form of diffs, and that is recommended by the Wikipedia: page guidelines. So lets put that to one side. However I think you have raised a valid point about ArbCom comments. I don't think in such cases attribution in the history of the page is needed because, unlike articles (pages in the main namespace), in-text attribution to other Wikipedia pages can be used on other Wikipedia namespace pages and that would be sufficient. Ie with the first green quote that you give all it needs is a bracketed link at the end "removal of administrator status. (Wikipedia:Administrators -- or wherever)". Whether that needs to be a full link to a specific version is open to debate (I'm not sure and would be interested to here what others think). However adding such a link in brackets would be beneficial not just for copyright reasons, but also to aid less experienced editors find the policy/guidance on which ArbCom have based their judgments. Once this became the norm then the second quote issue would go away, as the quote could be copied with the bracketed source, or if it is wished to be emphasised that it is a copy of a copy, then with a link to a previous ArbCom decision, which with its link would dasy-chains back to the original (which would contain a link to the policy/guidance or to the original ArbCom ruling). -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It is always good to source things, but the key is to make it simple. My point is that the backwards template is cool but cumbersome. 99% of editors don't know it exist, and 99% of the rest don't care (some of them like me will try to mention source in edit summary, some won't bother with even that). If you want to change it, the only way that will work is technical (code). Ex. force everyone to use rich data (visual editor) and make that data contain invisible page identifiers that would auto-source copied text upon paste. Good luck getting that done, however, and without anything else is pretty much moot. Through User:PBS suggestions about adding links to arbcom discussions are good and can be implemented, through this will affect only a tiny part of our world. But if you can make this work, honest good luck. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Coming to this a little late. Pings: @Od Mishehu, Xaosflux, Tryptofish, Odysseus1479, PBS: A bunch of things.

• Yes, these are copyright violations, manifestly.
• If anyone is willing to discuss/help in/explore composing a list of unattributed Arbcom copying (e.g., the diff of the copying, and a link to the source), I am offering to help fix the attribution. I have done this many times and repairing a few hundred would only take me a few hours. Compiling the list will be harder, though starting with one case and exploring what would be needed as a test balloon would be where I think any attempt should start. What I am saying is that a global and near complete fix of the concern that started this discussion may be available.

  Fixing these matters in a quite methodical and thorough way, and by a very complete fix of the issue, is not as difficult as I think was an underlying assumption tinging some of the posts above—because repairing the attribution, by the best repair method, does not require filling out and placing any talk page templates, nor adding any in-text attribution into the original discussion, nor for either to be done in the future (and which yes, would be a very heavy lift in any repair, if such were actually needed).

  I understand part of the concern here is that some of the copying looks like it may reach far back—that it may involve "copying on copying on copying..."—with the original location, and thus the true source page history where the list of authors exists to be given credit, being obscured. Let's ignore those for this (at least for the moment.) That would not be the bulk of this.

• The proper fix for unattributed suitably-free text (I am talking more generally here; not as to Arbcom copying in particular) is a direct statement of the copying and a regular wikilink, interlanguage link or interwikimedia to the source of the copying placed in the page history through an edit summary (or listing the applicable URL therein, if a hyperlink is not possible, such as for copying from an external and compatibly freely-licensed source, say, most but not all pages at Wikia). This is done through a dummy edit (easiest in my experience by just adding an extra space between any two words though I suggest after a period, which many people place anyway, that has no affect on the rendered page's text). I included at WP:DUMMY suggested repair edit summaries for a variety of situations, as linked at WP:RIA.

  This method of repair places the missing attribution right in the affected page's page history, where it should have been placed in the first place, by an analogue to, and following the path of, what would have been the proper original attribution method that we have interpreted as, and announce at the bottom of every page as, suitable credit under our licenses (that is, credit to the authors mandated by Section 4(c) of the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License). We tell people at the bottom of every page: "...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license"). We do this because the page history is available from the page, where the list of authors and what each added is available.

• Talk page templates for missed attribution (like {{Copied}}}, {{Translated page}}, {{Merged-from}}, {{Wikia content}} etc. are always attenuated, indirect, belt and suspender to such direct repair, and are really unneeded if the above-described attribution method is done in the first place or repaired later in the page history through a dummy edit. (By the same token, placing such templates is rather poor attribution if done alone, without the attribution appearing directly in the page history.)
• "...cumbersome and not easily supported from the technical sides, next to nobody cares about using the right templates ... "exercise in futility...". It's easy; easily supported; easy to repair; no templates are actually needed; some of us care deeply; it is directly an honoring of of one our five pillars and a betrayal in its absence; it's followed by many. Would editors "feel legally abused after being quoted on site without attribution? No." Mileage may vary. I do and have acted on it. How fucking dare someone take my copyrighted text, written on time I volunteer, and not give me the only thing I am due, credit? Our copyright policies and requirements for attribution are in every user's face, every time they click edit.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I thought of something and, although this is rather late in the discussion here, I want to pass it along. It's fairly common when material is reused in ArbCom cases that, even if it is not apparent in the final decision, the workshop or proposed decision page will have a first draft of what will be a part of the final decision, and it will explicitly say there that something is "as per" an earlier decision page or a policy page from which it was taken. There are probably things that are "as per" an earlier case, where it is "as per" an even earlier case, and so on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Copying within an article

I have been fixing a few articles up and have come across articles tagged with having too short a lead. They are easy to fix by copying the key points from the article, often with modifications, to the lead. Are there any requirements to attribute this? AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No, but rephrasing is preferred, towards a summary rather than a list of details. No source is required for that, unless quotations from elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to copy the salient points and then rephrase them as best I can to fit in with the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Flagging a CWW article as needing translation attribution

Your opinion would be welcome at WT:CP#Flagging a CWW article as needing translation attribution. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOATT

What does Material that has been deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki mean? It sounds like I don't need to attribute content if I get it from Special:Undelete, but that wouldn't make sense. Is it saying that we don't need to maintain attribution anymore for a page that has been deleted? If so, wording could be improved I think. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It would have to mean that we don't need to maintain attribution for content that has been deleted. Material copied from a deleted page still needs to be attributed, either by undeleting the page to be able to point to its history or providing a list of authors. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Nyttend and User:JJMC89 see "Archive 2 § Material that will be reverted and deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki." which was a conversation between myself and user:Fuhghettaboutit.

However I am still not clear why this is a bullet point is needed as it seems to clash with the section WP:RUD. The original author of the bullet point was user:FT2 (see Revision as of 18:58, 20 October 2009) perhaps (s)he can explain if it is still needed and then we may be able to come up with some clearer wording -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have looked through the archives arround the time this point was introduced see Archive 1 § Article history cleanup, future Revision deletions. It seems that copyright text must be deleted, but sometimes there is collateral damage and something not under copyright may also be deleted with the deletion of copyrighted material on the original page. If that happens there will be no record of the author to the original instance of the non-copyrighted material. Revision as of 14:43, 7 October 2009 was added by user:Moonriddengirl which is now in the section WP:RUD. If this is what this bullet point is also trying to state, then I think that the section WP:RUD covers it better. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is the copied template not mentioned?

I wouldn't know the proper place to put it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see it under the heading "Hyperlink". But its purpose there is to keep the source page from being deleted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of list that has since been split into multiple lists

Regarding List of LGBT-related films, there is an AfD going on because there are now multiple, more specific lists: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT-related films. Is WP:COPYWITHIN applicable to oppose deletion on the basis of preserving attribution history? I am making this argument, but I am not fully sure if that matters here or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion re Template:Copied

Please join the discussion at Template talk:Copied#Should this template be removed?. This also impacts the lead section of this project page. Am I off base here? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reusing content from Wikipedia spaces/discussion pages

So recently I was shocked by the following argument (on a Polish Wiki). One editor has written an ~2-sentence AfD rationale, another editor has liked it so much they have used it in few dozen AFDs since, and then suddenly the first editor accused the other of copyright violation, saying that "while my rationales were CC-licensed, you have copied them dozens of times without attribution/linking to my original post hence you have violated my copyright". Are they correct? If one is going to reuse a Wikipedia-space or discussion/talk-page text, does it need to be attributed, and if so, what is the minimum length of a reusable part that should require such attribution, and how it should be attributed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A question on a specific type of copy/move

I am looking at "moving" the contents of List of home video game consoles into Home video game console (I plan to add additional content atop the list material as to better establish it more than just a list but "moving" the material is step one) The present contents of the latter article, where appropriate, has been copied elsewhere but with attribution, so I am thinking first off this should not be normal "move" operation, and I'm hesitant to merge the page histories as well since the two pages were generally developed wholly separately. I was going going to do a copy and paste move, adding in the edit summary the diff I'm taking it from as well as adding the right template to show that on the talk page on both pages, and that way the history for both pages is kept separate until this point, still trackable to find the original history if needed. However, I just want to make sure this is a valid way to do this. --Masem (t) 17:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the page histories should not be merged per WP:Parallel histories. You can do it as you propose. Alternatively, if you aren't going to keep any of the content from Home video game console, you could move Home video game console to Home video game consoles and redirect it to Home video game console with {{r with history}}. Then move List of home video game consoles to Home video game console. This has the benefit of keeping the list history in one page. The perma/diff links in the previous merge summaries will work even with the new title. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I like that second idea, feel it is cleaner than a c&p move. --Masem (t) 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying template code within Wikipedia

As far as I see, WP:COPYWITHIN does not specifically address the case of copying-and-pasting code between the implementations of templates, which (though I am not a copyright lawyer) might be considered a special case because template code is understood as less "creative" than article prose. Could a section be added on the extent to which COPYWITHIN is thought to apply to template code? —2d37 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

question

How can i copy an article . if i want to use it as a of my website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijin William Deng (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Should" to "must" for clarity on copyright requirements

A discussion on User talk:LouisAlain highlighted problems with the current wording that used "should" (diff). Did it mean "must" or "ought to". It seems that English dialects differ in the meaning of "should" in certain contexts. This diffrence as was highlighted in the great move debate of 2012 over the article now titled "Men's rights movement"

From the OED:

• Must: A use of ‘must’ (must) to express a command, obligation, or necessity; (hence) an obligation, a duty; a compulsion
• Ought: Expressing duty or obligation of any kind; originally used of moral obligation, but also in various more general senses, expressing what is proper, correct, advisable, befitting, or expected.

In this case "must" is a better fit along the lines of WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons" because Wikipedia editors have to make such attribution when copying text from one article to another to meet copyright and the licencing policy for articles on the Wikipedia Foundation project. "Ought to" is more appropriate for guidence on behavioural issues eg

• Editors should ought to respond to proposals in a way that helps identify and build consensus.

-- PBS (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)