- Selectively
deleted removed copyvio. RedCoat10 • talk 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Selective deletion is something a little different than regular removal. :) However, I see that another contributor restored the content. Unless the source is free, material from it cannot be placed on Wikipedia outside of the allowances of WP:NFC, which require that direct copying be denoted by quotation marks or other markup (such as block quotes) and which forbids in all cases extensive quotation. ~604 words is likely to be extensive from a document of any size, but particularly from a 6 page pdf. (300 words was found extensive from a 30,000 word manuscript: http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The included text is far too long to be considered a fair use of quoted material (regardless if the original report was even a 10,000 page thing). And more importantly, there is no creative expression in the text; they are simple facts, which means we can paraphrase and cite the report for those statements. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is the summary of the report is released to the public domain, in which case there is no problem. --Gibnews (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you verify that it is pd? (If so, of course, I'd agree with you.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The PDF aside the quote was from Fletcher's report, the fact that a summary reproduces the same text in a single document is immaterial. The report is the named original source, the quote represents a fraction of that document. The copyright violation report is linked to the wrong document. Justin talk 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That isn't likely to help. As I pointed out above, 300 words out of 30,000 was found to be a violation in one court case. This text is over twice that. If the report is not public domain, the content is far too extensive to be safely used verbatim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest you reread the citation you supplied, in the case you mentioned it was not the fact that 300 out of 30000 words were quoted, it was the fact that the circumstances of publishing in the way they did caused significant financial damage. The selected quotes used in this example do not pass the 4 tests applied by the Supreme Court it fails on all points. Justin talk 22:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can also find the summary reproduced verbatim in numerous sources [1][2] Justin talk 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who else has reproduced it. If it isn't public domain, we cannot. You may use brief quotes in accordance with WP:NFC. Wikipedia's viewpoint on fair use is explained in that policy & guideline: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was not the point, it was a brief quotation and I merely point out it was extensively reproduced. Its perfectly within fair use guidelines, the original report mislead as to the extent of reproduction of the original. We have not reproduced the document, a small portion of a report was quoted. A simple formatting fix should be sufficient to comply with NFC. Otherwise any citation including a quote is not valid using such overly narrow criteria.
- The original objection was that most of the document was quoted, however, that was not the original source, it was a derivative of it reproducing only the summary. The legal precadent you're quoting has no coherence with the use of the document. Now it seems that only public domain information can be used. Can we have a stationary target please? Justin talk 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the grand scheme of things, the court tests are not really material to the discussion either. WP:C and WP:NFCC are the binding Terms of Use for the English Wikipedia, and they are, by necessity, stricter than what law mandates. In essence, the relevant test for inclusion of an extensive quote remains only three-pronged: Does the quotation add to the article in a significant manner, does its replacement by a synthesis significantly detract from the comprehension of the viewpoints described in the article, would its removal significantly impact the credibility of the synthetic statement made in the article (so that the users would have to click on a reference link to verify by themselves that party Example did, indeed, profess some specific view)? If the answer to any of these is "no", regardless of the legal implications, a copyrighted quote has no place in a free encyclopedia. Length is immaterial to the discussion. MLauba (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- 600 words is not a brief quotation; it's an extensive quotation, even if it is from a longer work. Even in most academic books, that would be more than a full page. You perhaps misunderstood me when I said, "~604 words is likely to be extensive from a document of any size" if you thought I meant that it would be fine if the six page .pdf were longer. Subsequently, another administrator User:Masem also chimed in indicating that the text is unusable. You may paraphrase the material, quoting from it briefly as necessary in accordance with the usages suggested at WP:NFC. You can't reproduce it without verifying that it is public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, well on point 1, the quote does add significantly to the article, that is why it was added on point 2, (albeit a subjective criteria) its removal has substantially reduced the comprehension of the article (one of the reasons why someone has been so keen to find a reason for its removal), it has been included because it significantly adds to the credibility of the article due to its rigorous approach, substantial evidence base and independence. So as I've already indicated I believe it passed the NFC criteria.
- So if I understand you correctly the only thing up for discussion is to how quotations are used? Justin talk 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Two administrators have already told you it does not pass the WP:NFC criteria. The quote is too extensive. The text is replaceable with free content. Hence, you cannot use it unless it is public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And now that I've reviewed the text in dispute, it is not a brief quotation by any means, and while it adds in a significant manner (at least quantitatively) it can be very easily synthesised without detracting from the article, and the replacement by synthesis would not leave the article in a state where a reader must necessarily click on the reference link to believe what the article claims. The quote will be gone for good in 7 days, the only thing left to decide is whether the synthesis will be proposed by someone knowledgeable of the topic, or a copyright managing admin who may not be as familiar with the subject matter. That makes three admins in my book. MLauba (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've already placed a summary temporarily in place till this was sorted. To answer the points you raised, it does add to the article significantly. The report is significant because it is independent and authoritative, its neutrality acts as a counter point to the many POV pushers on that article. To answer the second point that it can easily by synthesised, you're possibly correct but equally its quoted directly as the original poster here tries to criticise any synthesis on the specious reason that you have to reflect the source exactly (which if you do is now described as a copyright violation), describing any attempt to do otherwise as OR, then using that specious reason to remove text. Whats especially frustrating here is that you ask for guidance as to what is appropriate usage and you don't get it, rather you're told what you can't have but not what you can. What is a brief quotation? I would hope that the 3 admins saying we can't quote that report, for a reason I don't pretend to understand, will put that article on their watch list and defend any synthesis from attack by POV pushing. Justin talk 00:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- No one can give you a specific definition, because there isn't one. However, this one isn't even close to brief. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't have a definition or guideline, its entirely subjective, a matter of personal opinion, subject to arbitrary sanction and utterly useless in helping editors produce content. Not only that any POV warrior can wikilawyer away content he doesn't like. Fabulous, simply fabulous. Justin talk 09:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first, no POV warrior can wikilawyer away a proper paraphrase. Second, if you want to propose an actual word count, you're as welcome as anybody to do so at WT:NFC. However, you can expect the discussion to become complex. Even if we were able to devise some kind of ratio of words to source(x words out y), we'd also have to find some way to assess the importance of the text to each document (a concept embraced in the term "substantiality"). You might be able to quote 50 words from a 300 page book in a lengthy article. You can't quote it in an article that has 52 words. And you can't arbitrarily quote 50 words from anything. Among its several prongs, the law requires, very vaguely, that we copy only what is necessary for our intended use. It also requires that we not copy the "heart" of a copyrighted work. And it isn't at all interested in our opinion on how much we think we need or whether the material is the heart. The only way to determine if a quote is fair use is to take it before a federal court ([3]). There is no easy rule on this, because the US courts that govern Wikipedia haven't set one. Our job, as set out at WP:NFC, is to come up with a standard that is well within the vague definition the US courts have given, so that we do not inadvertently cross the line and put the project and our downstream users into danger of copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- So again I ask you the question, will that page go on your watchlist and will you intervene when we see specious reasoning and edit warring used to remove content? And I ask a straight question what can and can't we use and there is no answer. That may sound belligerent but I ask for help and guidance and from my perspective all I get in reply is waffling and hand waving. I want to know what CAN be used and I'm getting no help whatsoever. Justin talk 13:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really, I am sorry. If you want help with a copyright problem, I'm your (wo)man. If your cohort needs help with the permission process, I can certainly walk him through that. Addressing copyright problems is where I dedicate the vast majority of my time, and we can barely keep on top of those. But while I might be able to intervene in blatant POV pushing or edit warring, I don't have sufficient background in the subject to recognize subtler disruption and I don't have time to familiarize myself with it given the backlog in copyright concerns, especially at WP:CCI. About the best I would be able to do is protect the article in whatever version I happened to find it (unless there was a lone warrior or two who could clearly be blocked) and leave the contributors to come to consensus on the talk page. Not knowing the background, I do not know the venues you have tried. If localized boards like WP:NPOVN don't help and mediation proves fruitless, I'd guess there's always arbitration. If it reaches that point, it's not really about content anymore but about the inability of contributors to work within the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
|
- issues have been addressed by Mrg. Article rewritten. — CactusWriter | needles 14:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)