This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amalthea (talk | contribs) at 10:04, 1 February 2012 (→Just pulled Bozeman Carnegie Library from the main page -- input, please?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:04, 1 February 2012 by Amalthea (talk | contribs) (→Just pulled Bozeman Carnegie Library from the main page -- input, please?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contributor copyright investigations page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contributor copyright investigations page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
A new template, presumptive deletion
In conjunction with Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Henry Delforn, I have created {{subst:CCId}} for articles which are tagged for deletion without verification of copyright infringement. Current policy supports this presumptive deletion in cases where it has been verified that an individual has violated copyright in multiple points. The template presumes listing at WP:CP and advises interested contributors how to help verify the copyright status of the material or to rewrite the content if interested in its preservation. It cautions against use in cases where previous contents can be restored (where the contributor was not the creator) and recommends instead verifying infringement where other contributors have invested time (and creative content) into the article. --Moonriddengirl
Becoming involved with this process
A users popped by my talk page, after my unsuccessful RFA, with some suggestions about how I can become involved in this area. I gather that there are not a whole lot of active users that are interested in doing copyright work, so I would like to lend a hand. However, this does appear to be a bit of a walled garden, and I can't quite figure out how what the procedure is to go through the checking of contributions. Is it just a simple google search for the added content, combined with an evaluation of the current state of the article, mixed with a bit of common sense and copyright policy? I think more people would become involved if the system itself were easier to understand. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at WP:Cv101, and don't miss WP:Cv101#Tools at the bottom. Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note that some of our copyright violators extensively use print and/or subscription only sources. MER-C 05:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do we need to revise our CCI instructions? Certainly we could stand to link to WP:Cv101. I'm all for encouraging assistance any way we can. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
How to update?
I've been working sporadically on Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. A few new contributors/socks have been identified; the contributions checked and scrubbed. Do they need to be added to the report? If so, how exactly is that done? Thanks. TK (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Question
I know that I am rather new to this process, but is there a way that we could help eliminate the backlog that is currently on some of these cases that are lasting two years or more? It doesn't seem as though there are a lot of people who are active in this process in terms of clearing the backlog, but I would be willing to help get people on board should there be a general consensus to create a drive of sorts. I personally have an investigation ongoing against me and I really don't want to see this open in a few years as it will just be a pain should I want to run for something and it isn't even half done. It's just a thought, but I feel like doing this will be quite a good thing for increasing the credibility of a process where things just seem to initially be worked on, and then languish for a number of years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can figure out how to get people involved in any way, shape or form, that would be fantastic. I hate the backlog here. :/ --Moonriddengirl 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if I could commit to it completely, but is there a way that we can bring the process into more of a mainstream thing so that it would garner more attention. It might even be good to implement a clerk process where users who want to can help to not only clear the backlog but maintain the pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks; CCI has clerks, though. What we really need are people to do the necessary work of checking articles. --Moonriddengirl 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot this even though a year ago I knew the answer. I know asking the clerks to do this wouldn't be good but I wonder if we could advertise on a noticeboard, see what kind of response we get, and go from there. Considering there are are between 20-35 pages that need clearing, it would be good to at least attempt some sort of action at this point. What are your ideas for going about this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried advertising at AN a couple of times, but so far have not seen much response to it. We did a Signpost piece, although we didn't focus that much on CCI but on copyright in general. Every time I open a new CCI personally I advertise it at relevant noticeboards, and sometimes that has gotten us assistance. What noticeboard did you have in mind? --Moonriddengirl 23:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there is always the option of posting on the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) page as well as canvassing on the main IRC channel. It might be a stretch, but involving editors over at the Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems might also be a good start since the people over there are doing work in a similar area as this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's nobody who works at WP:CP who doesn't know about this. :) (More specifically, User:NortyNort is very busy with SCV and CP; User:MLauba is only here part time.) --Moonriddengirl 00:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll try to see if Sonia could help us out in her spare time. Maybe we should explore working with the ambassador program to see what they think of involving new students with copyright issues. The idea with that is it would help to show new users how to correct copyright issues, and therefore help prevent them from slipping up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we have better streamlined the system at CP and as always, more "manpower" is needed. I want to help at CCI but I get bogged down at CP and SCV with the time I have. This day recently burned me out. I have been thinking of ways to advertise but if MRG gets lukewarm responses, I don't know how much more I can help. Maybe advertising the space as a great way to gain admin experience can be an advantage.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm all in for advertising on IRC should we need people. Isn't there a centralized copyright channel somewhere or am I just imagining things? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup is a good hub.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm all in for advertising on IRC should we need people. Isn't there a centralized copyright channel somewhere or am I just imagining things? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we have better streamlined the system at CP and as always, more "manpower" is needed. I want to help at CCI but I get bogged down at CP and SCV with the time I have. This day recently burned me out. I have been thinking of ways to advertise but if MRG gets lukewarm responses, I don't know how much more I can help. Maybe advertising the space as a great way to gain admin experience can be an advantage.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll try to see if Sonia could help us out in her spare time. Maybe we should explore working with the ambassador program to see what they think of involving new students with copyright issues. The idea with that is it would help to show new users how to correct copyright issues, and therefore help prevent them from slipping up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's nobody who works at WP:CP who doesn't know about this. :) (More specifically, User:NortyNort is very busy with SCV and CP; User:MLauba is only here part time.) --Moonriddengirl 00:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there is always the option of posting on the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) page as well as canvassing on the main IRC channel. It might be a stretch, but involving editors over at the Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems might also be a good start since the people over there are doing work in a similar area as this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried advertising at AN a couple of times, but so far have not seen much response to it. We did a Signpost piece, although we didn't focus that much on CCI but on copyright in general. Every time I open a new CCI personally I advertise it at relevant noticeboards, and sometimes that has gotten us assistance. What noticeboard did you have in mind? --Moonriddengirl 23:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot this even though a year ago I knew the answer. I know asking the clerks to do this wouldn't be good but I wonder if we could advertise on a noticeboard, see what kind of response we get, and go from there. Considering there are are between 20-35 pages that need clearing, it would be good to at least attempt some sort of action at this point. What are your ideas for going about this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks; CCI has clerks, though. What we really need are people to do the necessary work of checking articles. --Moonriddengirl 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if I could commit to it completely, but is there a way that we can bring the process into more of a mainstream thing so that it would garner more attention. It might even be good to implement a clerk process where users who want to can help to not only clear the backlog but maintain the pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rutherford- we don't need extra people. We're staring at the obvious- why don't we who are under investigation do each others investigations instead of searching for people who don't want to do it? most copyviolaters barely know each other, so it would be neutral if we each read up on the policy, then dedicated ourselves to clearing at least one single investigation on another user. If every single copyviolater did it, then we would be clear in no time.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just to trow an idea out there: How about we have a bot post a template to every article talkpage, notifying it is possible material was copied to this page and the relevant diffs, asking people to examine it and report their findings on the CCI page or wp:CP. We would need to ensure the messages are not archived until the concern is adressed and remove them (or replace with {{cclean}}) once it has. Yoenit (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alot of articles aren't viewed at all by many people. The key is to actually get people to the article, and to read it, perhaps by putting them at the top of some wikiproject list or something, like have them tagged with a template "possible copyvio", and that automatically gets it moved up on some sort of list at the wikiproject page.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not the solution for everything, but it would definitely attract more attention than we get now. We have perhaps over 100.000 articles currently in CCI, a significant amount of those is going to have active talkpages. Even if it helps clear out only 10% of the backlog it is still a big help. Putting a tag in the article itself rather than the talkpage is rather heavy handed and might be an idea if it turns out that talkpage notices are not working. With regards to wikiprojects, the experience I have with wikiprojects (mainly wp:MIL) are that lists like that do not work. Yoenit (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think talk-page notices are a better route. I am not a fan of tags on articles unless the problem with that article itself is visibly plausible or apparent, not just based off of probable cause. Also, editors interested enough to put time into reviewing the article and fixing a potential problem would monitor the talk page well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- thousands of articles have gotten zero edits for years, and its safe to say that they've been viewed almost by no one. Tagging them will not help at all since there is no one to find the tag.... you need to get people to actually reach the article firstΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think talk-page notices are a better route. I am not a fan of tags on articles unless the problem with that article itself is visibly plausible or apparent, not just based off of probable cause. Also, editors interested enough to put time into reviewing the article and fixing a potential problem would monitor the talk page well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not the solution for everything, but it would definitely attract more attention than we get now. We have perhaps over 100.000 articles currently in CCI, a significant amount of those is going to have active talkpages. Even if it helps clear out only 10% of the backlog it is still a big help. Putting a tag in the article itself rather than the talkpage is rather heavy handed and might be an idea if it turns out that talkpage notices are not working. With regards to wikiprojects, the experience I have with wikiprojects (mainly wp:MIL) are that lists like that do not work. Yoenit (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alot of articles aren't viewed at all by many people. The key is to actually get people to the article, and to read it, perhaps by putting them at the top of some wikiproject list or something, like have them tagged with a template "possible copyvio", and that automatically gets it moved up on some sort of list at the wikiproject page.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
One more finished
One more finished: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster. Can someone do the closing of this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done! --Moonriddengirl 14:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- And another small one: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20100506. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Done Another here: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
On a roll, here's another: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Chewygum. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Little help needed
Another user has just substantially rewritten College of Arms, and a lot of the phrasing suggests to me there's a lot of copy and paste or insufficiently distant paraphrasing going on. Where do I even begin? → ROUX ₪ 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- By asking him? the researching and writing of the article took me about one year, on and off. You can see for yourself at this sandbox's history: User:Sodacan/Sandbox4/Box4, going back to February 2011. The greatest text used for most of the article is Sir Anthony Wagner's brilliant, but exceedingly large Heralds of England. The "insufficiently distant paraphrasing" is I'm afraid the fact that English is my second language after Thai. No copy and paste have been made, most of my sources are in book form. There is no definitive text on the subject, especially not from a modern viewpoint. Wagner is brilliant but very lengthy, so only snippets were prized out, Mark Noble is another good one, but being published in 1805 is limiting. Finally the College of Arms's own website is very informative and is in itself encyclopedic, so the structure of many parts of the article follow those as set out from the website. All of these are cited and referenced to the appropriate source, in fact not a single paragraph of the article is not cited. If there is issue with the content and research of the article I am happy to go through it sentence by sentence. But if this baseless suggestion is the reason why, then I can't help but think that those discussions we had in the talk page were not in good faith. Unless you have definitive proof of a copyright violation we should refrain from any more discussions on the article, because only one of us would be doing so under good faith. Sodacan (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you dare accuse me of not acting in good faith. The article as rewritten by you is riddled with grammatical errors, is largely unreadable in parts, and given the tenuousness of your grasp of the difference between 'evidence' and 'opinion,' I am concerned about how well your information is sourced, and how well the text you wrote is actually supported by the sources given. My concern about copying wholesale from sources is a valid one given the archaic language used in most texts about heraldry and the similarly archaic phrasing you have used. Frankly I don't care what your sources are; I care that copyright is not being infringed. Thus I asked for help here, as history on Misplaced Pages indicates that the overwhelming majority of people either don't understand when they have infringed copyright (which may be the case here) and are therefore unable to even understand how to help, or they know full well they have copied and therefore do not want to help. → ROUX ₪ 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- How can I not? you have made your opinion very clear. The accusation of copyright infringement is very serious, and it has been made very swiftly by you. It took me a year to complete the article, I put it out for two days and this is what is seriously being considered? The key here is proof, like I said, I am happy to go through it line by line. I am quite aware of the difference between evidence and opinion, that case was a very bad demonstration from me, but I still have full faith in the rest of the article and will stand by it. Funnily enough those reasons you cited are part of my proof that I wrote it, the mistakes and the errors. The article as I wrote it is not perfect and it still needs a lot of work, I know that. The community will deal with that. Sodacan (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're quite right. When I am concerned about an article I shouldn't ask the experts for help in either validating or alleviating my concern. How stupid of me. → ROUX ₪ 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are right, you have every right to ask the experts, but clearly this is your issue to sort out and not mine. I was just a little offended you didn't ask me first before you decided to raise this concern. Sodacan (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Just pulled Bozeman Carnegie Library from the main page -- input, please?
Hi,
I just pulled Bozeman Carnegie Library from the DYK section of the mainpage. I had looked at two phrases from the article and the source, and noticed:
- "The building is also opened for special events such as Historic Preservation Week." vs.
- "its new owners have opened the building to the public on numerous occasions for special events, such as Historic Preservation Week."
and
- "Their plan worked as the red-light district and Chinese population steadily dwindled away." vs.
- "the local Chinese population gradually dwindled and Bozeman's red light district soon withered and disappeared."
I haven't looked at the rest yet. Can I get a quick opinion on whether the phrasing is distinctive enough and it is to be considered plagiarism? If I'm overreacting, feel free to put it back. I have more articles from the same editor that concern me, e.g. in Cranberry Creek Archeological District "and was designated a State Natural Area in 1986" is copied word-for-word from the source. Opinions? Amalthea 10:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)