User:ThaddeusB/Admin coaching/MichaelQSchmidt/Assignment3

Question 1

1. Under what circumstance can GFDL sources be imported into Wikipedia?

A. GFDL sources may be imported ONLY so long as certain criteria are met:

1. All previous authors of or contributors to the work MUST be attributed. Attribution is the requirement to acknowledge or credit the author of a work which is used or appears in another work.
2. All changes to the work MUST be logged... just as a history of a Wikipedia page logs all edits to that page.
3. All derivative works, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, MUST be licensed under the same license.
4. The full text of the license, unmodified invariant sections as defined by the author if any, and any other added warranty disclaimers (such as a general disclaimer alerting readers that the document may not be accurate for example) and copyright notices from previous versions MUST be maintained. Always check, double-check, and maintain.
5. Technical measures such as Digital rights management may not be used to control or obstruct distribution or editing of the document. If DRM exists that protects the source from use, it is not to be imported into Wikipedia. DRM is sometimes controversial, but Wikipedia errs on the side of caution.

My comments: A very thorough answer that would have been great in the past, but unfortunately now it is just wrong. Thanks to the license change over earlier this year, GFDL content can no longer to imported. The reason is that our duel CC-By-SA/GFDL license is incompatible with GFDL only content. Importing such text would change the license and thus violate copyright (unless the importer is also the only contributor of content, in which case they there would be no problem since anyone is free to re-license their own contributions.)

Now the obvious follow up is why was the "old GFDL text" of Wikipedia allowed to be re-licensed under CC-By-SA. I don't know the exact answer to that question, but I believe it is something along the lines of a special exemption clause Wikipedia had to allow the re-licensing under a community vote, which is what happened.

A full table of import/export restrictions can be found here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I now have more homework. Might it be best for someone to correct the WP:GFDL to reflect this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have added a notice to alert people reading the document of the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 2

2. Under what circumstance can CC-BY-SA sources be imported into Wikipedia?

A. Firstly, it is understood that the Creative Commons is a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project. The Commons employs a more restrictive interpretation of international copyright law than does Wikipedia, so if it makes it to Commons, it meets or exceeds licensing criteria of Wikipedia. The Commons does not allow non-free or fair use images, so the Commons' dedication toward free-use content makes use at Wikipedia easier. In using Commons content at Wikipedia, editors are allowed to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work) and Remix (to adapt the work)...

So they can be imported... but ONLY under the following conditions:

1. Editors MUST attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse the editor or his use of the work.)
2. If an editor alters, transforms, or builds upon the imported Commons work, he may distribute the resulting work ONLY under the same, similar or a compatible license.

With the understanding that

1. Any of the above conditions can be waived if he gets permission from the copyright holder.
2. In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:

   1. the editor's fair dealing or fair use rights;

   2. the author's moral rights; and

   3. rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

3. For any reuse or distribution, an editor MUST make clear to others the license terms of the imported work. The best way to do that is with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

My comments: Your answer is mostly correct, albeit slightly confused. Wikimedia's image repository indeed called "Commons" and has always allowed (but not required) pictures to be licensed under a couple different Creative Commons licenses. However, the license doesn't actual originate from there and now governs all text contributions to Wikipedia (in the past it was the GFDL that governed text contributions).

Text can be imported to Wikipedia as long as it done under a compatible license (see chart linked to in comments to question 1). Picture policy is quite different. Non-free pictures can be used on (English) Wikipedia under "fair use" laws in some circumstances. Additionally, non-free pictures can be used with the copyright holder's permission even if they chose not to re-license it under CC-By-SA. That is not the case with text, which must be re-licensed to be used. The difference is that we allow 3rd parties to redistribute/reuse our text, but not the images

You are correct that Commons does not accept fair use images. Those images must be uploaded to Wikipedia proper and follow the various other restrictions. The benefit of commons is that it allows all Wikimedia projects (foreign Wikipedias, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc.) to potentially use the same image without having to upload a copy everywhere. The uploader may chose between several licenses when uploading based on their own preference.

Incidentally, there is no reason I can think of to upload a file from commons to Wikipedia (although it wouldn't be a copyright violation to do so, assuming attribution was established). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 3

3. Can text be freely copied from one Wikipedia article to another?

A. Yes text can be copied... but no, NEVER "freely". As is explained in Wikipedia:Copy-paste#How_about_copy-pasting_from_one_Wikipedia_article_to_another.3F, in all cases the original author's work MUST receive proper atribution and there MUST be proper recognition of the existing copyright(s). The GFDL must at all times be protected. If the GFDL is protected, and assuming the content in the parent article has met all proper licensing requirements for Wikipedia content in the first place, then copying of text might be acceptable. But then one would have to consider why such text needs be in two or more places... but that's a different question.

Conversely, if the content was not properly licensed in the parent article, then it cannot be copied and improperly licensed content in the parent article faces its own problems.

My comments: Correct. The requirement for "proper attribution" is a either a link back to the original article (in edit summary or on the talk page) or a full listing of the significant contributors (again, in edit summary or talk page). Obviously the link is easier, and thus is the normal way to do things. In that case the original article can't be deleted (but could be changed into a redirect), so it is a good idea to add a {{copied}} template to the article's talk page to make sure later editors are aware of the situation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 4

4. What, in your opinion, are the one or two most important non-free content criteria? Please explain why you think these criteria are the most important and give a detailed explanation of each.

A: The most important criteria is that there is no entitlement for use of Non-free content (NFC) within Wikipedia, making it MOST important that ALL non-free content follow policy... and even then, that use of any non-free content must be carefuly weighed and kept to a minimum.

For non-free text, guideline allows possible use of brief excerpts from copyrighted material only if properly attributed or cited to its original source or author.

For other non-free content such as all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and any other media files lacking a free content license, guideline alows that they might be used on the English Wikipedia ONLY when ALL 10 of the following criteria are met.

1. ONLY if no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
2. NFC is NEVER to be used in any manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. Mimimum use of NFC is ALWAYS the preference. Multiple items of NFC are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information, AND an entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.
4. The non-free content being considered MUST must have been previously published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
5. The non-free content being considered MUST meet general Wikipedia content standards and MUST be encyclopedic
6. The non-free content being considered MUST meet Wikipedia's media-specific policy
7. The non-free content being considered MUST be used in at least one article.
8. The non-free content being considered may be used ONLY if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. The non-free content being considered is allowed ONLY in articles and ONLY in article namespace (subject to exemptions).
10. The non-free content image or media description page MUST contain

A) identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder,

B) a copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use, and

C) the name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item.

My comments: Your answer is factually accurate, although it isn't really the intent of the Q to test your knowledge (although that might be a side effect.) This common RfA question is designed to draw out you subjective opinion on which criteria are "most" important. I wasn't asked the question at my RfA, but is I was I might have said something along the lines of "#10 since without proper attribution, meeting the other criteria is totally meaningless." I do, however, also like your answer of "no entitlement and minimum usage." --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I can be more succinct in the future and expand if asked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 5

5. If you come across a page tagged G12, what steps should you take before deleting?

A. Well, the G12 is for text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, and where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. So...

1. I'd first to check to see if the suspected source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror, and then ensure that the page's creator was notified using {{nothanks-sd}}.
2. I would then make certain to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary and notify the article's creator.
3. Before actually deleting the page, I would check the page's history to determine whether or not it might be posible to revert and salvage a previous version.
4. I would check the initial edit summary to see if it has information about the source of or reason for the article.
5. I would check the article's talk page to see if there are any references to earlier deletion discussions and to see if there is an ongoing discussion relevant to including the article.
6. I would check the page log to see if there is any information about previous deletions that might warrant either SALTing the article or keeping it.
7. I'd check the 'What links here' to see if the subject of the article is linked from other parts of the encyclopedia, and to see if similar or related articles mightthemselves warrant deletion.
8. For articles that should not be re-created, I'd remove any incoming links from other articles.

My comments: A very thorough and accurate answer. The only other thing you might consider is rewriting it into a non-copyright-violating stub if the subject is notable, but that is by no means required. (I normally would not take that added step personally, but I know some admins will. It might be appropriated by the new user & certainly helps build the encyclopedia. On the other hand, no one is out any real effort by having a copy & paste job removed from our site.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If the subject is within an admin's area of interest, he (or she) might be more likely to do the research and perform a re-write. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 6

6. When creating an article that is very close to being a sentence by sentence translation of foreign Wikipedia's article on the same subject, what needs to be done to provide sufficient attribution to the creators of the original article?

A. To be frank... with so much work to be done on en.Wikipedia, creating a translation of a non-English article is something I am unlikely to ever do. But with the question asked, I found that there is an entire WikiProject dedicated to this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. If I came accross anyone else attempting this, I'd send them there with my blessings.

My comments: Honesty is always appreciated. :) For reference, a translated article requires attribution to the original non-English source. This can be accomplished through the use of {{Translated page}} on the article's talk page, among other ways. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I always try to send folks to where the experts dwell. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 7

7. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag

(public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?

A: All derivative works, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, must be licensed under the same license. The collage might be used ONLY if the licenses of the individual images permit both commercial reuse and included derivative works. Generally speaking, the copyright of the Disney characters belongs to Disney, and a release for use must be obtained from them as copyright holder. Nice that the user made the collage... and they can put it on their bedroom wall... but the unlicensed use of images of copyrighted Disney characters precludes a "Public Domain {{PD-self}}.

Of course, one might also consider the freedom of panorama. Copyrighted characters in the background of a photo (or in some other minor role) are perfectly acceptable as long as they are not the subject of such photos.

For example, if I take a picture of my neice and she happens to be holding an Ariel doll (The Little Mermaid), I could post it on my user page, as long as the doll is not the subject of the photo and its presence is merely incidental.

Additionally, we night wish to consider that the photos (and their arrangement) might be encyclopedic and not replaceable. In such a case, the tag on the photo simply needs to be fixed and a Fair Use Rationale added.

But for the specific example given, "Public Domain {{PD-self}} would not apply.

My comments: This is quite possibly the best answer I've ever seen to this real RfA question.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 8

8. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A: First and formost Non-free images of live persons might be used ONLY if there is no free equivalent. Further and equally important, the non-free content is NOT to be used in any manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. And if usd, the FEWEST number of non-free images are to be used... for if one image can convey significant information, no more are needed. Also, an entire work is not to be used IF a portion will suffice and low resolution is used rather than high-resolution images. Also, the non-free images MUST have been previously published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. As with all images, non-free images MUST meet general Wikipedia content standards and must be encyclopedic, MUST meet Image use policy, MUST be used in at least one article, and is to be used ONLY if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It is to be noted that non-free images are allowed ONLY in articles and ONLY in article namespace, subject to certain exemptions.

As an example of when a non-free images of live person might be apropriate, consider Shirley Temple. While a current photo would be appropriate for her work with the United Nations as an ambassador, photos of her work during WWII as a US ambassador to the UK and another of her early childhood acting career would be appropriate and not replacable, specially considering she is best known to most for her child acting career.

My comments: This is, by far, the mos common copyright related question asked at RfA and your answer is in right on. People often mistakenly believe the answer is never. That is right for many subjects, but not all. The key clause is #1: "No free equivalent". Normally, for a living person 9or standing building as another example) there is always the possibility of generating a free image and the inclusion of a non-free one will discourage that from happening. Your counter example to this general rule is a good one. The earlier ambassador position is debatable, but the childhood picture is exactly the kind of exception for which the exception was written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 9

9. What steps should you take if you come across an image that has been uploading without any licensing information?

A:

1. I'd tag it as instructed at Template:Di-no license using {{subst:nld}} and notify the uploading editor with a {{subst:image copyright|Image:ImageName.jpg}} --~~~~ .
2. Since editors occasionally list such information in their upload summary, I'd be sure to check the circumstances of the image.
3. If the image remains tagged for more than 7 days with no proper licensing being provided, it may then be speedy deleted in accordance with speedy criterion F4, using {{db-f4}}, {{db-unksource}}
4. Of course it's considered courteous to appropriately tag the image, if possible, and to add a Free Use Rationale on the Image Use Page if necessary. Its always helpful to look for appropriate uses for images, as seeking and applying proper licensing, improves the project as a whole.

My comments: Very good answer. I don't see any issues here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 10

10. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies?

A: No. Use of non-free images is not in violation. While yes, the Wikipedia Foundation's licensing policy states "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works", it also specifically allows that each project community is allowed to develop and adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy in accordance with the applicable laws of the country where that particular project content is predominantly accessed [1]. The EDP developed by en.Wikipedia under the Wikimedia Foundation policy is in accordance with United States law and allows non-free content under certain circumstances and with specifically stated and restrictive licensing requirements.

My comments: Excellent! This is an actual RfA question, so I've seen it answered a few times. Of course the answer is no, fair use is allowed, but I'd never seen the exact reason why (Exemption Doctrine Policy) stated before. Thanks for increasing my own knowledge on this one. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)