User talk:MLauba/Signpost definitions

I think it is important to keep in mind why this article is being written. As it currently stands it no doubt contains a great deal of information on copyrights, but it is unfortunately also very complex. This is of course inherent in the subject matter, but till I think we should strive to simplify the article as far as possible. Enwiki has a lot of editors who are not fluent in English and I this will be a success if we get the basic message (do not copy-paste stuff!) across to them as well. I am actually thinking of creating a simple english version based on http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright. Yoenit (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this take. If you know how to simplify some of the language, go ahead. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for restriction

I've added a third reason to the restrictions, but I'm wondering: is this really why the policy developed in this way? I haven't read the history of the copyright policy or WMF conversations on it, but I'm wondering if there are documented conversations about constructing a policy narrow enough to avoid problems wiht future tightening of the law? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it may very be a rationalization a posteriori. I think it's a solid justification for maintaining the current practice, however. Tweaking a bit so that it doesn't imply that there is in fact a proven intent behind it, but if there wasn't, it's still a major fringe benefit :) MLauba ^(Talk) 17:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping

Just to note, since Wikipedia is not quite a decade old, I've removed that reference. :) Might want to reword if it is to be retained. I think the conclusion is particularly strong. In my small contribution, I have tried to maintain the overall "simple" language and tone being sought here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-copyvio

You might mention that an editor can violate their own copyright, or that of the organization they work for, by repeating copyright material on WP. That is pretty frequent here. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first case is impossible. Placing any content you authored onto Wikipedia you agree to release it under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL - says so in the edit window. The challenge for us is to verify that the author is the uploader. For employees of organizations, the matter is different - if they aren't placing it here at the explicit behalf of their employers, that is indeed a copyright violation. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can still potentially violate your publisher's rights. But as you say, we won't normally be able to authenticate who added it, so we will treat it the same as any copyvio, as we will with employees who have not gone through all the hoops of verifying the usage. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]