Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small world experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was resolved outside of AfD. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small world experiment

Small world experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Small world phenomenon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The alternatives seem to be:-

Anthony Appleyard 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm concerned about this (Besides the confusion it generated) is the lack of a copyright notice or licence from other wiki (The AustriAn one). It was also not a very skillful copy, since the text still says things like "See Figure 1". 68.39.174.238 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You should discuss this on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here on AfD. The source ('netwiki') seems to have been inactive since January 2007 [1] and there's no contact information whatsoever. It is well possible that one of the netwiki editors moved the article to Wikipedia without thinking that it might raise suspicions about copyright without proper attribution. I'd say leave it or try to contact someone from netwiki to ask for explicit permission. Han-Kwang (t) 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC) -- I've just sent an email. Hopefully we get a reply with a clear 'no problem' or 'please remove the offending material'. Han-Kwang (t) 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    I got an email reply from someone at nd.edu, saying "I do not know who in the group did this, but probably was part of our class on networks, so any of the 20 students attending could have contributed to the page.". Hmm. On the one hand, I suspect that the original author wouldn't mind having a wider audience like on Wikipedia, but on the other hand, we don't know for sure. And now the netwiki server is offline. Han-Kwang (t) 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While this might conceivably be a problem, it does not meet the current standard for being reported as a copyright violation. (The one where you supply a URL to the website that has the same content). We should stand ready to delete the article if someone comes forward to say that their copyright has been violated. As it is, we are trusting that the original contributors had the right to add their material. It is possible that some of them ARE the original authors of the material at the other wiki. Since this appears to involve a university class, there is no commercial author who is losing business due to this article being here. If Anthony feels that this is serious enough to report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, he could certainly do that. EdJohnston 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    The argument about losing business sounds strange to me. I have a website that isn't making me any money, but I still get upset when people rip the content (which has happened several times). As for being reported as a CV, it did meet the standard. Only now the server went offline. Han-Kwang (t) 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    The point is that we can't assume that the person who contributed the information didn't have the right to do so. At that point, there's no certain violation of copyrights. That is, unless it's a part of a commercial project, in which case whoever contributed it would be doing so in a fashion that makes Wikipedia a source of lost revenue due to copyright infringement. Material being used for commercial projects is (virtually) never released under a copyright that allows its creators to also contribute it to Wikipedia. At least, that's what I think is going on here. --Cheeser1 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This matter including the copyvio allegation came to my attention as an entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The alleged original source of the text is inaccessible. --Alksub 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close and discuss issue at WP:CP. There isn't any deletion to discuss here and this isn't a forum for content or editor review. I'm inclined to revert to before the "merge" (or whatever it was), but I think the WP:CP regulars (though overburdened) have more of a handle on what to do in these cases than the broader AFD audience. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Does not meet any criterion for deletion. Even if the content of the entire article had to be removed for copyright violations, we'd leave the blank page there and have to rebuild it from scratch, not delete it and throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Cheeser1 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion . (Anthony, I think you just mixed up which one has the clean content) The solution is to Revert Small world phenomenon to the last clean version, the one before 22:16, 27 May 2007 [2], make Small world experiment to a redirect to it, because its present content is based on an apparent copyvio, and to have people decide on the talk page what the proper title should be, and then restore whatever good original edits can be identified. If there are no objections I will do just that. it's an editing question, not one for AfD. There can be no compromise about copyright when a cut and paste from an outside source is quite this obvious. We do not wait for complaints. Anthony--do you agree I have the sequence right?DGG (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree - this suggestion seems like the most reasonable course of action. --Cheeser1 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, OK, I agree. Anthony Appleyard 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.