Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 June 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2007-06-23

edit

Articles

  • Regarding the allegations in "Copyright Infringement". To Psychonaut: the statement on Wikipedia:Copyright problems that I have "copied the text without attribution" is too much heavy for the one who only learning on how to contribute to Wikipedia. It seems too strange that instead of creative dialogue aimed to correct the mistakes, a person who puts an effort into enriching Wikipedia is facing technical-style persecutions for intially positive steps... I wonder on whether the discussed article will survive even when the current problem with Copyright Infringement will be successfully solved ... or there will be something new undertaken in order to erase another Romani activists from the well-known encyclopedia?! Valery novoselsky
  • Tagging a copyright violation is not persecution. Plagiarism and copyright infringement expose both you and Wikipedia, as well as any third parties who copy the article in the belief that it is licensed under the GFDL, to legal action by the copyright holder. Even where no legal action arises, plagiarism damages the reputation of the project. Additionally, many people believe that copying material without attribution is morally offensive, especially when it is done for the purposes of self-promotion, as may be the case here. —Psychonaut 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the allegations in "Copyright Infringement". To Psychonaut: there was no "exposure" neither from me, neither from Wikipedia, but there was the clarification in response to Psychonaut`s allegation. And the right step after that would be to allow me to add this source to the article, but not to ban it ... There is one good saying in English, which describe such sharp approach in dealing with this article "Making a storm in a teacup" - a storm of blatant criticism because of the little detail, which can be corrected very quickly. Valery novoselsky
  • Simply citing the source will not solve the problem. We need evidence that Slavik has released the material under the terms of the GFDL. The Wikipedia article has not been "banned"; you still have a week to contact Slavik for such a confirmation, upon receipt of which the article can be restored from its history. Alternatively, you can rewrite the article without using any of Slavik's text. —Psychonaut 12:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the citation from a book. Here what has been written by Hannah Slavic in the mentioned book:
    "Valery Novoselsky was born in April 1970 in assimilated Romani family in the city Dnipropetrovs’k, Ukraine. Part of his childhood lived in Siberia. In 1991-94 studied history in Dnipropetrovs’k National University. In 1993-95 was working in an Evangelical mission in Moscow, Russia. Immigrated to Israel in autumn 1995. In 1996-2002 was studying and working as English-Russian translator in the Galilee Bible College - Israeli branch of American Global University. BA on Theology and Bible obtained in 2002. In the international Romani movement since summer 1999 due to his capacity of an editor of Roma Virtual Network. Alumni of post-graduate Roma Diplomacy Programme (2005-2006). Currently working as consultant with European Roma Information Office (ERIO), European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) and International Debate Education Association (IDEA). Beside his active involvement in international Roma movement, Valery Novoselsky participates in public initiatives of Israeli Arab organizations."
    So, right now, please, compare this text with the current text of the profile and decide on whether to consider it as re-written or as something else. Waiting to hear your further suggestions. Valery novoselsky
  • Much of the article as originally posted on Wikipedia is nearly identical to the above. Therefore the earlier versions at least must be purged from the article history. Additionally, the last two sentences of the article as of its most recent edit still contain verbatim text from Slavik's article. —Psychonaut 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The important point is that all versions of a profile in question contained the reference to the following links European Roma Information Office (posted in September 2006) and Russian Christian Society "Russia in colours" (posted in April 2007) from where my biography has been transfered to Roma Diplomacy Book. So, the sources mentioned initially on my link were much more relevant to the profile, then the re-posted info in mentioned book (published in May 2007). Perhaps, if we follow someone`s argumentation, then the Copyright infringement discussion should be between the publishers of a book and the owners of these websites (which would not happen, I believe), but not between me and Wiki-Team. What do you think? Valery novoselsky
  • I think you are overly complicating the issue. We need to establish only three things: 1) Who is the original author of the text you quoted above and reproduced in two Wikipedia pages? 2) Does the original author hold the copyright to the text, or was this copyright transferred to another person or company? 3) Where is the evidence that the copyright holder has released the text under the terms of the GFDL? You earlier stated quite clearly that you are not the original author, and that Hannah Slavik is the original author.[6] Where Slavik originally published the text (be it on a website or in a book) is irrelevant. As yet there is no evidence that Slavik transferred the copyright to anyone else, nor any evidence that Slavik or anyone else has licensed the copyright under the GFDL. Unless or until the copyright status can be established, the Wikipedia articles (in the present or previous forms) are putative copyright violations and will be deleted. —Psychonaut 15:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the main problem is that I posted the info on my work and my person, the best solution in this case would be for someone else among my friends who are active on Wikipedia to post the same info, wikify it, reference better, then this info in a form of new articles will certainly survive. Otherwise, both of all will loose the time in meaningless on-line discussions. Valery novoselsky
edit

Images