Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please consider this. Www.wikinerds.org 14:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] delete the lot

132 article contibutions just delete everything and end all worries about legal problems.Geni 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] tit for tat

I expect people who would like to borrow text from WP will read the arguments in this RFC with interest. Rl 17:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I did look into borrowing some matterial from wikipedia for another wiki but it was just too much hassel. It is doable if you are not going to chnage anything but beyond they it isn't really worth the effort.Geni 19:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you elaborate? What's the problem? Rl 10:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

the accreditation bit. You have to link back to wikipedia and when you have tempaltes on a page it can become a real pain.Geni 13:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I get the feeling this will remain a contentious area for some time to come. If reuse of content between different GFDL projects is a problem, we are in trouble. Rl 15:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

not really I really doubt we will be wanting to import much material from other projects. We know it is certainly posible it is just a bit harder than many people would think.Geni 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You may find User:UninvitedCompany/statement to be of interest. Like some others, I consider Wikipedia to be a single work. A consequence of this is that articles may all be attributed to the major authors of Wikipedia. Five major authors would be sufficient for GFDL compliance, though I would hope that an attribution page would list more unless space is at a premium. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, you mean citing the same five authors for any article from the entire Wiki? Based on the current WP:1000, I guess that would mean we credit SimonP, Bryan Derksen, Everyking, Olivier, and WhisperToMe for everything? Though this RFC isn't really the place for discussing this issue, I'm pretty sure that that take on it would stretch the GFDL beyond its limits. The reason why each individual article has an edit history is because each article is meant to be considered as an independent entity and an independent work. If I've misinterpreted your statement, forgive me.

Regardless, if you're wondering what acceptable authorship citation would involve, I'd suggest a note at Wikipedia:Copyrights, the Village Pump, or maybe the Wikimedia Foundation's legal mailing list. I would imagine you are more likely to find legal and copyright experts at those locations than here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary RfC

It may or may not be of interest to note that Wikinerd has created a sub-RfC at Talk:Wikimedia. -Splash 04:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)