Talk:The Humanoid Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Humanoid Project is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents


[edit] Excessive Editing

Wow! A tiny stub article with 3-4-5 editors (seemlingly increasing daily) dedicating themselves to working on it. Doesn't that seem a bit much? The most recent edit was to move the stub tags to the bottom of the article, based on MOS considerations. I looked into stubs in MOS and didn't find anything there about stub placement. The stub notifications seem to make sense at the top of articles - where they will be seen - announcing the request for help with expansion. The majority of stub tags I've seen at Wikipedia are at the top. Even editors here have been sticking various tags at the top of other articles. --Rogerfgay 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Stub tags goes at the bottom of pages (per Wikipedia:Stub). Other templates are placed at the top of pages (per Wikipedia:Template messages; see for example Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes). Where to place tags might be non-intuitive, but is the product of long-term consensus.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found that specific templates should be placed at the top of articles or sections. There is no placment section in the stub tag material however, and search for the word "bottom" did not produce anything. If you believe there is a specific instruction to place stub tags at the bottom of articles, could you be more specific about where it is - perhaps provide a search phrase so that I can find it. --Rogerfgay 13:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

The copyright flag was from a bot (link to Wikipedia:Suspected_copyright_violations appeared instantaneously when the page was posted). Instructions at the bot say that the suspected copyright violation entry on the bot list should simply be deleted if there is no copyright violation. That's what should happen here - just delete the item from the bot suspected cv list. The bot responded to external links to a website. Wikipedia wants external references generally - so it doesn't make sense that articles should be deleted simply because they contain external links. Wikipedia rules on proper editing include the need for references in support of material. The www addresses themselves which constitute the content at issue that is included on the Wikipedia page are public domain. Otherwise, the whole www would crash and burn. There is no such thing as violating copyright by listing a www address. --Rogerfgay 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

removed the {{db-copyvio}} tag - I don't think it qualifies as a blatant copyvio. Question of whether or not it's a copyvio isn't so clear. Od Mishehu 10:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rogerfgay 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There were chunks of the articles that were copy and pasted, so the above description is not accurate. --W.marsh 14:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed / rewritten the copied passages, to the best of my ability, so it should be ok now. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Butseriouslyfolks - Re: your comment on my user page - I added the reference to provide proper citation, not in response to copyright questions. The material used from the website is not copyright protected. Even if it was, the quotes are so short and properly cited, that it wouldn't be a copyright infringement or plagerism. --Rogerfgay 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well this is becoming an academic point, but the absence of a copyright notice doesn't mean text is in the public domain or otherwise usable on Wikipedia... there needs to be a specific release, which I don't see. --W.marsh 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more than merely academic. If it's a copyright violation to copy small amounts of material and use it with proper citations, I and a few million other people will have to stop writing non-fiction (here and everywhere else). It would just be too impractical. It's unimaginable that such a thing would create a copyright problem. --Rogerfgay 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW: These same copyright issues have been covered extensively by websites that allow people to post complete articles. In those few situations where web publishers object, rules have been developed by the courts for the amount of material that can be posted. I've participated in such websites for several years, and also frequently quote in published articles (other than here). --Rogerfgay 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It can be acceptable to copy a small amount of material from someone else, but not when it makes up most of your own work. Also, of at least three passages that were copied, only one had quotation marks and attribution. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Quotation marks are not required. That is only one of the accepted forms for presenting attributed material; used appropriately in short quotes embedded in prose text. Rogerfgay 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Other sites allow it, but such copyright infringements would have to be taken down if the rights holder complained. Wikipedia is about creating content that can be used freely, and is not subject to the whims of whoever holds the copyright. It's part our core goals. Write articles in your own words... cobbling together snippets from copyrighted works isn't acceptable. --W.marsh 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on User:Rogerfgay even though I hope the discussion will continue (as needed) here instead. Multiple issues are included in what you're saying, but treated as if they all have to do with copyright infringement. Copyright issue: A small amount of material in the absolute sense, is still a small amount of material, regardless of the portion of a newly created article it represents. I could publish an article of one sentence, copied entirely from somewhere else, and it would not amount to a copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether it's at Wikipedia or not - copyright law is the same for everyone. "Cobbling snippets" from (what W.marsh believes is) copyrighted material doesn't necessarily add up to copyright infringement. The "cobbling snippets" issue is entirely separate, and needs to be disentangled from discussion on copyright infringement or we'll all be very confused. --Rogerfgay 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If the material was under a liscense that allowed re-use and modification without attribution (public domain, basically), then it can be used, but it's still plagiarism not to mention where the text came from. But there's no evidence that it was under anything but proprietary copyright in the first place. You're not being picked on, this is just the standard way Wikipedia works. We want text that can be freely used, and part of that involves being clear about where the text came from. --W.marsh 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It's amazing that you were able to find the source. :) --Rogerfgay 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology

I'm convinced. Now I'm absolutely certain that we dodged a copyright bullet by removing the fact that the project is based at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. Since that's mentioned on the project website, it's obvious that no one else in the world can mention that without the specific written consent of the other place where it's mentioned. And mentioning the department had to have been a mistake. Obviously, it make sense that no one in the world should be allowed to mention that. --Rogerfgay 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You can mention whatever you want. You cannot copy copyrighted text from various webpages and present it unattributed as part of a Wikipedia article. This is not controversial, you're the first person I've seen object in nearly 2 years of enforcing copyright policy. --W.marsh 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you had a problem with my attributions, perhaps you could have discussed that; with the possibility of improving the way the attributions were included. There is no argument regarding the need for attribution (whether that's a copyright issue or not). But may I point out that your aggressive style and refusal to consider that what's being said in response might make sense, makes working constructively difficult? --Rogerfgay 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It's the other way around... you aren't listening to us. You can't just attribute your way around a copyright problem. Copyright problems are removed from articles... that's not negotiable. If the text was public domain, feel free to show that... but we need proof of that first, not later. --W.marsh 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to formulate your messages in discussion. Discussions tend to go around in circles otherwise. I respond to what you said, and then you choose a clarification that presents opposition. Please don't respond to this by clarifying ambiguity in another way. Passages from copyrighted material are very often used with attribution. --Rogerfgay 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • But they weren't in this case. They were presented without attribution as part of the Wikipedia article's prose... everyone here seems to understand that except you.--W.marsh 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence contained basic information that I did not feel needed to be attributed to the website, even though the stucture of presentation was quite similar. It's ok with me if someone wants to restructure the sentence so that it's dissimilar; as long as they can do it without significantly reducing the information content and so long as the resulting grammer is good. Rogerfgay 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's not how Wikipedia's copyright policy we works. We don't infringe on copyright until someone feels like writing better text. --W.marsh 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destructive verses Constructive Editing

It's better to help construct an article than to treat any possibility of a problem as a reason to delete.

If you're advocating a change in copyright law, respecfully, this is the wrong forum. Out of necessity, Wikipedia is very strict about copyrights. It is better not to create an article at all than to string together sentences largely copied from other websites in violation of law and policy and defend it as an encyclopedia article. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Your comment here does not seem to be on the subject of the section. Did you misplace it? --Rogerfgay 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is not about copyright law, and certainly a Wikipedia talk page like this would be a strange place to advocate changes in copyright law. The topic in this section is about Destructive verses Constructive Editing. --Rogerfgay 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyright is related to constructive contributions to Wikipedia. As you, Rogerfgay, did copy-paste copyrighted material into the article, relating this discussion to copyright laws is on-topic. Sadly, copyright problems is a common reason for deletion requests on Wikipedia and you are unlikely to change how copyright laws applies to Wikipedia by questioning removal of copyrighted text on this talk page. So, please, contribute constructively to Wikipedia by making sure your contributions stay above the threshold of originality.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"It's better to help construct an article than to treat any possibility of a problem as a reason to delete." --Rogerfgay 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Copyright is not a "possibility" of a problem. You don't seem to get that we are a free encyclopedia. This is the third time this has been linked to you. Would you read it this time? We want free original content or works available under a free license. Free as in air, not free as in beer. Copyright is more than the possibility of a problem, it is a problem. We are very proud and do not accept things with unfree licenses, even if "everyone does it" or "but the law allows it as fair use". If you want to include the material in the article by all means do it, but re-write it originally. How hard is that? -N 19:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)