Open main menu

User:JWSchmidt/Blog/7 June 2007

This page is part of
JWSchmidt's Wikiversity blog
Feel free to add comments.
16 August 2015 - Wiki Studies
16 April 2011 - Openness
29 January 2011 - Drama Queens
13 June 2010 - Bull
5 April 2010 - Breaches
22 September - Experts
27 January - Your Banned
14 January 2009 - Wikiversity Bans
14 November - Custodianship
19 October - Review Part II
10 October - My vacation
16 September - Moulton
15 September - Forking
7 September - Distorting
27 August - Wikipedia studies
1 March 2008 - The real world
12 January - Fair Use and the GFDL
2 January 2008 - Wiki Council
---- start 2008 ----
31 December - Participatory Learning
19 December - Foundation Changes
1 December - Changing the GFDL?
13 November - What is Wikiversity?
10 November - Expert editors (part II)
14 October 2007 - Vandal Wiki
20 September - Collaborative video interface
4 September - Open Source Crusade
31 August - CheckUser
4 August - Collaborative videos
20 July - Options for video-in-wiki
1 July - Networking Web 2.0 Websites
7 June 2007 - GFDL violations
27 May - Wikiversity namespace
22 May 2007 - Wikiversity tagline
20 May - The newbie game
16 May - Tangled Hierarchies
12 May - Navigation boxes
11 May 2007 - Forced editing
9 May - Wikipedia Learning
6 May - Music collaborations
25 Mar - Reliable Sources
17 Mar - Version flagging
11 Mar - Research policy discussion
10 Mar 2007 - Credentials
3 Mar - Free media files
28 Feb - Delete or develop?
27 Feb 2007 - Main Page
25 Feb - Science and Protoscience
23 Feb - Complementing Wikipedia
21 Feb - Copyleft media files
19 Feb - Gratis versus Libre
18 Feb 2007 - Referees
16 Feb - MediaWiki interface
15 Feb - Content development projects
14 Feb - Scope of Research
13 Feb 2007 - Review Board
12 Feb - Rounded corners
11 Feb - Open vs free content
10 Feb - Research guidelines
9 Feb - Learning resource diversity
8 February - Wikiversity referees.
7 February 2007 - Wikio.
5 February - Research policy.
2 February - Portal cleanup done.
31 January - Reliable sources.
29 January - Learning projects and materials.
27 January - Recording voice chat.
25 January - Animated GIF files with GIMP.
23 January - User page cleanup.
21 January 2007 - List of portals.
20 January - 2 more portals. "Courses"
19 Jan, - Portals and templates.
18 January site statistics - 20,000 pages.
18 January - Creating and organizing portals.
17 January - Categories of Wikiversity schools.
16 Jan. - Featured content development projects.
15 January - Wikiversity status at 5 months.
14 January - The "Topic:" namespace
13 January - Featured content
13 January - Wikiversity Bugs
12 January 2007 - Start of the blog
---- start 2007 ----
24 October, 2006 - Wikiversity history
26 April, 2005 - Wiki reality games
17 March, 2004 - Semantic prosthetic
edit this list

My most recent blog entry was appended at Related licensing issue, a page dealing with free content licensing issues arising from version 3.0 Creative Commons licenses. I've also been working on Introduction to Wikiversity and thinking about what new editors should know about the GFDL. What do Wikiversity editors need to know about ways to violate the GFDL while editing Wikiversity?

Learning resources for wiki usersEdit

What does it mean to "violate the GFDL"?

Content from outside WikiversityEdit

If a Wikiversity editor copies content from another GFDL-licensed website and pastes that content into a Wikiversity page, care must be taken to indicate the source of the copied content.

Page importEdit

At Wikiversity:Import it says, "Mediawiki, the software that runs Wikiversity and its sister projects, has a feature that allows importing of pages from other wikis. When a page is imported that way, the edit history is preserved and the license observed." In particular, the import function copies both the desired page content and the associated page history which shows the authors.

Page import not possibleEdit

Wikiversity also has some content that originated at other GFDL-licensed wikis for which Wikiversity cannot use the page import feature. We have some content that was created at Wikipedia and some content from Wikia. In general, for GFDL-licensed content that is cut from one wiki and pasted into another, I take the approach that if the original source of the GFDL-licenses content is mentioned (usually in the edit summary when the content is pasted), then it is possible to trace back and find the author(s). However, there are weaknesses in this strategy of stating the original source as a means of allowing for attribution of content to authors. It fails when the original source is destroyed. If you close a GFDL-licensed wiki because you cannot afford to keep it going, do you violate the GFDL by removing information about authorship of the content?

Page mergeEdit

One power that all Wikiversity editors have is to merge similar articles. As far as I can tell, Wikiversity currently has no instructions for how to merge pages. Does merging two Wikiversity pages have important implications for compliance with the GFDL?

At w:Help:Merging and moving pages it says, "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merge content from article name" (This step is required in order to conform with ยง4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it or omit the page name.)" The other required part of the process for preserving a record of authors is that the original page's history must be maintained.

Micro-mergeEdit

What happens if I see a few lines of useful text on one Wikiversity page that I need on another page? I cut some text from one page and paste it into another page. Am I violating the GFDL?

Section 4i of the GFDLEdit

What does section 4i actually say? "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

What is a "Document"?Edit

The GFDL can be applied to "any manual or other work, in any medium" if the copyright holder states that the work should be distributed under the terms of the GFDL. At Wikiversity, every page says, "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". However, it seems like there must be some distinction to be made between rules that apply to authoring a work and rules that apply to copying work authored by someone else. In the case of websites, there would seem to be a significant difference between keeping track of your own authors at your own website and giving attribution to authors at another website.

In the context of a wiki website, what constitutes the licensed "work" or "document"? Is the entire Wikiversity website the "document" that we license or is it every page? If the Wikiversity project sometimes fails to perfectly attribute every word of its content to the original Wikiversity editors (authors), is that a violation of the GFDL? What does giving attribution to authors mean when most wiki authors are anonymous?

If Wikiversity has a list of its editors, then is it only required by the GFDL that people outside of Wikiversity who use Wikiversity content point to the Wikiversity website where that list of editors can be found? Or do they have to correctly attribute the authorship of every word that is taken from Wikiversity?

Thought experimentEdit

Let's say that a Wikiversity user creates a learning project about nipple rings. Imagine that this popular learning resource gets copied to many other websites and media, and they attribute the work back to Wikiversity by providing the URL of the Wikiversity nipple rings page. Then one day, a custodian decides to delete the Wikiversity article about nipple rings. Has that page deletion deprived the author of the nipple ring learning resource of their right to get attribution for their work? Is this page deletion a violation of the GFDL or is it just an editorial choice about what constitutes the "work" known as Wikiversity?

I find it significant that the GFDL does not use the term "attribution". The GFDL says that it "preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work", but it does not say that it is a violation of the GFDL if Wikiversity fails to correctly attribute every word of the Wikiversity Website to its original author.

Real world caseEdit

At Wikipedia, silly content can be removed from encyclopedia articles and placed on pages of w:Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. All of this "silly content" has been rejected as not constituting part of the desired content of the encyclopedia. What responsibility does Wikipedia have to track authorship of content that it rejects? Is it a violation of the GFDL if someone moves a bit of BJODN out of the Wikipedia main namespace and archives it at a BJODN page without making an effort to attribute that content to its original author?

The bottom lineEdit

Sometimes wikis fail to keep a record of exactly who wrote everything at the wiki website. Is this a violation of the GFDL? By using the MediaWiki software, we have ways of tracking authorship. However, there are weak links in the system that depend on editors providing an attribution trail for content that is copied and pasted from one page to another. Particularly in cases of content that does not serve the mission of the wiki, is there any suggestion of obligation to keep a record of the authorship of that content? Can failure to keep detailed authorship records actually be a violation of the GFDL or are such claims hysterical attempts to justify page deletions? Is inability to identify the authors of a wiki page justifiable grounds for deleting the page?

Follow-upEdit