Wikipedia content without required license notices

  1. xFamily
  2. » Contact Editors
  3. » Wikipedia content without required license notices

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 05:52 pm
Wikipedia content without required license notices
Here's an email exchange with someone named Robert, which I assume is one of you.

I'm aware that many of you are actually respected members of the bonafide Wikipedia community, so I'm surprised at these responses.

Also, I'm not sure which parts of my emails warranted such a heavy response, but it was certainly uncalled for. In any case, it seems like so much of a better idea if you guys just go ahead and use good content, just abide by the terms of the content that you "borrow". But if you disagree, then no big deal, just delete anything from Wikipedia.

Here are the emails so you can judge for yourself:

Editors,

As the author of original content on a couple of your encyclopedia
pages through the Wikipeida, I'd like to ask that you follow the GNU
Free Documentation License. I think it's great that you're using the
content, but please just attribute the source, as required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

I haven't studied a lot of your pages, but at least Secrecy, Finances,
and the leadership structure pages, including breakdowns of the CRO
areas falls into this category.

Nothing personal, I just appreciate the fact that my contributions to
the Wikipedia fall under the GFDL, and that's why I made contributions
to that site in particular.

Thanks,

Marcus

--------------------------


Robert to me, editors

gcomnz to Robert

Ummm, all the stuff that's from Wikipedia, as in tons of the site, LOL.

But yeah, if you check Wikipedia's history you'll find that I wrote
the majory of content on Secrecy and Finances.

I'm not saying remove it, just for all the Wikipedia content please
just respect the source and put the required notices. It's not a big
deal.

Marcus

--------------------------

gcomnz to Robert

BTW, when I say put notices, I just mean the sample they give on
Wikipedia itself, indicating that the content is GFDL. I don't care
for any personal attribution.

You'll have to dig deep though, I do see tons of Wikipedia content
there. Perhaps a lot more than you realize.

--------------------------

Robert to me

We have no intention whatsoever to be bludgeoned into accepting the
license terms you demand and no such notice will be posted.

Yes, there is a lot of wikipedia content there and that is because we
own much of said content as the primary wikipedia contributors on the
subject of this cult.

If you feel that specific portions of our website violate *your*
rights then point us to the lines in question. In all likelihood your
contributions are not covered by copyright (e.g. CRO areas is
information that you do not own or have any legal right to) or legally
defensible fair use. If not, we will remove or rewrite it but we will
*not* be bullied into accepting license terms for our website due to
feckless vigilantism.

So if you wish to make a specific DCMA claim, do so. But we will post
no such notice and will not license our content in the manner you
speak of.

I support open content very much, but will not abide this feckless and
frivolous harassment by the wikipedia community.

--------------------------

gcomnz to Robert

LOL, you're so touchy

1. I didn't threaten

2. You're stealing content from Wikipedia

All you have to do to fix this is abide by the license on that content
(simple) or remove it.
 
Craven de Kere 1
 
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 07:08 pm
And my reply:

Quote:
> From: gcomnz
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: Robert
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia content needs GNU Free Document License and
> link to wikipedia
>
> LOL, you're so touchy
>
> 1. I didn't threaten

I have never claimed you "threatened".

> 2. You're stealing content from Wikipedia
>
> All you have to do to fix this is abide by the license on that content
> (simple) or remove it.

Indicate which specific portions of text (due to the collaborative editing of the articles specificity is necessary) that you claim is your property, provide evidence of your ownership and we will remove it.
 
Craven de Kere 1
 
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 07:18 pm
Re: Wikipedia content without required license notices
gcomnz wrote:

In any case, it seems like so much of a better idea if you guys just go ahead and use good content, just abide by the terms of the content that you "borrow". But if you disagree, then no big deal, just delete anything from Wikipedia.


We are under no legal or moral obligation to "delete anything from Wikipedia". Our own contributions to the wikipedia need no such citation.

If you have legitimate claim to any portion of our articles I would be happy to rewrite those portions of the articles as I stated in the first email you received (which you neglect to quote):

Robert to Marcus and the editors wrote:
Please indicate which contribuitions you consider yours and we will remove/rewrite them.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:06 pm
Oops, just noticed that missing message...

In any case, I'm just going to assume that none of you even looked at the terms of the GFDL license that all wikipedia content is licensed under. Very odd, and how hypocritical...

Oh well, break the license if you wish. There's nothing I can do about it except forward you the GFDL contravention letters, and of course you're aware of those terms already and you'd just rather steal community content.

I will say however, that anything from Wikipedia should be deleted or attributed if you wanted to make any attempt to be good community members. I'm not going to attempt to help you justify your use of other people's Wikipedia contributions by pointing out my specific ones.

Since attribution is so simple a course to take, I'm going to assume that you out and out have some plan for this content that makes you wish for it to be fully "owned" by yourself and not attributed, even if stolen. If this remains the case and if any Wikipedia content is used in other publications and attributed to yourselves I will not hesitate to inform those publishers of contravention of the license terms on the content. Either that, or you just haven't read the license and seen how easy it is to attribute and you'll just go ahead and do that.

What's the big deal exactly?
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:47 pm
Gcomnz, actually, we're just waiting for a detailed list from you of the Wikipedia content that you personally own and feel was stolen.

The Wikipedia:Copyrights page sates:
Quote:
Contributors' rights and obligations
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either

1) you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
2) you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever. In the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy. If the original copy required invariant sections, you have to incorporate those into the Wikipedia article; it is however very desirable to replace GFDL texts with invariant sections by original content without invariant sections whenever possible.


Editors of this site contributed most of the information currently on the Wikipedia entry for the Children Of God. As per the first case listed in the above quote, they have every right to post here what they have written without any form of attribution.

If you, or anyone else who has worked on the Wikipedia articles, feel that content you presonally own is being misused in any way, please post here a list of the exact URLs, paragraphs, and even words in question.

As Robert has already said, these will be removed or reworded.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Indicate which specific portions of text (due to the collaborative editing of the articles specificity is necessary) that you claim is your property, provide evidence of your ownership and we will remove it.


Thank you.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2005 04:16 pm
Actually, no, the article has been edited by many people
Actually, unless you have verifed that you have removed the edits of *all* contributors, you are violating the license, and I absolutely refuse to help you justify your use of all the contributors additions without attribution to the Wikipedia source. I've already said that before. And it certainly is not my responsibility to do the work for you if you're the one who is violating the license. The Wikipedia history is quite clear on the many paragraphs that I contributed as well as many other people *besides* the members of this site.

Perhaps also before making blanket statements about how much other's have or haven't contributed you should take a look at the actual difference files for the content.

It's the last I'm going to say about it. I don't usually come to this forum, and probably won't return, it's just a waste of time and you all obviously don't have any desire to do the right thing (which is give attribution to Wikipedia for all contributors content, not attribution to myself). It's stealing, there's no other way around it.
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2005 04:33 pm
Quote:
It's the last I'm going to say about it. I don't usually come to this forum, and probably won't return, it's just a waste of time and you all obviously don't have any desire to do the right thing

CYA! We'll miss you homie! Respect, safe.
 
Craven de Kere 1
 
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2005 04:35 pm
Re: Actually, no, the article has been edited by many people
gcomnz wrote:
Actually, unless you have verifed that you have removed the edits of *all* contributors, you are violating the license, and I absolutely refuse to help you justify your use of all the contributors additions without attribution to the Wikipedia source.


You have alleged the infringement, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it as more than feckless harassment.

Quote:
Perhaps also before making blanket statements about how much other's have or haven't contributed you should take a look at the actual difference files for the content.


We have.

Quote:
It's stealing, there's no other way around it.


As has been said to you ever since the first email, provide evidence for your claim. The contributions I have seen of yours in the wikipedia history are not substantial enough to consider intellectual property (i.e. adding a word or fixing a typo is not intellectual property).
 
 

 
  1. xFamily
  2. » Contact Editors
  3. » Wikipedia content without required license notices
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 02:50:29