Talk:Cooks Source infringement controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the news[edit]

I believe that this will be in most major news networks in the next 24 hours. I will not remove the WP tag, as I agree with it. This might be a flash in the pan, however, this person is notable as one of the first examples of grassroots copyright infringement action, and I think we'll hear about her repeatedly. (It is with irony, that I notice the first line below this edit box; "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.")

There is a ton of coverage now and, given the apparent scope of the infringements, more will be coming but it's not appropriate to use a Judith Griggs bio as a coatrack for coverage of the larger story. Also, better sourcing without bare URLs would be more likely to encourage another editor to remove the PROD tag and seek a better home for the information. - Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griggs' alleged 4 November response[edit]

I have removed the purported response by Griggs on Facebook per WP:BLP. There is speculation that the November 4 reply is a hoax, and it has not been independently confirmed. It is Wikipedia policy to err on the side of caution regarding living people. It can be added back if the 4 November Facebook reply is independently confirmed to have been sent by Griggs. Jokestress (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I wonder, though, whether it would be reasonable to replace it with something along the lines of "After continuing controversial statements were made by the magazine's Facebook account, the magazine claimed its account had been hacked and set up another blah blah blah" rather than skipping our article text right from "no response" to "account claimed to be hacked." keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if we have a reliable news source that discusses the alleged hacking and additional responses. Jokestress (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Is this truly a plagiarism controversy at all? Cooks Source credited the original author with her work. I don't know if they credited the other authors in other articles, but apparently the issue at hand, with Monica Gaudio, is that they violated her copyright by lifting the article without permission. That's not plagiarism. Elizium23 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though there was apparently plagiarism (work attributed to others), the international notoriety arose from copyright infringement. Moved per WP:BB. Jokestress (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article on Wikipedia might be amplifying the public's confusion about and conflation of plagiarism with copyright infringement. They're radically-different things, and I'm unsure how to clarify here: the controversy leapt out into public consciousness, in part, with an oft-repeated and incorrect allegation of plagiarism. Walter Dufresne (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citation templates?[edit]

Does anybody mind if I slowly convert the manual references with citation templates? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and converted the very first one. It's been archived to prevent link rot. I also left it in the original vertical orientation because I find it to be much easier to differentiate the prose from the citations then. I'm not married to it, but unless anybody really hates it, I'll process some more. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we post this picture?[edit]

Although the original copy of the infringing picture was taken down, I've seen a surviving reproduction. Would reposting a scaled-down version qualify fair use?

I agree that's fair use, but I don't even bother uploading images anymore unless I took them myself, because someone almost always tries to do a takedown. Worth a try, though. Jokestress (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've browsed through all available NFU templates, and individual magazine pages (apart from the cover) are not included. Alexius08 (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


CS Closed?[edit]

Anyone want to update this article for closure? Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/300451 N3l87 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that article is reporting, belatedly, on events that happened a week or two ago and were integrated into our article then. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The Background section currently reads almost like it's been edited by Griggs herself, oddly boasting about how she poured her heart and soul into her magazine and looking for pity. The part about how she traveled hundreds of miles to hand-deliver it sounds really peacocky to me. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 13:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason is that the only source available for the background of the magazine is the cited one, in which Griggs is interviewed and provides her hard-life story. Although I don't think the section reads too terribly peacocky, it is less-than-deal that Griggs is, by proxy, pretty much the only source for the history. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

While doubtless interesting, I'm not sure this was an event of real lasting notability; looking at it now, it seems more like a storm in a teacup, that had plenty of coverage at the time but little long-term significance. Would anyone else support merging a cut-down version of this article into Internet vigilantism? It's worth noting that most of the examples listed on that page formerly had articles of their own, which were deleted or merged (e.g. Dog poop girl, YouTube cat abuse incident); I don't think this one needs its own article either. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robofish (talk · contribs) has recommended to merge this page with internet vigilantism.

  • I oppose such a merge. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is too much information to add to the internet vigilantism article. That article handles this correctly per summary style: a paragraph with a link to this main article. I see no compelling reason to combine them. Jokestress (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see this article as primarily about copyright theft/infringement, with any 'Internet vigilantism' secondary. --CliffC (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article size alone makes this proposal undesirable, regardless of the merits. And CliffC has identified one significant issue related to the merits. --Orlady (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I thought this might be a good idea at first, but the more I think about it, the more I oppose the idea. This incident appears to be a unique occurrence, combining Internet vigilantism, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Lumping it into just one of those three categories doesn't adequately address the situation. Henrymrx (t·c) 20:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you all make some pretty good points. Fair enough, given the overwhelming opposition I'll withdraw this proposal. Robofish (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cooks Source infringement controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Cooks Source infringement controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooks Source infringement controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cooks_Source_infringement_controversy&oldid=1206785603"