Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Miscellaneous
Village pump (policy) archive  
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Contents

Newbie Question

I hope this is the right place to ask this question...I'm a novice. I discovered today that there is a section in Wikipedia about "Medical Writers" and that individual writers are listed there. I've read that people are not supposed to post articles about themselves--which seems like a perfectly sensible rule.

In this case, however, I AM a medical writer...with 7 published books and more than 20 years of experience. My background and oeuvre are comparable to, or more extensive than, some of the other folks listed. So what is a guy or gal to do in this case? I would like, obviously, to write up a relatively brief, neutral, and factual "article" about myself as a medical writer. And I don't think that having a friend post it for me would be honest.

I'd be quite happy to vet my submission by an editor if you want--or by the community at large.

By the way, I'm also a medical editor and I would very much like to lend a hand in the ongoing effort to raise the quality standards of articles.

Thanks for any guidance anybody can offer. Hmmm...should I leave my email address here? Don't know. Guess I won't. I just became a member a few minutes ago, so I'm not at all sure how communications work. Thanks for your patience!

--Steve Braun --Srbraun (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for being willing to help edit! I hope you find it rewarding. Thank you for your conscientiousness about writing about yourself. You might find answers to your questions on the guideline page WP:COI.
Re email: If you click "preferences" at the top of the page you can enter your email address and enable email. Then, when you go to someone's user page or user talk page (for example, my user page is User:Coppertwig and my user talk page is User talk:Coppertwig) in the links at the lower left it will say "email this user". Your email address won't be publicly posted, but if you email someone they will see your email address, so that they can reply directly. Similarly, people will be able to email you from your user page. However, most of the communication around here is done on the user talk pages and other talk pages, not by email. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Braun! Welcome. Please also see Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself. As you can see from reading that section, while you are strongly discouraged, we don't prohibit this. I do have a suggestion: if you are going to go ahead, write the article in a subpage of your user or user talk page and when you feel you are ready to "go live", drop a note at the help desk and ask for editors to review the article, disclosing that you are the subject of the article written by you and you want some outside eyes to look for problems. Please be sure to cite sources using inline citations. Note that there should not be one single sentence in the article that comes out of your own personal knowledge that isn't also verifiable through the citations you actually cite in the article. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When to cite has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:When to cite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's back to an essay - see Wikipedia:When to cite#essay or guideline? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Locking Featured Articles

Is there any material / prior discussions available concerning potentially locking articles after they've been approved for FA? If not, I'd like to propose it.

I've found (in my limited experience) that articles tend to go downhill after reaching FA. The process to get them to that point tends to weed out NPOV, bloat, cruft and unsourced claims; after that though, further additions are not as vigorously scrutinized.

My proposal would be basically as such:

  • FAs should get an additional tab, "Featured", which is permanently protected.
    • The "Featured" tab, in addition to having the star on the top-right corner, would also have the last date at which it became featured / re-featured.
  • The "Article" tab would be replaced with a "Draft" tab, which would behave exactly the same as the existing "Article" tab, with the exception of a small notification that the page contains changes since the article became featured.
  • Users who are not logged-in are by default taken to the "Featured" page when viewing the article in question.
  • Logged-in users are by default taken to the "Draft" tab, though they can change this in their preferences.
  • Administrators are advised not to make changes to FAs without consensous on the talk page / associated WikiProject
  • In the case of a large re-rewrite, the "Draft" article would have to go through the FA process again in order to replace the existing FA.
  • The "Featured" tab would have its own history, much the same as our articles and discussions do today.

Any thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a little bit like what stable versions is supposed to be, but with a new process added for Featured Articles. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be absolutely and strongly opposed; FA doesn't necessarily equal perfect or completely finished (consider Barack Obama), and consensus changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize that situations change, and that nothing's perfect; that's the reason why I'd include a "Draft" tab for continuing development. My line of thinking is that right now, being featured doesn't mean much; the first edit taken after an article has been made so is one that wasn't reviewed by the same standard.
To me, featured means "This page, as it stands at the moment, meets the criteria we've set out to determine excellence." Is it still applicable a month later? A year later?
But, you do bring up a valid point. There are featured articles which are in fluctuation. In that case, I'd think we'd need "Featured-stable" (FS) and "Featured-unstable" (FN). FN articles would be the exact same as our current FAs. FS articles would have to meet all the criteria of FA articles and have to be about a topic which is relatively unlikely to change in the immediate future: i.e. a historical place / event, mathmatical formula etc.. Oberiko (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This page, as it stands at the moment, meets the criteria we've set out to determine excellence is far stronger than most FAs deserve; it's closer to This page now has no glaring embarassments which are obvious to a handful of editors who know little or nothing about the subject. Please do not assume that they warrant any special treatment. (And do remember that it is always possible to revert back to the passed version if, as is possible, that is the best thing to do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like protecting FAs at their point of promotion - take, for example, this, which has undergone some prose tightening, structural changes, category addition all since its promotion. Will (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. This ought to be in Wikipedia:Perennial proposals 'cause versions of it come up quite often. Both the GA and FA process record - for all to see - the version of the article when it became GA or FA. But Wikipedia is a work in progress. There is no perfect article. Wikipedia editors can always work to improve the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose. Consensus of what an FA is can change and Wikipedia is meant to be dynamic, not showing something depending on an admin's whim. An FA on a living person will have to drastically change when they pass away. Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if the locking-idea is to inhibiting, how about a tab on the top called "promoted" that links to the promoted-version of the article in the articles history? I think that'd still accomplish the main goals without interfering at all with our regular process and make it easy for editors to quickly see what the article was like at the time of promotion. Oberiko (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article, in the article history banner, there is a link to the promoted version. Something like an obvious 'promoted version' tab has been suggested before. It is a good idea. Another good idea is to make the permanent link button to the left far more obvious: see Help:Page history#Linking to a specific version of a page. This would help greatly in allowing people to cite Wikipedia properly. Both ideas requite a developer / programmer and consensus. For whatever reason, it isn't happening; just like the user friendly editing environment that has been vaporware for a year now. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Because even the promoted version, which is already available as a link in the articlehistory template, isn't necessarily the best version of the article. Also, if we were to implement this proposal (which will never happen, but for the sake of discussion), then what are you going to do, go back to FAC each time you want to update the protected version? Completely impractical proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I never knew about the link, so I'm willing to bet many others don't either.
  • As pointed out, we already have the link, all we'd be doing is making it faster and easier to access
  • Should there be multiple promotions, then we can have a history on the promoted tab to show them.
What's so impractical about any of that? Oberiko (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I plan to be doing a writeup explaining {{Articlehistory}} in the WP:SIGNPOST soon. Multiple promotions? FAC reviewers are bustin' their buns already; they don't need more work. If an article deteriorates, it goes to WP:FAR, and yes, that is also a tab in articlehistory. Yes, this is a very old, recycled discussion, and most FAC reviewers and FA writers know it's just not workable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple promotions as in FA, FAR then FA again. I'm still not sure why a link to the promoted version is "unworkable". It's just saving me the effort of going to the talk page, expanding the history template, and then clicking the link. Cutting from several clicks to one and making it readily available to editors. Oberiko (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason for the featured link to be available from the main article to our general readership; it's not necessarily the best version. Wiki editors can find it on the talk page; our general readership doesn't need it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the article we promoted is basically irrelevant? Oberiko (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that it may have improved after promotion, so the promoted version is not the best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This old proposal is being recycled? Surely not. It's unworkable and will lead to the atrophy of FAs. The whole idea of WP is that all articles be constantly upgradable and improvable. Tony (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you expand on how a quick link to the historically promoted FA atrophies articles? Oberiko (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

About "featured article rot": I don't deny there's such a thing, but it's not as much of a problem as some people make it out to be. Out of the 2462 articles that have ever had featured status, 1953 still do. 538 pages have been de-featured, and if we subtract the 29 re-featured pages that makes 509. In other words, just 21% of historically featured articles are no longer featured. While it would be wonderful if those 509 articles were still featured, 509 fewer FAs don't pose a grave danger to the encyclopedia.

Regardless, locking featured articles wouldn't prevent "featured article rot". What we call "rot" is often caused by rising standards, not by a decline in quality. For example, many articles lose featured status because they lack inline citations, which were rare in Wikipedia's early days. Standards could change even more in the future, and locking the articles would prevent needed improvements in such cases. szyslak (t) 05:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've got that having articles locked is considering stagnating. What I'm proposing now is a quick, readily available link to the historical article. Something we already have access to, just more prominent. Oberiko (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You say the link on the talk page isn't prominent enough. Is seeing the "original featured version" so important to our general readership that an extra tab on the article page is necessary? As SandyGeorgia pointed out above, the "original featured version" isn't always the best. We have featured articles about people, such as Gerald Ford, who died after the article's promotion. The "original featured version" was written when he was still alive. And as I pointed out above, most featured articles don't deteriorate in quality as time goes on. In fact, many of them improve, especially when they're featured on the Main Page. szyslak (t) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"Feature Article rot" is a problem, but is even less of a problem than Szyslak's statistics imply. Many of the de-featured articles lost FA status because the criteria were raised, not because they deteriorated. For example, if an article was featured before in-line citations became the norm, then it may lack them. Unless someone is willing to go back and insert citations, the article will eventually loose FA status, without having deteriorated in quality. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since 99.9% of anonymous IP users are vandals, why not just protect all FAs from being edited by anonymous, or new users? This would keep the vandalism down, and hopefully keep the damage down by the POV pushers to a minimum.

Of course, a better idea would be to just block anonymous IPs from editing in the first place, but unfortunately, that idea is unlikely to get past the cabal,... Dr. Cash (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You grossly overestimate the figure - it's actually 21%,[1] which is why this is such a bad idea. Hut 8.5 16:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Locking down FAs is a really bad idea. Articles are improved after promotion; in fact, there are several users who go around and improve articles after promotion (MisfitToys comes immediately to mind), so locking articles would prevent them from improving the pages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
True, articles are improved after becoming FA, so I agree that locking them down completely isn't the best solution. But I still think that something needs to be done about the Anon Vandal problem; I see such pussies that try to hide behind their so-called IP address as never legitimately adding anything constructive to the article, and they should not have any rights whatsoever in this encyclopedia. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Featured Articles are amongst Wikipedia's most watched ones, especially by the WikiProjects that have done the most work to get them to FA status in the first place. Vandalism is more likely to be reverted immediately or almost immediately there than in most other articles. True, it takes up some resources that could be better used elsewhere, but that's the situation all around the encyclopaedia anyway. Bottom line, vandalism is not a major issue as far as the quality of FAs is concerned. Waltham, The Duke of 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent events, what about indefinite move-protection the default for featured articles? Gimmetrow 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is proposed so often as to be a perennial proposal (someone ought to add it to that page). Usual arguments against: featured articles are improved and expanded during and after their time being featured (there's no such thing as a "finished" article), they need to be updated in response to changes to the topic itself, and semiprotection is easily circumvented by people seeking high-profile vandalism. I'd also argue that deterioration is, in general, not a big deal, because when constructing a static version for publication we can go back in time to the peak of quality and grab that version. Dcoetzee 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PEREN

At the risk of keeping this silly discussion going, how about if we add something like this to WP:PEREN? This would also cover the related proposal to protect the Main Page featured article while it's live.

  • Proposal: To maintain their high quality and/or prevent vandalism, featured articles should be protected or semi-protected, either permanently or when featured on the Main Page.
  • Reason for previous rejection: Featured articles often improve in quality rather than deteriorating, especially when displayed on the Main Page. On a related note, a featured article is not a "finished" article. Not only do they need further editing in response to changes in the topic itself, our standards for featured articles change over time. For example, in Wikipedia's early days most featured articles did not use in-text citations; today, such an article would have no chance at gaining featured (or good article) status. While some featured articles deteriorate in quality, this is not a widespread problem; only about one-fifth of historically featured articles have been de-featured. In regards to vandalism, our featured articles are among the most-watched pages on Wikipedia. Semi-protection and blocks are more than adequate to deal with featured article vandalism.
  • See also: Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection

szyslak (t) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles often improve in quality rather than deteriorating, especially when displayed on the Main Page. - That is, as best as I can tell, both misleading and possibly untrue. First, there is a huge difference between semi-protection and full protection of Main Page articles - while there is some support for the former, there is virtually none for the latter. So combining the two types of protection into one, and making a generalization about the pair, is essentially a straw man argument. In addition, I know of no study that shows any substantial increase in quality of Main Page articles during their 24 hours, but several editors (myself included) did a study of IP edits (in December 2006, for a week) that clearly showed that the vast majority of IP edits to MPAs were vandalism; only a small percentage were in good faith, and most of those were either reverting vandalism or were themselves reverted as not being all that helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image name

Why can't images be moved? If this were allowed, it would save a lot of deltetions i think, although it might have the unfotunate side-effect of image redirects. Simply south (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See bugzilla:709. This is more of a long-standing technical issue. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:NLT regarding "on Wikipedia"

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#"On wikipedia" about whether legal threats must be made physically "on Wikipedia", as part of the policy has stated, in order to be actionable. I'm brining it up here for broader participation. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I suggest the rule is not changed, because Wikipedia a) does not have authority beyond the scope of Wikipedia, b) evidence of said "legal threat" is not the same as if it was published on Wikipedia, and c) the ruling is placed to keep Wikipedia from being a center of attacks, or, in dealing with copyright matters, from having things changed while the issue is yet to be resolved. For these reasons the usage of "on Wikipedia" and only such must be stated and used. Anything else goes beyond the scope and intent of the original. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Legal action is legal action, and threats are the first step. The chilling effect that legal threats have on free and open editing is just as damaging no matter where they are. The summary title "no legal threats" of course has no enforceability outside of Wikipedia but this has been noted for a long time -- we cannot prevent anyone from taking legal action, but we can require that such things be dealt with exclusively through official channels, and any threats of legal action be totally withdrawn before the complaining person is allowed to edit Wikipedia again. This as I understand it is the policy: this is not a policy change, just a clarification. Mangojuicetalk 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
" Legal action is legal action, and threats are the first step. " Actually, thats untrue. Legal action is only action that pertains to Wikipedia when it deals with the content on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a difference between legal action and legal threats, and you seem to have blurred that distinction in your zeal. Please go back, refresh yourself on the difference. Furthermore, your tone is completely incorrect. Instead of arguing for what should be, you have dramatically reinterpreted what is and claimed it as what is, thus suggesting that there is no change. However, the basics of English grammar say that there is a huge difference from the blatant "on Wikipedia" to "Wikipedian". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats and legal action are different but WP:NLT does not distinguish the two, and clearly lays out that the point at which you stop editing is when threats are issued. What I was trying to say is that the wording was changed to "on Wikipedia" probably because the policy is written like "don't do X" which is the kind of thing you can't really say about behavior off the website. However, "no legal threats" is an inaccurate description of the rule, from both its common usage and reading it. The policy is better described as "Editing Wikipedia is not allowed when you have made legal threats or initiated legal action against Wikipedia or one of its users over a Wikipedia-related matter." That is enforceable, because it's about editing here, and it can be enforced by blocking, banning, and so on. Obviously for off-wiki threats the quality of the evidence can change but it can be very solid and actionable. And the change of those phrases to "on Wikipedia" was as far as I can tell, never really discussed. You'll note that the change doesn't specifically say that off-Wiki threats are prohibited, it just restores the wording so as not to imply that they aren't. Mangojuicetalk 11:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. The fact that they are linked on the same page and described there does not make them the same. The editing does not stop when threats are issued. The editing is stopped when legal proceedings are put in place. One does not necessitate the other. Furthermore, a legal threat is different than a polite legal notice or a polite copyright notice, which may or may not have a legal proceeding to follow it, and if it lacks a legal proceeding, there cannot be a block in such situations. Now, by your own admission, you state that the change doesn't specifically state one thing, but is loose enough to allow it, which means that the ruling has become more vague. I see such as problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just plain wrong, there is no difference as far as the policy is concerned between a threat and actual legal action. That would just be stupid. A copyright notice is not a legal threat, as there is only a notice, no threat of action unless it were to say "remove it or we'll sue." Mr.Z-man 15:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that one is a breach of WP:CIVIL and the other is for completely different reasons, which is enough to prove that the two are not one and the same and that there is a clear difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a policy change, just a clarification since Ottava has pointed out how people might misunderstand the current wording. Shell babelfish 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pulling this out of the above archive box; at least this much clearly is relevant to the discussion. Mangojuicetalk 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the recent change which clarifies the existing policy as it always has been. (1 == 2)Until 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than maintaining two parallel conversations, I would recommend that all new comments on this topic now be made at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#"On wikipedia" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do with GameBrix?

Came across this peculiar specimen on new pages patrol. Is this speedyable? "GameBrix" seems to be some kind of toolkit for creating Flash games, of perhaps borderline notability. Not quite sure what the relevant policy is, so taking it here for a second look. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

I guess that answers that, speedied as an A3. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Translations in non-standard English?

I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles where quotes from foreign languages are translated into an archaic form of English, as opposed to modern English — despite there being numerous modern translations available.

The instances I refer to are Bible quotes (although my question does not refer exclusively to religious material). I know that a lot of people use Bibles that were written in archaic English, and may find it convenient to quote directly from them; and that may be considered acceptable communication in certain religious contexts. But shouldn't the English version of Wikipedia be in English? And surely archaic forms of English do not constitute standard English?

I ask that a policy is introduced that all translations in English Wikipedia are translated into standard English (unless the specific translation itself is of some relevance to the article).

I should add that I am not trying to suggest here that any particular translation of the Bible is better than any other, since even old translations can be (and often are) re-written in modern Englsh. Also I should say that I have no anti-religious agenda; I am a Christian myself, which makes me even more keen to see the words of the Bible written here in plain English so that people can clearly understand them. I don't recognise certain Bible passages that are included here in archaic English, and I find them very difficult to read.

Finally, if it is decided that non-standard English IS allowed in Wikipedia: is there some LIMIT to the extent of its usage, or to the age of the English that can be used here? For example, could "English" Wikipedia articles be written entirely in latin?

Also, are other non-standard forms of English allowed in Wikipedia articles. For example, could I include an English Bible quote translated into ebonics, or cockney? And if not, what makes archaic English more acceptable than these other non-standard types of English, when far fewer people understand it?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of quoting the Bible, a link can be provided to the scripture using the Bible reference template: {{bibleref}}. If a translation is not specified, the user will receive a wide variety of choices in choosing a translation. For example: A "plain" link -- {{bibleref|John|1:1-5}} appears as John 1:1-5. A link to the NASB translation -- {{bibleref|John|1:1-5|NASB}} appears as John 1:1-5. Just another option. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Days of the year guideline

Public comment is requested for the ongoing consensus discussion for the proposed guideline at WP:DOY. The proposed guideline lays out what are considered suitable entries for the 366 days of the year articles. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL and renames

Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames

The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjBscribe 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought for spinout articles

Contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of public-interest newspaper articles etc. hosted without license – to link or not to link?

Please see discussion here. Jayen466 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

Sorry if this has ended up the wrong slot. I couldn't find one specific to the subject and thought this was close.

A recent news story mentioned that the Wikipedia community was debating the issue of raising funding through advertising. I think this could be done in an innocuous and user-helpful way.

You could have a "Related Advertising" link in the left frame that opens a page with links to ads that pertain to the subject.

I'd like to be able to see ads that relate to articles. For instance, when reading up on Romania, I may want to see tourism information and what tour packages are available. If researching solar heating systems, I'd likely want to see ads pertaining to those products.

Advertising could be a useful adjunct to Wikipedia.

--Jm1248 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Never going to happen. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
'Nuff said. Waltham, The Duke of 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No opinion on the issue but there's a page on advertisements on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Advertisements. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
For more information, see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Advertising. If you want to see ads about Romanian tour packages, you can go to Google and type "romanian tourism" or something of that nature. szyslak (t) 12:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you do a mirror site with all the advertising bells and whistles and let supports of Wiki subject themselves to unbridled capitalism at their own discretion. Many will do this willingly if they know it will help pay Wiki's bills and the uncapitalized version still exists. Simple, lucrative, and easy to impliment. Am I missing something? Moreover, Clicking Google supports Google. I want to support Wiki. Sincerely, Jon Simmons 14:50, 25 April 2008

Apparently, Facebook users have been polled by someone if Wikipedia should carry advertising see Page at Meta. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Inherent Notability

OK, this is my first posting to the Village Pump so I hope I am doing this right. As requested before posting here I've been reading (lots of) WP policies and guidelines, searching WP essays and FAQs, and asking questions on various talk pages. I still need the community's help. I think the following is correct and would really appreciate constructive feedback to confirm or correct my understanding.

As I understand things...

  • Main (stand alone) articles must be both verifiable and notable (WP:V & WP:N), but individual sections inside main articles do not need to have self-notability of their specific subject matter:

    "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." [2]

  • According to WP:Article size (WP:SIZE) and the WP:BETTER and WP:SPLIT guidelines an article that becomes too long should be broken into smaller pieces (called "subarticles" or "spinouts") for inmproved readability and navigation.
  • A problem then arises when one of these subarticles was fine as a section using only primary sources for citation but now does not meet the criteria of notability as a stand alone article.
  • WP:V policy section 2.4 (aka WP:SELFPUB) states:

    Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

    1. it is relevant to their notability;
    2. it is not contentious;
    3. it is not unduly self-serving;
    4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
    5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
    7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.


The way I read all of this stuff is that:

  • A specific section within a main article which uses only reliable primary sources is OK.
  • A section may become a spinout or subarticle (and should include the {{SubArticle}} tag).
  • If the spinout is about itself only then WP:SELFPUB applies and WP:V and WP:N can both be established using only reliable primary sources.
  • Due to WP:SELFPUB item 7 however the article is now improperly sourced. This is a problem.

So sections which are under a valid main article have "inherent notability" because the main article has notability. When these sections become subarticles under WP:SPLIT they should be recognized as still having inherent notability and WP:SELFPUB item 7 needs to be rewritten when such subarticles are entirely self-describing to allow for use of only primary sources for WP:V. Low Sea (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:N has indeed been at odds with WP:SPLIT for a long time. People working on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) have attempted to address that oversight, and the sense they've displayed needs to be imparted to the entire Notability family as soon as possible.--Father Goose (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, the way is to regard the subarticles as merely convenient divisions, because with the large number of users with low speed connections we cannot have very long articles. (And, I would argue, that for a ready reference of a non-authoritative nature, that long complicated articles are the wrong tone altogether. They work very well for for such places as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) DGG (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The main issue is that sometimes an article may be split off inappropriately... For example, a character which has no real outside notability has an overbloated section in an article on the main work of fiction... By rights, the character section in THAT article should have been pared down, but instead is split off per WP:SUMMARY, and then the independnet article becomes MORE bloated... If a subject does not have enough independent notability for a stand-alone article, it should not take up enough of the original article to need to be split in the first place! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases where appropriate subarticles run into WP:N with destructive results. The clearest case of that is "List of (TV show) episodes" articles. Such lists are considered quite fundamental to our coverage of TV show topics, yet information specific to individual TV episodes is often only available from primary, not secondary sources. Such lists are also far too long to include in the main article about the TV show. (It should also be noted that we have a few dozen featured lists of this type, not all of which include as many secondary sources as WP:N would normally require.)
For cases like those (and there are plenty of them -- not just episode lists), we need to amend WP:N so that it doesn't have a huge blind spot that conflicts with providing information that the encyclopedia, by all rights, should have.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This issue came up recently at WP:FICT, and a suggestion I made to be considered is that the general notability guideline is part of WP's "inclusion policy", and though applies to 99+% of the pages, it is not a complete description of what we include at WP. However, we lack a true "inclusion policy"; we have its inverse at WP:NOT, and through WP:IINFO, we describe more that is not included, but I've been thinking, just to make the issue of spinout articles clear, is that all articles need to meet the yet-to-be-written inclusion policy, which includes the notability guideline, the use of spinouts, disambig pages, and the like.
Alternatively, again, it needs to be emphasized that notability is a topic-level concept, not an article level. As long as the main article for a topic establishes notability, spinouts are "free" to do their job; mind you, what is a spinout with lack of notability should be doing is very limited, so there's careful ways that spinouts should be defined. Again, this is not inherited notability (the notability of one topic gaining the notability from another topic), and the case for spinouts is already listed out here, but maybe it does need to be more explicit. --MASEM 05:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
FatherGoose, it is (to be exceedingly mild) a horrid misconception that secondary sources do not exist for such topics. The "theory" that secondary sources don't exist for such articles is utterly false. There are a ridiculous number of periodicals that cover television episodes and events that provide episode summaries, production information, critical reviews, and so on. That does not even cover all available references, but rather just the common easily available bulk of references. Even short-lived programs that fail to catch on receive this coverage. Any series that manages to survive for even a couple of seasons tends to receive further in-depth coverage and materials of its own. Any popular series has a mountain of additional references getting into fine details and exacting analysis. The misconception you present is one of the most noxiously dogged falsehoods in the whole notability discussion. Do plentiful secondary sources exist? Absolutely. The main bulk of pop-culture editors may not be willing to go digging through periodical stacks to appropriately reference the information, but that's a whole issue separate from the simple availability of sources. Vassyana (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - "inherent" versus "inherit": This is not about inheritance, subarticles never take possession of their "parent's" notability. The term I proposed was inherent meaning "belonging by nature or habit"[3]. Sections have inherent notability only as long as the main article they are under is notable. Discussion is to determine how to rewrite guidelines and policy in order to find a way to maintain inherent notability even when an article is split out. I think part of the solution might be to create a required {SUBNOTABILITY | main article name} tag that takes the main article name as a parameter. Sub-sub-articles would also need to reference the original main article as the ultimate source of their notability. This would allow bots to identify any dependent subarticles relying on a main article should that main article become deleted or in doubt. Such a tag should only be removed if the subarticle eventually evolves to establish its own credible notability. I also would like to suggest that this (yet to be written) guideline or policy be known as WP:INHERENT. Low Sea (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware that in wiki-culture the concept you are referring to is "inherited" notability (a subtopic is notable because of the main topic). "Inherent" notability is usually used to refer to places that are said to be inherently notable, such as geographical features or elected federal politicians. Both are perennial suggestions that have been not been adopted by the community. Consensus may change, but you should be aware that there is significant resistance to both concepts. An properly crafted "inherent" notability guideline would likely work, based on common practice and deletion precedent. However, "inherited" notability (such as you propose) is very controversial and would have to navigate with exceptional skill between the inclusionist and deletionist extremes to create a workable consensus. Cheers and good luck! Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Vassyana for the education -- good to know. If that is how the wiki-culture has evolved its understanding of the term I will not try to change it but I do feel that "inherited notability" suggest that the "child" articles have notability in their "blood" and will retain it even if a "parent" article dies. What if we were to re-designate this concept as "umbilical notability" indicating a permanent connection to the parent is required to keep the child article notable? Occasionally a child might actually gain its own notability and then "cut the cord". Low Sea (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Like any community, certain concepts and ideas are defined and named in an idiosyncratic fashion here. Please be sure to give the concept a thorough think-through, look over past notability and deletion discussions, and pose questions to editors who seem familiar with the overall debate. Inherited or umbilical notability, under any name, will need to navigate a minefield of strong opinions to gain consensus as a working model. Vassyana (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an intriguing thought about how to formalize the solution to this problem and the term "umbilical" seems like a good way to avoid the perceptions attached to words "inherent" and "inherited". It is unfortunate when content that would be allowed to exist within its parent page in the encyclopedia is punished for being spun out into a child article. Gwguffey (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of "punishment", so much as a matter of a different sort of attention. For articles, people expect to see independent reliable sources. For sections, a single solid reference is usually sufficient. Generally, if a section is so large as to reach a point where splitting is considered, it should have multiple independent reputable sources supporting it. Take an instance where the only supporting reference for such a large section is the subject itself, a reference from the subject itself or a single source. It is by far most likely that the section should be mercilessly trimmed and/or rounded out with additional sources. In almost all cases (lists are a whole other animal and we're permitted to use common sense), if a section has grown large enough to justify an article split, there should be enough independent sources to support it's existance as separate article (if basic content policy like verifiability and appropriate presentation is being followed). Vassyana (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Umbilical notability is a Bad Idea. Editors will claim descent for any article from a notable one, and as such all articles will be notable. I realise it's offered in good faith to fix a percieved problem - that notability concerns seem to be limiting content when it reaches a certain size - but in fact there is no problem. Content is required by WP:IINFO to show real-world coverage, just as articles are required to by WP:N and WP:DEL; so articles should be required to show real-world coverage, even if they are considered to be part of another, notable article. In other words, while notability guidelines don't limit content, content guidelines do limit non-notability. Applying WP:N to spinout articles is just a simple way to enforce WP:IINFO without having to change existing guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the real problem is that people need advice as to the proper way to create spinoff articles. Say you have an article on the famous (and nonexistent) politician John Charles Spencer Smith. It has 12K of info about his party affiliations (he likes to change them frequently), a 16K description of his political positions/voting record, a 6K timeline, and an 8K section on his pet cat. That's 42K, so the article needs to be split. It seems most people want to move the info on his cat to a separate article, and leave the other material in place; the result, of course, is that the cat's article gets deleted for lack of independent notability, and the information is either lost or restored to Smith's own page.

Instead, the proper course of action here is to split off the material about his party affiliations, his voting record, and the timeline into separate articles (Party affiliations of John Charles Spencer Smith, Timeline of John Charles Spencer Smith, etc) and leave the details about his cat in the main article, which is where people would most likely expect to find such information. So I think what we need is some advice on how to properly split articles into subarticles, rather than a guideline saying that we shouldn't delete articles on notable peoples' pets.Ben Standeven (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

International USA/GBR/IN/BD "Copyright of image" question

When is a photograph considered "published"? I'm asking because a user has raised the argument that, taking the photograph and providing copies to the subject by a photographic studio is not considered publishing, hence photograph of a person taken before 1884 may still be under copyright if the photo studio taking the photo has not printed it in sufficiently large quantities. The photo in question was taken in India where all photos published 60 years ago are in the public domain (which means all pre-1948 published photos are in PD).

The argument by the user in Talk:Brahmo Samaj is that, the image may have been taken at a photo studio, and only the subject may have received a few copies of the photo, and hence that does not constitute publishing. And therefore the image is unpublished.

Can anyone knowledeable about copyright of photographs clarify this? Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add the following facts here:
  • The subject of the photo in question died in 1884 (i.e. 124 years ago)
  • The photo was definitely taken in 1884, and possibly much earlier
  • The photographer is anonymous
Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
US law allows publishers to assume that images created at least 120 years ago (i.e. created before 1888) are in the public domain provided that either a) the author is unknown and never registered with the US copyright office, or b) the author is known and the US copyright office is unable to identify any record suggesting he died less than 70 years ago (the longest copyright term normally being life + 70 years). This applies to both published and unpublished images. Dragons flight (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The "author" is very likely (considering the time period, geographic location -India-Bangladesh- and technology status etc.) to be a commercial corporate photographic studio still in existence and business, who will commercially develop and run off additional prints (for a stiff charge) if the original photographic plate (always retained by them as policy) is traced in their vast and often miscatalogued libraries. If the reverse of the original photographic work is produced (we suspect it is deliberately suppressed) it will bear the author's details. There is also reasonable doubt arising from comparison of the impugned image with a recent (1980) Government of India document as to whether the impugned image uploaded to Wiki Commons is a faithful reproduction of the visage of the bio-subject concerned, With independent additional studio photographic evidence cited confirming the discrepancies. I and another have stated that there is reasonable evidence prima facie showing that the impugned image uploaded is a "new non-photographic creation" of unknown provenance,which evidence oughtto be sufficient to stay circulation of the image. We have suggested using the alternate images of better provenance instead, one of which is freely licenceable for publication with some restrictions (on size and monochrome). It is noteworthy that the image tag recently altered to by uploader User:Ragib (Friendly) used for the image "PD-India" REQUIRES "The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided." which also has not been complied with by the uploader. Bikash. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to Indian copyright law, and I going to avoid delving into the apparently complex questions of authenticity. However I will address a couple of your points. In the US, a company is entitled to copyright for the shorter of 120 years from creation or 95 years from publishing that work to the public. If the image was originally created in or before 1884, then it is in the public domain in the US, except possibly if it was created by an identifiable private individual who died less than 70 years ago. In the US, it is legally acceptable to assume a work is in the public domain on the basis of age alone provided it was created prior to 1888, even though the creator may be unknown. So, in the US, the question turns entirely on addressing the question of age. Whether different rules apply in India, Bangladesh, etc., I don't know. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear All.If the image is photographic, the likeliest place of creation is Calcutta India now falling within India - the bio-subject would now be considered an Indian citizen - I dont deny (but am happy) that it was Bengal. If photographic the image is likely to be created between 1870-1882. The uploader admits (?) to "faithfully" copying (scanning/DP) the image from a Bangladeshi print encyclopedia recently in 2005 (?) (which was further routinely processed (?) on Adobe Photoshop 7.0] prior to uploading-probably for filesizing or cropping or .JPG creation etc). The original photo studio is likely to have been then owned by Britishers, and the alleged photograph image in question "composed" and "authored" by a British citizen and part owner of a corporate photo studio established in India but which is now under Indian ownership. The bio-subject had access to his own printing press in Calcutta from 1866 and was a pioneer in mass publication - pioneering the equivalent of "1 cent newspaper". The first time we hear of any US CPR being triggered is when Uploader publishes to Wiki Commons. For US CPR, the Uploader or anyone else must demonstrate that the photographic work was "publicly" in the US prior to 1888. As per present ICA the first owner of the work is the person at whose instance the photograph was commissioned, but with provisions protecting the "author" too. But this law was in not force then, and via the ICA "repeals and savings" any pre-existing agreements ("boiler-plate) are valid and enforceable. IMO US CPR is not attracted at all. It seems to be a fit case for prevailing law of British Empire accommodated within ICA (IN-CPR). Yvantanguy (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A note: the previous tags on the image were: PD-India, PD-Bangladesh (because these countries share the Bengal province of British India, where the subject lived, and presumably, where the image was taken), and also, mistakenly, PD-Art. On noticing that PD-Art does not apply to photos, I changed the tag to PD-old, as the image is pre-1884 (subject died at that year), and presumably much older. It is my understanding that for such old images with unknown author but definite upper bound on date, it is not required to provide author name or publishing date (if unpublished). --Ragib (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rageeb, Can you cite the appropriate policy, because my understanding is that the burden of proof under WP lies on the Uploader who is to carefully consider all aspects and satisfy himself before uploading? Wiki Image Copyright Policy also states that dubious images will be deleted by WP - kind of : shoot first ask questions later- which we dont want either. Also are we in a position to satisfy PD-India disclosure requirements which Bikash has spotted? Are there any other experts we can approach since the last thing on our minds is vandalism? Yvantanguy (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dragons flight's anlysis is correct and we don't even have to worry about Indian/ Bangladesh copyright status since as per US copyright law, "Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship)" more than 120 years old (i.e., created before 1888) are public domain. See Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States. If there is no apropriate copyright template on wikipedia that covers this, we can create a new one. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The source cited from - cornell.edu - is not a scholarly / reliable work. The footnote 9 in that work carries the disclaimer for this asssertion "The following section on foreign publications draws extensively on Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain: How to Find Copyright-free Writings, Music, Art & More. (Berkeley: Nolo.com, 2004). It applies to works first published abroad and not subsequently published in the US within 30 days of the original foreign publication. Works that were simultaneously published abroad and in the US are treated as if they are American publications.". Which book is not available to us to analyse. If there is a specific clause(s) in the US law we can examine it - as you know many such foreign laws justifying piracy (such as neem and basmati rice) are under challenge in various fora such as the WTO. We also need clarification of the date of publication aspect which is also central to the US CPR argument. PD-IN has to be complied with for this work irrespective of US CPR. Also WHY is US CP jurisdiction applicable - surely not the "WP servers are based in US of A" argument like the Pirate Bay is based in Sweden? Indian Cyber Law jurisdiction is applicable to USA also and vice-versa. Yvantanguy (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The manner in which the US applies international copyright law may surprise you. The US grants foreign nationals from Berne Convention and associated countries only those rights that a US citizen publishing the same work internally would have (with a few caveats, that don't appear relevant to this case). In other words, from the point of view of US courts, the current copyright status in India is irrelevant. The work will be public domain in the US if and only if an equivalent work published in the US would be public domain. The relevance is that all works published by Wikimedia have to comply with US copyright and other applicable US laws. If we can assert that the image is legal in the US, the question arising is whether one also cares about the Indian copyright considerations. Legally, an American publishing on a US website would be within their rights to ignore Indian Cyber Law because those laws are unenforcable here. However, because Wikimedia wants to create truly free content (and not just the whatever content we can get away with), we usually desire our works to also be consistent with the laws in the country of origin. For that reason, it would be nice to see a clearer discussion of copyright in India. Dragons flight (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am reasonably aware of what US CPR is generally. (At the outset, our disc. is going round in circles). I am not concerned with what US CPR is within the USA. The Cornell.edu document cited is titled "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States". This to my mind means that if USA law permits "expired" (by it's definition) IP to be used "in" the US it's OK. The problems starts when Wikimedia "exports" IP which is (say) still protected within (say) India to India and which IP infringes Indian CPR and does not THEN comply with Indian CPR perhaps triggering Indian Cyber Law jurisdiction. (BTW: This is emphatically NOT a legal threat). The issues which I find being "evaded" / "bypassed" in discussion here are 1) If the image is of probable Indian origin (first claim because the image is assumed to be created at the instance of the bio-subject who is tbe first owner of CPR - as per the Indian CPR law) and WP has a "PD-IN" tag which was cited by the Uploader but it's "requirements" were NOT complied with - is the PD-IN obligatory or mandatory for Wikimedia? 2) Even the US CPR it seems needs a "publication" date for the 1923 rule - I presume that the USA dfn. of "publication" shall correspond to the "Berne Convention" principles as Indian CPR Law does. In that case also the Uploader (or any US citizen) has still to establish the factum of original image publication such as by its date of publication, author of the image, mode of original publication as in book, newspaper, calendar etc. etc. A mere statement by the uploader that it is a photograph of a bio-subject who died in 1884 ad hence MUST have been published before 1884 is not sufficient to establish publication and is a "circular argument" -like "I did not steal it because I am not a thief". For example it fails to consider some possibilities - (Say) that even assuming (without admitting) that the photographic image was taken in 1884, is it not necessary to establish that at least one print was taken off prior to 1923? In other words I am requiring that evidence must be produced for "publication" of this image somewhere / anywhere prior to 1923. From that we can move on to how many prints must be distributed to satisfy "publication" , especially when there is a specific requirement in Indian CPR Law that "publication" means "significant publication" ie. making known to the "public" - aka. the "body public" or "public at large" etc. and not to 1 or 2 private interests. Finally India Cyber Laws may be unenforceable in US but they are enforceable in India - within 60 days tops without going to court. (NOT a legal threat). It might be useful to remember that the USA joined the Berne Convention late - only in 1988(?) and does not accept / respect many parts of the Convention which is quite wishy washy on new technolgies like internet etc. being addressed somewhat by WIPO CT. BTW the DMCA is not recognised by India, thus not only is the export of the image illegal - the import of the image INTO the USA may be illegal in the first instance - being in violation of a specific WM policy which was flouted. In India (I'm sure there is a US equivalent) whenever someone complains to the "service provider" in such matters they take it off soon. WP/WM uses http and TCPIP, it is not P2P or BT which is "unblockable" by Governments. Yvantanguy (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW - This thread seems to run on a "Shroud of Turin"-like argument on the lines of - 1) This photo/cloth is of Jesus. 2) Jesus died in 34 AD 3) Hence this photograph must have been taken not later than 34 AD. BTW if Ragib is still watching this page, what is the publication year of the BP print edn. you scanned the image from? Yvantanguy (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As DF has repeatedly pointed out, the image is in the public domain in the US. For that purpose its copyright status in India or anywhere is irrelevant. How the image was published in the US is irrelevant as well. Yes, we prefer media that are free everywhere, but we require free (or fair) use in the US only - this is because the Wikimedia servers are in the US. If someone downloads it to a location where it is under copyright, that's the downloaders problem This is no different than me making 500 copies of De la Terre à la Lune in Germany in 2003 (legal) vs. you taking my legal copies to Mexico, where the book still might have been under copyright (illegal). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Stephan. DF is unable to cite a reliable source for his assertion. It is my counter-assertion that even for US CPR (sec 302-304) and "public domain" requirements proof of publication is essential. Most countries have a 60/70 yr expiry after date of first publication. This is not inconsistent with the US position either. All we are asking for is a reliable citation demonstrating that the image in question was "published" at least 70 yars back - which the Uploader (Friendly) is unable to provide since he merely scanned it from a print encyclopedia. Concerning the Wikimedia servers are located in US argument, this has been discussed previously (inconclusively) on Talk:Brahmo Samaj which I copy here for ready reference - "Actually on scrutiny of your remarks we find "Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Seoul." Our Reliable Source Citation is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_servers#Software_and_hardware". Does anyone read Dutch or Korean? Rono (I'm back from Goa beach) Ronosen (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)". Concerning the "Terre de Lune" argument, in that case you have a well established date of first publication which is prior to Berne Convention and when nations were not obliged to respect each other's copyright. In India (as in most civilised countries which observe the UN mandated model Cyber Laws) the onus is not on "downloaders" but on the Network service providers to ensure that CPR violating works are not transmitted over their computer resources - and they respond reasonably fast too - since all bandwidth in India is the (Licenced property of the State - as per "Cricket Association of Bengal v. Union of India)[1] and non-compliance of conditions is punishable. Yvantanguy (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a citation for the above post. The Indian Govt has on previous ocassions and recently banned sites like "blogspot.com", "geocities.com" etc. The struggle against this "mindless blocking" is summarised "Indian ISPs don't have the technology to block individual name servers -- say a particular blog hosted on Blogspot. So they had no choice but to block the root servers of major blogging networks -- blogspot, geocities and typepad," said a senior official in the IT Ministry. A senior official from an ISP confirmed this. Sarbajit Roy, a cyber-law expert, said: "This block is a mindless exercise and shows that our bureaucrats don't understand technology at all."[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yvantanguy (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Absent an actual challenge by an actual copyright holder, I am perfectly happy to accept the presumption that a photographic image of a person who died 124 years ago is in the public domain. All of your thinly veiled suggestions of government actions against Wikipedia are also moot in the absense of an actual copyright holder complaint. While you are free to argue your cause, I don't think appeal to the sort of threatening rhetoric shown above is going to win anyone over. Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)