WikiSynergy talk:Copyrights

You should take advantage of GFDL window and think about switching completely to CC-BY-SA, particularly if you will be working with material from other wikis. Etaroced 22:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a good idea. I will look into it but if you can explain more that would be of help also (; P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is a superior license to GFDL. When wikipedia first started CC licenses did not exist. GFDL is designed for paper/manual dissemination with some pretty stringent requirements. Wikipedia, and most larger wikis wanted to move away from GFDL. So the people who created and managed the GFDL opened up a window of opportunity allowing wiki projects licensed under the GFDL to switch to CC-BY-SA but they must do so by August 1st 2009. Check out the outreach discussion here for clear directions on how to make such a switch. Etaroced 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to consult, but it should be doable. The main thing I want is to have is a requirement for a link or attribution if others use the material. And I want things to be flexible, so if someone wants to post copyrighted stuff, they can do so with a notice. I want the greatest possible flexibility so we are open to the most content. Why did a bunch of rationalwiki and conservapedia editors suddenly show up?? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 02:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA stands for creative commons share-alike, with attribution. So yes, attribution is required with that license. You will need to be careful with how you handle copyrighted material. It will need to be single authored, clearly marked, etc. Etaroced 03:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Best way to handle copyrighted material is to put it in quotes and attribute the source. Not that hard, really? Human 03:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough for full texts. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Etaroced, your advice, I planned to use this template for copyrighted material:

Per WikiSynergy's Copyright policy, all the original material on this page as well as any changes or additions to this material is copyrighted to its original author(s), all rights reserved.

Does that look sufficient? If anyone edited the article, it would stay copyrighted to the original author(s). P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 08:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to make it clear that any editors that edit the article revoke all rights to those edits. Otherwise it could get confusing. Many editors specifically release their edits under a specific copyleft license, or expect that they will be. It should be made clear that not only is a work copyright but that edits to that work retain the original copyright status. Etaroced 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I will make it so then. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 19:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Once I read a rumor that a "license" legally cannot place obligations on the creator of the work. I'm not sure any of this copyleft stuff has much legal precedence. Especially when you have people of opposing intentions mixing their work together, this is likely to be a legal headache for any jurors involved in resolving disputes. Therefore I placed this (paranoid) statute at the top of the Lumeniki:Copyright Lumeniki:Copying and Editing Contract:

"Licenses" might not legally be able to place obligations on a copyright owner, so it must be clear that by editing Lumeniki, editors are entering into a contract wherein they are relinquishing their copyright."

Note that I removed the superlarge you see in the actual version so as to keep this info on the down low. :)

Lumenos 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So maybe it's not binding unless some megacorp is behind the litigation? I guess it is too complicated and you just do the best you can. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean or if you understand what I am saying. The possibly non-binding part is for us to use a "license" to have someone else relinquish their copyright. I originally read this "legal theory" in ED, BTW. I don't remember where. The claim was that an editor had a right to remove their edits (or even have others do it). I would guess this matters little unless someone is supposedly loosing money they could recover with a lolsuit lawsuit. (Libel might be involved but that is a separate issue.)

Of course people with the funds (or a pro bono lawyer) can threaten suits for "illegitimate" reasons but we could counter-sue or file some class-action for some "legitimate" reason. Me thinks the movie/music industry would not like to have issues like file sharing on the ballot. They say more people file share than voted for Bush (but maybe that is worldwide file sharers).

Similarly a determined editor can force us to choose between letting them delete "their" work, or locking down a wiki[blocking all new and "anonymous" edits], but that has nothing to do with IP, other than the fact that this may motivate them.

Lumenos 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (Corrected part in italics twice.)

Found the article in ED [1]. Now this will never work at Lumeniki ah haha! Lumenos 07:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL see this edit P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with removing the nofollow property

I probably won't do much more editing here, unless this requirement to remove the nofollow property, is lifted. That is, unless someone can tell me how to get MediaWiki to allow search engines to follow individual links, on certain wikifarms. Referata (the host of my wiki) apparently allows us to edit robots.txt, but I don't want to use content that I can't move to other wikifarms, such as Wiki-site, Wikia, and EditThis.info. Secondly, I don't want to use content that I may have to remove if I want spam protection, in the future.

What would be ideal is a way to have a mediawiki or other website, to instruct the web crawlers to follow links on an individual basis. This would allow me to remove nofollow for links to WikiSynergy, and still keep the spam protection. If this feature was widely available I would have no problem editing this site, and would consider using this "attribution" requirement for Lumeniki.

Lumenos 19:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to remove that requirement, not really because one editor won't edit because of it, but because I think it is probably simply unworkable. Sorry I've been unable to edit for a while. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh excellent! You just became [the best philosophy wiki in terms of having other editors (unlike Lumeniki) and having policies and administrative staff who I agree with]. =) Lumenos 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect quick replies (or any reply ;)). I usually wear people out. I'm a binge editor; I do a lot of editing for a while then disappear for a while. Lumenos 08:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can give quick replies when I'm not too busy (: P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 15:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. :P Lumenos 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How to remove the nofollow property

This should be easy for those with access to Local Settings using these instructions.

Yes, very nice and simple. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At Referata (a wiki farm)

At Lumeniki, I see "site settings" and "admin links". Under "admin links" I see an option to "Edit robots.txt file (view)", "Edit CSS file", and "View and edit interwiki data". Perhaps editing the robot.txt would work? Lumenos 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I kind of doubt the robots one would work, because the property is in the links themselves, and it is the mediawiki software which puts the property in the links. I thought people on wikia had access to the localsettings file for their part of the wiki? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Lumeniki began at Wikia Scratchpad (before "real wikis" could be created there without human permission) but the scratchpad is not a "separate" wiki, as real "wikias" are; Lumeniki was/is only a "porthole" as were all other "wikis" in the scratchpad wiki. Lumenos 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)