Talk:Media preservation

This article was nominated for deletion on October 30, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep and rename.

Untitled

I marked this as NPOV since it seems (to me, at least) to have a pessimistic bias and cites no sources. For instance, since CDs have been around more than 20 years now and CD drives are very widespread today, I think it takes more than an unsourced statement about what experts believe to argue CDs will be unreadable in 10-20 more years.

--71.12.11.251 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- NISO has studied CD preservation. That would be the source to look for on this. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this article yesterday.... looked all around to find it today though :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/124312;_ylt=Auq4rf3ylKvbuJeQlRnKmpcjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Still looking for other references though....

1freethinker

First time entering anything. Can you please explain what is happening? If I need to change it to make it acceptable I will.

Thanks

Copyvio

I'd like to see this article completely rewritten, even if it needs to be deleted (to clear the copyvio out of the history) and/or renamed. This article does have potential for becoming something meaningful. Computergeek84 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is the copyvio??? please explain

Thanks

Please sign your contributions to talk pages in the future with 4 tildes '~~~~' so your name is visible next to your comment.

The article's original text (your original edit) seemed to be all copy/pasted from http://www.yourliferemembered.com/ . However, after the fact, I did find a backlink (a link to this exact article) from the site under "Useful Links". Normally articles on Wikipedia start small and grow as more and more users visit and gradually add more information. This article was different from most in 3 ways:

The first revision was quite large, resembling a complete article; and
The text was verbatim to the website mentioned above; and
The original article was not formatted correctly to Wikipedia standards (Wikipedia:Guide to layout).

I'm not entirely sure about what should be done to this article in this case - I'll let the sysops decide. Computergeek84 01:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyvio if thats the problem 1freethinker 04:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note this text (from Wikipedia:Copyright problems): Note: In general, copyright exists automatically, upon publication: an author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable, unless it is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source. It sounds like from what you said on your talk page that you know the original author of the article and you obtained permission from him/her. I didn't, however, see any copyright notices (like GFDL or similar) and it wasn't immediately obvious that you got permission from the site owner, either. I'm sorry for all the trouble - if the site owner gave you permission, could you talk to him/her and ask if the website text could be licensed under the GFDL? Computergeek84 11:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a dumb question, I'm sorry (hey, but I will be smarter if you answer ;)) a copyright notice GFDL is that on Wikipedia or does that need to be on their website?? Thanks 1freethinker 14:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear - yourliferemembered.com needs a GFDL copyright notice for their website text if you want to be able to copy it verbatim into Wikipedia. (Wikipedia already has GFDL copyright notices at the bottom of each page.) And even after it's copied, it's going to need to be wikified and rewritten somewhat to conform to Wikipedia's standards, but that's rather trivial. Computergeek84 20:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked with them and they will place a GFDL on their website in the next few days as they update the site. Do we need to wait until then to remove the copyvio?

Thanks 1freethinker 15:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the copyvio template - you said in the edit summary that yourliferemembered "updated their site to allow". Does that mean they added a GFDL license? Can you show me the page this is on? I just looked all over that site, but could still find no copyright notice (GFDL or anything else). In fact, it looks no different from last week. If they don't get it up really soon, I'll put the copyvio tag back up and won't cancel out the copyvio notice I reported to Wikipedia. You really shouldn't have said they updated their site if they didn't. Computergeek84 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link [[1]] under each of the articles they have the phrase "This article maybe freely copied, modified and reprinted....just give credit to this site and where possible provide a link back to this site. " 1freethinker 06:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs lot of work

This article doesn't differentiate between color processes of Ciba and Kodak. They use different dyes and the some processes remove the unused dyes in developing, so the prints are stable. Some black and white prints are perfect after 100 years, some have the silver oxide being reduced back to metallic silver. It doesn't mention using silver halide prints for digital images. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]