Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia
 | Merge | |||
| ||||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Relevant pages[edit]
- Existing description, explanation
- How-tos to consolidate
- Previous discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names. Given the comments that have been made so far, it would be helpful (in my opinion) for this discussion to have input from editors experienced in attribution policy/requirements for copying within Wikipedia. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 14:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Why would you edit the source page?[edit]
The lead says:
It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary on the source page as well.
But why would someone edit the source page? Am I misunderstanding this quote? — W.andrea (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably for cases where we don't just copy but move text from one title to another. Mentioning the source and destination in both edit summaries is basically leaving breadcrumbs. --Joy (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, but it needs clarification — maybe like this:
— W.andrea (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)If content is being removed from the source page, then it is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary on the source page as well. (See § Merging and splitting.)
Is a template on the talk page enough for attribution?[edit]
Is a template on the talk page enough for attribution? Or must there also be edit summary attribution? Specifically, is placing {{Translated from}} on the talk page sufficient attribution in cases of fixing interwiki translation copyvio? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It has to be in the edit summary. The template on the talk page is handy, but not required. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a joint work?[edit]
A joint work is one where two or more authors initially share the copyright. The conditions for a work to be considered a joint work vary by country, but in the U.S., the authors need to contribute to it with the intention "that [their] contribution be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole" and each contribute "substantial and valuable" portions of the work [1].
What does this mean in practice for Wikipedia? This is my theory: When Alice makes a substantial and valuable contribution to a Wikipedia page W (to which she is not already an author), her contribution is likely to be inseparable and interdependent from the rest of the article. This makes her a joint author of the new version of the page W′, provided that she complies with the CC license terms when preparing her contributions to the page. (Any portion of Alice's contribution that is itself a copyright violation cannot qualify for its own copyright protection.)
As a joint author of W′, Alice has an undivided claim to all the copyright rights associated with it, along with all its previous authors. Thus, she can do whatever she wants with W′ without having to comply with the CC license, and can take legal action against anyone who violates the CC license of W′. However, creating W′ doesn't give her ownership rights over the original W, so she still needs to comply with the CC license to the extent that she wants to use W or any earlier version of the page (or any later version of the page in which her changes are reverted or erased by later edits). Also, Alice's rights to W′ do not extend to the whole of Wikipedia, as it is a collective work. Thus, she does not acquire rights to pages that she did not contribute to.
I am not a lawyer and don't intend for this comment to be construed as legal advice directed at any particular Wikipedia contributor. Any thoughts on this analysis? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)