PDA

View Full Version : when is c&p from wikipedia okay?


janey
Dec 20, 2005, 09:07 PM
i found it highly amusing that a wikipedia article that i had originally written (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=****ow&action=history&limit=20&offset=20040825082531) found its way copied and modifled to the guides here :D

but i just had a few thoughts

re: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=158609
especially the last post there (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=158609) by shamino, and considering how wikipedia is starting to mature and there's really no point to reinventing the wheel:

[keep in mind that the mac guides are licensed under the creative commons attribution-noncommercial license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), and all text derived from wikipedia is licensed under GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt), and clearly labeled, so there is no licensing issue, unless one arises with the original wikipedia article]

articles may go out of sync and take different paths (ie, already on the ****ow article on mac guides, people have removed parts that they felt were irrelevant, et cetera) if cross-copied. and often, the article on wikipedia is not entirely suitable, but parts of them are well written and relevant and should be used in the corresponding mac guides article, but considering the wealth of material available from wikipedia, if we do follow through with such an idea on a significant number of articles, then what happens if theoretically half of mac guides is licensed under GFDL [because of the wikipedia-derived content] and the rest of the content under cc by-nc?

but to create a stub and link to the wikipedia article will result in a large number of stubs, and will make the guides a bit lacking.

what guidelines are there to determine whether or not it is appropriate to copy the wikipedia article or just link to it? and all that stuff?

mainstreetmark
Dec 20, 2005, 11:20 PM
I'm not a fan of doing that ever, but rather use the wiki as a source of an article like any other website. Copying dynamic content is just ridiculous. Authors of pages in this wiki should write their own content, using only facts from the wiki as well as other websites. Citing sources is helpful.

I've already been in the awkward situation of looking up a fact, only to find half a dozen wikipedia copies, and the (updated) wikipedia article. I really don't want google to cache yet another copy of an outdated wikipedia article.

Oddly, I'm all for wikipedia copying macguide articles though. I like to believe the wikipedia is the one-stop-shop for all info. They have a "no new research" policy, thereby collecting existing facts from the net. On this wiki, we CAN do new research, and wikipedia articles can source OUR knowledge. Collectively, we ought to know more than the generic population of wikipedia.

arn
Dec 20, 2005, 11:23 PM
well, first things... you should keep the appropriate license for materials copied from Wikipedia. If you follow that, you're "legal".

That being said, I think people should not go out of their way to simply copy materials from Wikipedia. It exists in wikipedia, which is great.

Mac Guides are a bit differently slanted, so some articles might not be as relevant, or perspectives might be different.

Why do you ask? Any articles in specific?

arn

janey
Dec 21, 2005, 07:25 PM
nah, just a thought. i've seen some great wikipedia articles on Mac stuff, and there's no point to reinventing the wheel.