|
::::: I'm concerned that you are claiming WP:Ownership over articles, or parts thereof, to which you contribute on WP. Is it OK if I read them in a different font from you? Or perhaps I prefer to use a speech reader, or read them in French using machine translation. One of us is missing the point; if you think you have ultimate control over the form in which "your" work, creative contribution, text is "republished", don't put it on WP; if not, what's the difference between the examples I gave and changing (manually or automatically) a date format? I can't see any voting stance that implies, as you seem to, that nobody should ever touch "your" text the way you have written it. Have I completely misunderstood? Best wishes [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::: I'd say you have. [[WP:OWN]] is about editing disputes and has nothing to do with this.
::::::: You are welcome to transform the article any way you like for your private use. But when Wikipedia distributes articles by publicly displaying them on its website, it is bound by the licence. Read [[WP:COPYRIGHT]], which says “the text of the Wikipedia is copyrighted . . . by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License”. Under the GFDL, if the article has been modified from the editors' version, then Wikipedia must not display it without taking credit for modifications. [[Wikipedia:GFDL]]:
:::::::* Ҥ 0. PREAMBLE: . . . this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. . . .
:::::::* § “1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS: . . . A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language. . . .
:::::::* § “2. VERBATIM COPYING: . . . you may publicly display copies. . . .
:::::::* § “4. MODIFICATIONS: . . . you must do these things in the Modified Version:
:::::::** “A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions . . .
:::::::** “B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications . . .
:::::::** “E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices. . . .
:::::::** “I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", . . . and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version . . .”
::::::: I didn't make this up. You and I are bound by the licence, and so is the Wikimedia Foundation. The licence says that any modifications made must be acknowledged in distributed copies. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-12 16:04 z</small>''
::::::::You didn't have to quote chapter and verse, I am capable of looking up a reference. Anyway, I really think this is a dead end to this particular discussion. Nothing says the republishing agent has to be a natural person, the Wikipedia page rendering engine could just thwack a copyright notice at the bottom of the page saying "go see the original text"-- in fact, since the rendered version is ipso facto different from the edited text (assuming even the most minimal markup) I could argue it already should-- if it reduces a picture to a thumbnail, for example. These clauses are intended to stop people not crediting Wikipedia and its contributors a whole, not to stop minor changes for rendering purposes. I have started doing some translation and have to credit the original under GFDL, but that doesn't mean I can't change the article, in fact it's encouraged where appropriate The aim of the GFDL is to protect the Commons and Wikipedia etc and to ensure fair use etc. It does not mean, however you would like it to mean, that pages cannot be rendered in a different way by different engines, be they the server or client, or my own blurry eyes when I remove my glasses. I am not going to quote all kinds of references here but the whole Look and Feel argument of the early 80's (Lotus 1-2-3 vs Borlland Quattro) established that, in law in the US, but in practice everywhere. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
;To answer Martindelaware's question (support 189):
| 