Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:42, 14 April 2009

Revision as of 05:10, 14 April 2009

Line 826:

:::::::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)

:::::::: A school of red herrings (my favourite is, to paraphrase, ''the“the discussion is now over, and here's 200 words explaining why...''”). [edited —MZ]

:::::::: Yes, editing is encouraged, but only allowed under the GFDL. I'm not claiming copyright over my “look and feel,” but over the words I've written. What do your blurry eyes have to do with rewriting some of these words without respecting the explicit terms of the licence? Nothing.

Line 833:

::::::::: So argue for them to put a copyright notice on. That's irrelevant to the discussion. It's also slightly ingenuous of you to start with that quote when I never said anything of the sort; I know you will say neither did you, but to head the reply that way implies that. I know... let's suggest that every phrase, word or quote used in wikipedia should have markup and copyright references. So if I quote Churchill I better make sure I have a good source (History of the Engish-Speaking Peoples, perhaps) and make sure that I check whether it is in or out of copyright. What nonsense. The copyright issue is completely irrelevant, and whatever red herrings there were, you didn't point them out. Discussion is over, in fewer than 200 words. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::: [Sorry; clarified my paraphrasing above]

:::::::::: Of course copyright is relevant. The licence and publication terms are fundamental to Wikipedia. It's just an oversight that the issue hasn't been raised before. But now that we're discussing the very question of whether article text should be modified by uncredited autoformatting, this pertinent point should be raised and addressed. But instead, I only see attempts to deflect the point.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2009-04-14&nbsp;00:14&nbsp;z</small>''

;To answer Martindelaware's question (support 189):