Wikipedia:Speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material
This proposal is under construction
This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.
The problem
One of wikipedias main problems, alongside NPOV and vandalism, is the importation of copyrighted material. Although this is dealt with at WP:CP at present, there is a lot of wasted time and effort in this process, it is akin to WP:VFD having to vote on every article to be deleted.
The proposal
This proposal aims to bring in a watertight criteria that would allow some material that is a patent copyright violation to be speedy deleted. This proposal is not meant to replace the current system, but reduce the inefficiency, this would mean articles where the copyright situation is more ambiguous can have more attention. It would be a requirement that the administrator provides the url of the material source in the "reason for deletion", and if material is repeatedly uploaded, it would be asked that it be dealt with in the current way (through WP:CP).
"An article that is a patent copyright violation material and meets these parameters:"
- Material is unquestionably copied from copyrighted website (i.e. virtually identical to source).
- The article contains only copyright violation material.
- Uploader makes no assertion of permission and there is no chance that we have permission.
- Article is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to avoid mirror problem).
Criticisms and responses
Paraphrased from Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Preliminary_proposal.
- Some of the clauses are too subjective.
- 1) This criteria for speedy deletion is explicitly for patent copyvio material, and as with some of the other criteria for speedy deletion, the common sense of administrators has to be trusted.
- 2) Patent copyright violation is less subjective than patent nonsense, also a criteria for speedy deletion.
- 3) The combined effect of the clauses makes it difficult for anything other than text dumps from copyrighted websites to be deleted.
- How do we know the copied website is not just a wikipedia mirror?
- 1) A mirror could not possibly copy one of our articles in 48 hours.
- 2) The clause of almost or totally un-wikified text also makes this very unlikely.
- It doesn't allow for discussion with new editors who are actually the copyright holders, and haven't notified us of that fact.
- 1) It would also be unusual for a copyrighted work to be uploaded and the editor not make any assertion of permission.
- 2) If permission is not asserted, we cannot assume that we might have it.
- 3) By definition, it is easy for the material to be re-uploaded with the correct permissions.
- The listing on the WP:CP page allows for a cooling off period.
- 1) Wikipedia never keeps copyvio material, so one is not needed.
Votes
Please do not vote yet!.