Now here's a funny thing. Maybe someone can comment on the GFDL aspects of this.

You may recall the sad but true story of the article Truth Theory, that I raised from a mere stub of a redirect to a strapping brawny article, nurturing it with all the contents that I had added to the article Truth -- which contents the GA Limination Front so rudely dis-contented and tossed out hand over fist therefrom.

I defended this article through 2 Afd's, got banned in the process, and so I was not there to defend it on the third.

Now it turns up on Wikia, in this form:

• 'http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Truth_theory'

And it comes complete with the picture of Sojourner Truth that I added to the article, but that FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua repeatedly deleted !!!

So far so good -- that's what open source is supposed to be for.

But looky what happens when I click on the attribution links, that I mock up for you here:


How many falsehoods can you count in this official statement?

1. The original article was NOT where the redirect sends it. The orginal article Truth Theory was deleted.
2. The list of authors CANNOT be seen at the redirect site. The single name that appears there is one of the users who was instrumental in deleting the article, and the one who DELETED the list of authors in creating the redirect.
3. There are probably more, but I leave their enumeration as an exercise for the reader.

Jonny

Send them a DMCA cease-and-desist letter, saying the original article was copyrighted by you, and if they have evidence otherwise they need to present it. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

I dunno much about GNU-fangled Licentiousness and all that, but I think that what I'm seeing here is a lack of propriety in complying with what is promised by the GFD License, among other things, that the list of authors and the history of edits be preserved. That and a whole lot of dim irony, of course. But I have to let others who know more comment on all this. I just find it exceedingly curious.

Jonny

And again, and again, and again ...

Jonny

This is a good question. A republisher of material obtained under the GFDL owes the author attribution under the terms of the license. Violating GFDL is the same as violating any other copyright. I would take the position that they need to provide the entire edit history. Although the article could be modified in any manner they see fit the edit history would be non-modifiable as a "secondary section." Also anyone who says they created such an article by pasting it is just plain being dishonest.

Doesn't cost anything (well $0.42) to send a friendly letter. Could alway send C&D later. The real fun would be to also the letter to the guy who took credit.

Of course this is not legal advice and... educational ...... consult an attorney ....you know the drill.

This is exactly the kind of situation in which somebody (namely you, Jonny) could do a lot of good by forcing Wikipedia to address these copyright violations by their violation of the GFDL license.

Here's where you need to send the letter, and the letter goes to Jimbo....

Here's how I see this ...

I'm mostly concerned with issues of education and ethics — sometimes the law manages to reflect some glimmer of truth and justice, in rare moments of Promethean forethought it carries the torch itself, but in recent memory it mostly lags behind — at any rate, it's not my old baileywik ...

The Brits used to have this nice phrase that they pasted on the verso of a book's title page —


That pretty much says it — Credit Where Credit Is Due.

The way I see the difference between legal right and moral right is this —

The law is where people clean each other's clocks — ethics is where you clean up after yourself.

We should not fall into the trap of constantly cleaning up after Wikpedia — not my dog, not my elephant — that's a total losers' game, as anybody can see from watching ArbCom.

The notice at the bottom of the Wikia page tells me that somebody with that organization knew what they were supposed to be doing under GFDL — the problem is that Wikipediots, who promise to keep an Akashic record, if you recall, have deleted the promised record.

Worse than that, the Wikipedian Management is constantly miseducating the very people that its 501[c](3) status says it's supposed to be educating — among other things, about the right attitude to take toward other people's moral rights.

Jonny

No, no. Wikipedia has no obligation to keep entries so that forkers and scrapers can copy articles without an explicit list of contributors. It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to keep a record of contributors for forked content - it is the responsibility of those who fork the content to do so.

Many websites have fallen into the practice of linking to Wikipedia as a substitute for giving credit to the contributors, because it is assumed that by doing so one is giving as much attribution as is required. However, what forkers and scrapers should be doing is maintaining a list of contributors on their own, not relying on Wikipedia to do it for them.

If it comes down to who can wikipettifog the question best, then I must leave that to others.

For us simple minded folk, the question is this:

Does Wikipedia make use of work that people contribute in exchange for Wikipedia's promise that each contributor of each piece of work will receive public credit for that work?

The happenstance that a contribution to an article gets deleted from the current version of that article — or even that an entire article gets deleted — has no bearing on the indelible permanent fact that contributors contributed to the project in exchange for a promise that their contributions would be credited to them.

Over and above that fact, the Wikimedia Foundation continues to benefit from contributions that it authorizes to be transferred to other organizations, as anyone can see from the advertisements that are borne by Wikia pages and the <Donate To Wikimedia> buttons at the bottom of Answer.Com pages.

Jonny

Well, to be fair, Wikipedia hasn't actually made any such explicit promise. The only agreement between Wikipedia and the editors of Wikipedia is that all text is licensed under the GFDL, and that as long as the content remains on Wikipedia, credit will be given.



This is, however, a very good point. Wikipedia (or, in the case of Wikia, a select few Wikipedia editors) are certainly benefiting from their re-use of Wikipedia content, and this re-use occasionally? violates the GFDL.

Tell you what — you go try and edit that BS about the Moral Equivalent of Akashic Records out of every place where it appears in Wikipedia, and when you have accomplished that, then we'll talk again about what the Wikipedia community promises and does not promise ....

Later ...

Much later ...

Jonny

Eh, I am banned from Wikipedia. As such, your suggestion isn't exactly something I can run off and do, at least, not without getting my sockpuppet there banned as well. And I'd rather not do that, at least, not until I have a chance to pass RFA



Ah, if we're talking about the Wikipedia community, that is a different story altogether. The Wikipedia community promises all sorts of things that they cannot deliver. You know, standards of fairness, reliability, neutrality, and consensus. That sort of shit.

It's sorta to be expected for the Wikipedia community to fail to deliver on its promises.

Cold Case Files : Truth Theory


Cf. Charles Sanders Peirce, "How To Make Our Ideas Clear"

Jon