Forum:Attribution of content from Wowpedia on WoWWiki

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Village pump → Attribution of content from Wowpedia on WoWWiki
(This is a dead topic, Please do not edit this page!)


Over on WoWWiki I created a new Attribution template for tagging content that is obviously stolen from Wowpedia.

If you see something like that, just add the following tag:

{{Attribution|<Most of/Selections of/Some of> the content below was taken from [[File:Wowpedia icon stamp.png|22px]] [http://wowpedia.org Wowpedia.org].}}

<Most of/Selections of/Some of> are just some suggested words to use.

I used the Attribution tag at Tripping the Rifts as an example for the content taken from [Tripping the Rifts]. Also see my explanation for needing attribution. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 3:08 AM PST 12 Nov 2010

Do we need/have the reverse too? From what this site takes from WoWWiki, if anything?--SWM2448 18:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, the only constructive edits I've seen on wowwiki, were ones made by users double posting on both wowwiki & wowpedia. Most edits on wowwiki are to servers, guilds, and PC pages. And then theres the outright vandalism. Might be an idea however to have a template ready just in case? Ressy (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I forgot - I saw some edits to API pages on wowwiki sometime this week. Looking at them now, last updated in 2007 on wowpedia, updated on the 10th on wowwiki. Might be a good idea for that template after all if we want to bring over some of that stuff?Ressy (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't all of the content technically come from WoWWiki ? --Bellocois (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Previous to the fork, yes. However ALL revisions were brought into wowpedia under the user's name via xml dumps, which is what really matters. Post fork (ie October 22nd), we have to note where something was taken from if we want to use it. Ressy (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is possible, and even preferable, to use the edit summary to say where the freely licensed content came from. In particular, for importing CC-licensed content from wikis, it can be as easy as linking to the history link in the summary. It is obviously a better idea to link to the specific diff which you are importing.
I think it should be obvious why this is preferable to having any sort of banner or tag on the page in question… --Sky (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Crediting a source in the edit summary seems fine, but what do you do when no credit is given? Make a dummy edit giving credit in the edit summary? That seems awkward. I suppose you could put banners on the talk page instead of the page itself. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 9:24 PM PST 12 Nov 2010
Why not? I'd rather awkward and hidden away in the page history than not-awkward and in a forward-viewing place. Either way you need to make what is essentially a dummy edit. :P --Sky (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well some of us want to at least try to adhere to the spirit of the licenses even though they are nearly unenforceable. If a majority of the content of a page is taken from another source that isn't obvious, a feeble note in an edit summary doesn't really give the attribution justice. We might as well do that ridiculous image attribution thing Wikia has decided to do which is both misleading and likely violates the licenses regularly just by its existence. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 9:51 PM PST 12 Nov 2010
That is the spirit of the license: attribution has been given under compatible licenses. That said, I was strictly speaking about what we do on this wiki, as I can't tell which wiki you're talking about. :^) --Sky (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about both WoWWiki and Wowpedia. If what you suggest is the spirit of the licenses, then they are sad indeed. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 10:14 PM PST 12 Nov 2010

Personally, I don't see anything that would be worth taking from WoWWiki that we didn't fork with... But if some wikis in the past have used tags at the top of articles, WoWWiki should do the same when content is taken from here I suppose... especially when its obvious. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Until wowwiki create an official policy page on what they want to happen in this situation, then it really is at the discretion of the editor isnt it, aslong as they do it in a way that is helpful to the end user? Which, to add to that - can we also make a policy page for when something like this happens to us, and our users copy/paste content from somewhere else? something like "more than 50% of page must be attributed by a banner at the top, and a small section must be attributed in the edit summery?" Human Paladin Loremaster Mosios (Gossipgossipicon.png Bindergossipicon.png) 08:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean like WP:COPY#Using Wowpedia content on other sites? --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C146,063 contributions and counting) 13:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant content copy and pasted content FROM [with the same license] other sites [such as other wiki's] TO wowpedia. Human Paladin Loremaster Mosios (Gossipgossipicon.png Bindergossipicon.png) 14:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Then see above on the same page. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C146,063 contributions and counting) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it listed anywhere official though? How many new users will see this page, next week? or next month? Honestly, i can see wowwiki copying most of the edits and then using clever wording to imply they created it [or the opposite, someone here doing it to them] thats all. Human Paladin Loremaster Mosios (Gossipgossipicon.png Bindergossipicon.png) 14:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:COPY is an official policy, as official as it gets. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C146,063 contributions and counting) 14:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Aka, an edit summary doesn't really cut it. Thanks, Pcj. I forgot it was spelled out more clearly on a policy page. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 10:08 AM PST 13 Nov 2010
Sorry Pcj, must have read the page wrong last night, looks complete. [Note to self: Dont go on wowpedia when your half asleep] Human Paladin Loremaster Mosios (Gossipgossipicon.png Bindergossipicon.png) 07:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there some way to change the licensing to prevent Wikia from stealing your work? I know Wikipedia changed their license at one point. It seems like the problem would be solved if you had a clause by the next content patch or expansion that says „No Wikia reuse“ but it's probably not that simple. Nidaleena (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No. By virtue of being CC-BY-SA, the whole point is that people reuse our content, as long as they attribute it to us. Even if it's our former host. --k_d3 06:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess the free culture mantra is more appealing when you're Wikipedia and everyone goes to you first anyway. Oh well. Nidaleena (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wowpedia credit template on WoWWiki should be used instead

The Attribution template has been superceded by Wowpedia credit template on WoWWiki.

I've also made a {{WoWWiki credit}} template for the reverse situation, but I'll explain that more in detail on a separate post. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 11:31 AM PST 4 Jan 2011

I wish people would stop bringing WoWWiki up, though I understand the sentiment of the person above about "stealing". Please do not make a separate post. Just let it die (the topic and the old site). --Bellocois (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What you want and what is true are not the same thing. Despite the efforts of many folks of bad faith at WoWWiki (who have a pro-Wowpedia agenda), there are still quite a few people who contribute there. I'm actually surprised at how much stuff I'm now finding at WoWWiki that is not at Wowpedia. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 1:09 PM PST 4 Jan 2011
There will be continued hostility from both directions regardless of what anyone does. WoWWiki will continue existing, as will Wowpedia. Calls for either site to die are pointless.--SWM2448 20:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm calling for this equally pointless conversation to die primarily. --Bellocois (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Pcj deleted the template and my separate post. I guess Wowpedia is going to use some other way (or not). It does say something about Wowpedia, though. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 12:20 PM PST 5 Jan 2011
The template is useless - there is no need for it since we do not currently copy content from WoWWiki. If the practice becomes widespread then there may be use for a template. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C146,063 contributions and counting) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how you can assert that, but whatever. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 12:42 PM PST 5 Jan 2011
Can you make the assertion the other way, however? --k_d3 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Fandy, your comment here isn't very neutral, and isn't factual. Its not that wowpedia isn't going to give attribution for copied content, but the fact that wowpedia hasn't been copying pages from wowwiki, and as such doesn't need the template yet. Most of the pages being created right now are via the plugins pcj created.
Also, please revert this as its a locked forum.
IF anyone begins c&p'ing from wowwiki, I'm sure the template will be recreated, but whats the point in having an unused template sitting around. Its obviously needed (as its being used) on wowwiki, but its not needed here yet. Ressy (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the template should not have been outright deleted, as that was rude. I would put it to a vote, where proof of content copied verbatim from WoWWiki (and thus the need for the fair attribution template) could be presented in a calm an orderly fashion. I dislike bureaucracy, but this is a sensitive issue that needs a calm consensus. If the amount of content copied verbatim from WoWWiki is excessive, then I will welcome and support the template. If the amount of content copied verbatim from WoWWiki is minimal, then I will dismiss the template as trying to make WoWWiki look more important on Wowpedia than it really is.
Also, regarding Fandyllic's lack of tact in response to Pcj's lack of tact (at the unfortunate risk of more flaming): Wowpedia is not a singular entity, and its admins are not a singular entity. Please avoid spinning the actions of one admin into petty insults and fake official stances, until the point that they are, but even then, a certain lack of negative bias is still called for. Fandyllic, I left WoWWiki, but I have not lost respect for you personally (not that you care or should care). I am trying to be sympathetic with your views and stances. This is not a personal attack.--SWM2448 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We'd also have to take into account users who are posting on both sites now, the same information. Theres no point in attributing an edit to the other site if someone is adding the same edit to both sites. Ressy (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What's done is done. If you don't think you need a template, it's your choice. Very simply, I disagree. My perspective is to be prepared. Yours is different. --Gengar orange 22x22.png Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 7:22 PM PST 5 Jan 2011
I'm not sure why it would be deleted at all unless there was a duplicate template. While the debate over WoWWiki's viability or lack thereof is a matter of opinion, attribution is not. --Bellocois (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The template can be undeleted/restored if that is what should happen.--SWM2448 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

unindent

I'll be glad to restore it myself, that is, if content does wind up copied by someone other than who wrote it. And if it's actually necessary. Looking at "Tripping the Rifts", which is why this whole issue started in the first place, I see a text link, not a template... --k_d3 03:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)