Talk:Boxhill (Louisville)

possible copyright issues
I posted at this article's DYK nomination that I perceive issues here. To repeat and expand on what i stated there, it appears possible to me that the photos are not public domain, so there could be copyvio issue on the photos. The photos are downloaded from the PDF Focus website, a Federal, National Park Service website, but as noted at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, the NPS is very clear that not all photos that it posts are PD. If the listed photographer Mary Jean Kinsman is not a Federal employee then the photos are most likely not PD. However, I don't see the photo credits in the Federal source which must identify Kinsman, so I am missing something needed in evaluating this situation. Also, I believe that it's possible that the text of the article includes some text copied from the NRHP nomination form, which also is probably not PD. I am happy to watch here and to try to assist in identifying what is proper here, and I hope I would then be able to withdraw my objection at DYK.

Towards clarifying, for one thing could the editor(s) developing this article provide the exact URL providing info about who took the photographs? doncram (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately right now, the general search screen at PDF focus, http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/, is not working right now. doncram (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the site in question (Focus.nps.gov) identifies the documents in question as "public domain" very clearly. At least, that's what gave me the impression I was free to use the images. The site is down for me too, but see this mirror: . If the site identifies the content as public domain... I mean, maybe it's more an issue for their legal department than us. They're telling the world this stuff is public domain, I think when you submit these documents for review in the NRHP process you agree to release them into the public domain. --Miss Communication (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now it seems to be up and indicating the publication as "Public domain" when I search for this place (it's listed under a search for 'winkworth'). If this really isn't public domain... the NPS itself needs to clarify it isn't, because their database is listing it as public domain documents. --Miss Communication (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, your mirror link is helpful, because again I cannot access the Focus system. Your link shows that you rely upon the single use of a field "Restrictions: Public domain" within the NPS Focus computer system.  This has been discussed previously, and yours is an aggressive interpretation.  My interpretation of that field is more conservative.  For one thing, in that computer systems context it may just mean "public web domain", meaning this document is available to the public, as opposed to any of various invisible-to-us private web domains within the NPS.  And, it seems like a careless use of a loaded term by a computer systems programmer, and a mistake perhaps that is not to be exploited by wikipedia.  Specifically, I believe that it does not override the explicit NPS copyright statements, linked from a passage i wrote up some time ago and posted at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places.  As i recall, the Focus system includes numerous documents and photos which are clearly not public domain (e.g. because the photos were taken by private professional photographers), while the computer system has the unfortunate use of that field on all of its publicly available documents.  I believe that in the NRHP application process, documents and photos are put forward with the expectation that the National Register program will use those documents and photos and may make them publicly available at National Park Service websites, but that is different than putting them into the public domain.  For example, the NPS runs an annual photo competition, and if your photo wins then they will use it in their website and in a calendar they produce and sell a few thousand of, but you as a professional photographer do not give up your copyright preventing other uses.


 * I hope you don't mind terribly that I am tagging this article copyvio, to begin formal processes (which could have changed from when i last went through this process). You are invited to discuss here your opinions.  I don't fully recall how this process goes, but i believe an administrator or two will come visit and make a judgment in a week or two.


 * Also, the article includes text passages that are copied verbatim from the NRHP document. I believe that adding a footnote at the end of such a passage is inadequate crediting.  It indicates the source for content, but does not convey credit for wording.  The correct way to credit another author for wording is to quote any verbatim text with quote marks or using blockquotes as well as giving footnote reference to the source including page number.

For example, this is a block quote using wikipedia blockquoting tags.


 * I do personally welcome your interest in developing articles on NRHP-listed historic sites. I and many others who do articles on NRHPs now, have had misunderstandings or at least understandings that we changed over time, about what is good practice in writing articles about them.  In general, the NRHP application documents are great sources, but I believe i speak for most NRHP article writers that we use those as sources but describe them in our own words, plus selective use of explicit quotes. doncram (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good god. Plagiarism clearly says "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, provided it is properly identified and attributed... If you base an article on a public domain source, you should place a note to that effect in the references section." I seem to have followed it very closely. I find the way you've gone about this to be quite insulting... the page I copied from identifies the text and images as public domain. You have a theory that public domain doesn't mean public domain, but that just doesn't make any sense. I'd really like someone other than you, preferably an admin, to explain now a page that claims documents are public domain doesn't really mean they are public domain. Sure, I guess a programmer could have goofed... but that's just being a bit absurd. --Miss Communication (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what, though? Forget it. People told me Wikipedians would frustrate me into not editing... I wasn't sure but now I am. If you want to believe that documents that the NPS says are public domain are not actually public domain... I really don't have time to deal with this foolishness. Consider this my last edit... Sheesh! How does anyone not run away screaming from their first encounter with a veteran Wikipedian? --Miss Communication (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually agree with you that I could have gone about this better, and I am sorry. I am sorry i insulted you.  I have done better in my first interactions with some other new editors, but I wasn't quite up to it this time.  I do better when I am not dealing with articles that have been put up for DYK.  It would be easier to work on an article without time pressure involved, and without the DYK nomination pending I myself would probably not have started the copyvio formal process.  You may not be aware of it, by the way, but I came here in response to a request by an experienced DYK editor.  I even agree that there is some absurdity and some stuff here can easily be seen as foolishness.  But it can take quite a bit of effort to go through a lot of history and stuff so that a reasonable person like yourself would eventually see where and why a sort of line has been drawn, sort of.  And, it can be too daunting to go through, when you might (just as you suggest) up and leave in a huff anyhow.  Also, despite some long discussions (which I think are linked from the Talk page of wp:Plagiarism), the wikipedia policy on use of public domain work is not entirely clear.  You just started right on a difficult spot, unfortunately.  I hope you do manage to stay and find success in editing in wikipedia.  I will ask if someone else could comment here too, about the substantial issues and/or about my actions. doncram (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the bottom line is I used materials identified as public domain, and was then told maybe they aren't public domain, so that means they are a copyvio. Nevermind that they still are identified as public domain on a site that says only materials specifically identified as copyrighted are copyrighted! Yet Wikipedia calls it a copyvio, even though the site in question says the contents are public domain. I appreciate that you're trying to be tactful... but the underlying situation is so absurd, I can't imagine why I'd work under these conditions. --Miss Communication (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Miss Communication. I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of copyright law, or whether this particular material is subject to copyright or is truly in the public domain. I do know that Wikipedia is cautious about content that is copied from another source, except for a few specific sources that are fully certified as "public domain," and that most seasoned Wikipedia contributors become a bit "trigger-happy" in their zeal to expunge possible copyvio material from the encyclopedia. I also know that, regardless of the copyright status of a source, it's always better to write articles in our words. (My long-ago high school teachers and college professors would surely endorse that view!) Not only does this avoid the frustration of trying to understand the vagaries of copyright, but usually the end result is a better article.
 * I've reworded some of the content from the NRHP nomination text and restored it to the article. I hope that resolves the concerns about the article text, but there probably are some additional details still needing to be added. The images are another matter. I wasn't engaged in this article when the images were discussed, so I am not going to comment on them. However, if the house is still standing, it ought to be possible to take new photos of it... --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was best to write stuff in our own words, we'd need to start a new article every time we made an edit! Wikipedia is all about using other people's words. In this case, the words in the public domain were already good ones, I don't see the point of reshuffling them just for the sake of reshuffling them.... there's no legal or ethical need to do that. The gist of this seems to be "we can get rid of your edits even if copyright is on your side, we just need to suggest it might not be, even if we're wrong, and we can still git rid of your edits". This is what I mean when I say it's an absurd situation. There's no real policy or copyright notice to suggest what I did was wrong, just a "Well, we'd like you to do it our way..." --Miss Communication (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orlady, Nyttend, others for rewriting in the article, which appeared in DYK yesterday. doncram (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have been able to contribute! --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

documents available
I added to the description of the Kentucky state historic department's inventory document about the site. Also there will be more about it in the Jefferson County MRA document, mentioned in the MPSUB field in the NRHP infobox. That Multiple Research Assessment document should be available in PDF online at the NPS, but the NPS servers have not been responding properly the last day or two. When the server problems clear up, the document will be available through this search screen:http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrcover.htm (select "by name", and search on KY and Jefferson). doncram (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * MPS document available at http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000231.pdf. doncram (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)