Talk:Fig Tree Bridge

Untitled
Note: The text of this article has been used without attribution on this webpage. John Dalton 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just rung Event Alliance on (02) 9963 9936 about the copyright violation. I spoke to Alexis. She was very helpful when I politely asked for the 7 bridges website to acknowledge Wikipedia. I gave her the links to the Tarban Creek and Fig Tree Bridge articles and she said she would link back to Wikipedia. She asked whether I was from Wikipedia. I said no and explained how Wikipedia was a volunteer effort and copyright is held by the individual contributors. She seemed to understand and accept that. Interestingly the text was provided to them, as is, by the RTA! A compliment that Wikipedia is being used by the RTA as a reference on their own bridges! This phone call is also a lesson in how a polite initial request can get an instant win-win for each party without any dispute. John Dalton 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! To tell you the truth I actually did notice that page and was quite amused that they copied the WP article word for word without reference to it's origin, but I didn't think I'd be able to do anything about it - and I guess it kind of was an ego boost to have a page I contributed to so blatantly pirated. Nevertheless, well done! It doesn't surprise me that the RTA used WP as their source, as they don't seem to have a comprehensive list of their own infrastructure (though they do have a ["heritage register"] for some bridges, which I often cite in articles) and seeing as wikipedia is free and seems to have become a quasi-Australian encyclopedia (I am often amazed at the amount of Australian content) I guess it was easy for them to copy the info from here. Only goes to show how valuable a tool WP is :) Maudlingothic 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated Reference
I had the two references there because the second reference (the one about the extra lanes being clipped on) is not actually on the same page as the other reference on the ozroads site, it is in fact in the "pics" page...hence the second reference, which although appears the same, was in fact a different page... Maudlingothic 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC) <<-- Maudlingothic
 * Oops. Sorry! I'll look at it and reverse the damage. John Dalton 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)