Talk:Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority

Copyright infringement allegations
I have reinstated this page. It is NOT a copyright violation, by any stretch of the imagination, but I've added some additional text in the eventual pursuit of perfection. I'd like to assume good faith on the part of the editor who deleted this article, but I was not given that courtesy or even given enough of an opportunity to show my own good faith.

I've commented out the bulleted list pending clarification from someone not blindly following brainless Twinkle without a common sense thought in their human brain, even though it's their (the article subject's) bulleted list of their specific legal mandate. (Facts are not copyrightable. ) The list is not "original expression", but only a regurgitation of items in the legislation that gave life to ZICTA and therefore "discovered" by ZICTA. If you think it's a copyright violation, then you rewrite the list (go ahead, "be bold", but use common sense as it has been lacking to this point) while still maintaining the legal nuances that are intended by this legal body. Additionally, according to Zambian copyright law, "Copyright shall not subsist in a Bill introduced into Parliament or in an Act of Parliament." The list itself, besides being simply a collection of non-copyrightable facts, is a compilation of non-copyrightable portions of Acts of the Zambian Parliament ... despite the ironic copyright notice in the footer of every page of that PDF copy of "THE COPYRIGHT AND PERFORMANCE RIGHTS ACT".

One third (28 out of 85) of the words in the lede are the titles of Acts of Parliament and a few conjunctions; these cannot be changed. (Moby Dick cannot reasonably be referred to as Whale Tale, notwithstanding that titles and short bits of text can't be copyrighted. ) The remaining 57 words are, by any stretch of the imagination, an acceptable rewrite of the profile of this public body while still getting across the point of who they are and what they do. Yes, the lede largely regurgitates the introductory paragraph in the referenced (not stolen without attribution) text on the ZICTA website, but it was reduced from (arguably) six sentences (four sentences, but two of them are run-on) of 138 words to three rewritten and reorganised sentences (85 words) retaining only the bare, non-copyrightable facts. It's not about the volume of the reduction but the significance of the reduction and rewriting.

I would appreciate being engaged on this, not dictated to from on high. There was no need to "speedily" delete this article. (I tagged a hoax article a few years ago with the "speedy delete" tag and I was told off, even though it was a copy-and-paste job of an existing article on one Royal or another with every instance of "Prince Bob" [I don't remember which Royal it was] replace with "John Smith", the title of the hoax article.) If a complete hoax article can't be speedily deleted, why should a legitimate article on a legitimate and notable subject be deleted with such haste? Additionally, I've been an editor here for over 14 years, and never sought office or accolades or "barnstars" or power over anyone; it's not as if I showed up yesterday and thought I'd garner attention and praise my copying and pasting War and Peace. So how about a modicum of respect, engagement and the aforementioned assumption of good faith? I don't see how stomping all over an editor for trying to contribute is supposed to foster engagement and encourage contributions. Wikipedia Stormtroopers, anyone?

With respect to the copyright notice on the ZICTA website (©2015 - 2020 Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA)), I'd be willing to bet that was put there by some neophyte web designer trying to impress his/her boss/client. Of course, nobody should base a decision to plagiarise based on what they suppose may or may not be historical fact, but gimme a break; ZICTA is a public body operated by and on behalf of a government democratically elected by the citizens of that country -- in other words the so-called copyright is owned by the citizens, essentially public domain in Zambia it can be argued -- no less than the Canadian CRTC or the American FCC. If the citizens of those countries can't quote those regulatory bodies, how could the work and purpose of those bodies be communicated to an effective extent? There is nothing commercial about ZICTA, the CRTC, the FCC or Wikipedia, so that's not even a factor regardless of copyright notices.

If it is somehow not allowed to describe a Zambian public body in words that are similar to how they describe themselves, then I suggest this one-sentence lede (and entire article) that will make most stubs look eloquent in comparison:

"The Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) is the Zambian ICT regulatory body."

There. It's a single non-copyrightable fact (and even a non-copyrightable short phrase) that serves no purpose other than to take up space on Wikipedia and be a target for links in other articles that refer to ZICTA. And while we're at it I'll blank the aforementioned CRTC and FCC articles to similar single sentences. Actually, no I won't, because the fact is that Canada and the US are far more open societies with significantly more publicly available information about them, and that is reflected in their respective articles. However, it's not my job to know and regurgitate everything this is to know about ZICTA; once the article has been created I am very certain that others will expand it. That's what happens on Wikipedia! That's the whole bloody point of a wiki! In fact, before the article was deleted at least one other editor (other than the miscreant who deleted it) was already improving it!

And while I'm pointing all of this out I'd like to add that Wikipedia is already violating Zambia's copyright: According to that page, bank notes and coins are indeed copyrighted and so it is "not OK" to reproduce them, but they are indeed reproduced at "Zambian kwacha". I suggest that most of the images in that article should be "speedily deleted". Who is going to act on that?

I have also sent this text to ArbCom, as I can find no other process by which I can appeal the actions of a single administrator seemingly drunk on power. If that person was reasonable they would have (a) not tagged this article for speedy deletion, and (b) would have suggested an amenable way forward rather than just my meekly submitting to their draconian action.

When I told Diannaa that I no longer "gave a damn" what they did I expected them to engage me on the full extent of my (much shorter) rebuttal at that point rather than just (to paraphrase, as I no longer have access to the talk page and I don't want to violate their copyright) tell me that Twinkle was infallible and common sense was not allowed to enter into the equation, but apparently I was wrong. And apparently I do indeed give a damn, considering how many hours I have put into gathering references for and writing this tirade. The actions against me and this article were heavy-handed and arbitrary. They were the equivalent of driving their car off a cliff because Google Maps said to "turn right here".

Engage me (and other editors); don't treat me/us like a peon(s). Thank-you.

--Craig (t|c) 07:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The page the material came from is marked as "©2015 - 2020 Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA)". Sorry but we have to assume that they mean it. Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources at all in most instances, outside of brief quotations. The material on the website here and here is similar but not identical to the material in the legislation itself. See pages 128 through 130 of the legislation to see the exact wording of the legislation. So I have decided to put it in, but mark it as a quotation of the website and a paraphrase of the actual legislation.I now have a couple of quick comments about the above post, most of which I did not read because of its rude and abusive tone. I refuse to be treated in such a manner and will not read posts of that type. It's really inappropriate for you to speak to your fellow volunteers that way, even if you think they've made a mistake. And there's no reason for you to assume that I relied on automated tools when assessing the article or made a hasty or robot-like decision; automated tools are only an assist and the final decision as to what to do was mine.— Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for seeing the light. As for your complaint/admonishment about my tone, now you know how you made me feel about 48 hours ago. --Craig (t|c) 11:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reconsidered ArbCom submission, appeal to Diannaa
Poking around to find a way to appeal the actions of an administrator I realised that going to ArbCom was going nuclear, not what should be my first step. However, all of the other options seem overly bureaucratic and time-consuming, but Diannaa did not give me or anyone else that might have had an interest in seeing this article survive a chance. I don't think the actions of administrator Diannaa were reasonable or proportionate; they were heavy-handed and arbitrary. I'm not ignorant of copyright and I realise there are times when one must be hyper-vigilant, but all things considered (including the complete lack of consideration for "assume good faith") this didn't even approach one of those times. However, in blindly following Twinkle's output (that pointed to an old, archived page that doesn't even display properly in the latest versions of Firefox and Chromium) Diannaa did the equivalent of driving their car off a cliff because Google Maps said to "turn right here". If I had copied and pasted that page word for word the copyright violation would have been "unambiguous", but I did not, and so it was not an "unambiguous" copyright violation.

So, Diannaa, I invite you to do that here -- discuss and come to a resolution. Instead of speedily deleting this article for a so-called "unambiguous" copyright violation that no reasonable person would agree exists (it's OK for an administrator to admit a mistake), let's come to a consensus here and work to keep this article and make it acceptable to you. (Tag it as a copyvio if you want, but not for speedy deletion.) I'm not unreasonable, as the few interactions I've needed to have here should show, so give me (and this article) a chance.

Your turn. I've treated you as an adult, now it's your turn to return the favour.

--Craig (t|c) 07:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)