Template talk:OA-attribution

License compliance
Hi. I'm not really familiar with this project but today encountered this template in use in an article in a manner that I do not believe meets the licensing requirements. Specifically, it is being used in List of ant subfamilies. I believe the interpretation of the license to be CC-By is correct (you can see the conversation here), but CC-By 3.0 requires a link to the license to comply, and the template does not give that. Hence, even though the user is using the template, the content is a copyright problem.

I'm not sure how common a problem this is, but a very quick glance of four articles showed problems in two: Feroponera and Diaphoromyrma (a particularly bad example, as it offers no external links at all, much less a link to the license.)

Unfortunately, using the template may create copyright problems for those who believe that they are complying with the license where the license is not linked. Using compatibly licensed material without complying with the license is also a violation of our Terms of Use and copyright policies. I think the template needs to be modified rather urgently to address this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that this template is problematic because it does not automatically generate citations which are formatted in a particular way. So far as I understand, nothing in this template forces users to present a particular style of citation. Can you explain more explicitly what you are expecting to see?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry, the template says "Please check the source for the exact licensing terms." This is not within the terms of the CC-By license, which requires a link to the license, not a request to check the source. Where the template links to a page that includes the license, I think this is not as much an issue (although we might want to check on that). But where the template does not link to a page that includes the license, it is facilitating copyright violation. At the very least, the documentation for the template should be clear that the use of the template does not in itself comply with the license, unless the license is linked. Right now, it recommends its usage "in the References section of an article if the article incorporates text from an open access source and if there is no source specific template listed in Category:Attribution templates", but it says nothing to even suggest that it may not be legally compliant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I recognize the problem you describe. The text "The use of the template does not in itself comply with most Creative Commons licenses, unless the license is linked." could be added to the documentation if you feel that would be useful. Do you have any other suggestions about how this template could be changed to reduce the risk of noncompliance with licenses?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry, I think that line would be great. :) I am not that technologically proficient, but I would suggest an optional second parameter to link to the license where the primary link to the source does not. I'm not sure if we need to specifically name the license, but can check. If so, a parameter like that used in ConfirmationOTRS could be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added text to the usage documentation. I hope that resolves this issue well enough for now. I acknowledge that this template can still be used incorrectly, and developing this template to present a license could solve part of the problem. It is ironic that open access content is among the most difficult to properly cite on Wikipedia when it is intended to facilitate reuse, and I regret that problems associated with this content run much more deeply than this template. In my opinion, the long-term solution to this problem will be having more metadata stored in citation templates to help users comply with licensing terms. The most developed proposal for addressing specific needs of open access content is at WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness, and I have hope that eventually giving attribution correctly becomes easier for everyone.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and : I agree that there should be a link to the respective CC license, and that a dedicated parameter would be the way to go about that. I recently solved a related issue at PLoS Computational Biology this way, but that only handles CC BY licenses. If we want to cover CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA in all their versions and perhaps even deeds, that would be a more complex thing. I'll put it on my list for the PLOS hackathon on Oct 18. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm the editor responsible for adding most the non-compliant content in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from open access publications, including List of ant subfamilies. I intend to clean up the mess I've left behind, starting by adding links to the actual articles and then links to the licenses. In the meantime, can someone tell me whether this updated copyright notice (an admittedly ugly workaround) meets the licensing requirements? jonkerz ♠talk 10:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)