User:Pbsouthwood/Copyright notes

Copyright and copyright violations is a touchy topic on Wikipedia. It is not clear which opinions are based on actual applicable law and which are strongly held but not based on law, as there is no requirement to demonstrate competence before giving an opinion. It seems possible that overzealous interpretation and application of Wikipedia policy may have discouraged or driven away editors and potential editors who have spent their careers writing technical content according to the outside world interpretation of copyright and have run foul of the Wikipedia interpretations, which tend to use similar to identical terminology to mean different things.

Wikipedia's copyright rules are not all obvious to people who have been doing technical writing without issues in the outside world. It can come as a shock when one is accused of "copyright violation" (a legally defined term which may vary with jurisdiction) when doing what is business as usual. This is a particular problem in fields where precise usage of terminology is both expected and fundamental to transferring accurate information. While it is usually possible to paraphrase anything less closely, this can lose information, make a description vague and long-winded, confuse people who are familiar with the conventional terminology, and generally produce poor quality content. I have seen this happen. It is possible that potentially valuable contributors are driven away by the clash of philosophies. At the same time, Wikipedia requires verifiability from the source, which can be a conflicting requirement. While it is clear that Wikipedia can restrict content and insist that it complies with house rules, this can be more difficult than it may seem to the observer unfamiliar with the topic.

A second problem is that it is not possible to check a draft against the requirements before saving. The first inkling of a problem usually comes as a copyvio warning. It would be helpful to have a warning of possible non-compliance with Wikipedia rules before irrevocably publishing, as this is the easiest time to fix a potential problem.

Questions for research:

 * What competence in copyright law is required to engage in Copypatrol activities.
 * What is a "copyright clerk", and what qualifications are required, expected or assumed?
 * Is there anyone with actual objectively quantifiable competence in copyright law as applies to English Wikipedia who is available to provide advice.
 * To editors in general, content creators in particular, who are exposed to a higher risk of contravention by actually creating content based on the sources.
 * To the editors who report possible copyright violations (is there a WikiProject? who are copyright clerks?), who are at the highest risk of misapplying the policy against content creators.
 * Which WP policies and guidance apply?
 * Does existing Wikipedia policy on this matter protect the project?
 * Does existing WP policy inherently harm the project?
 * Does misapplication and misinterpretation of WP policy harm the encyclopedia?
 * If so, in what ways is harm done?
 * Hypothesis: Driving away experts who are used to working within outside world legal framework and conventions that are accepted within their fields of expertise which may clash with WP expectations and demands from Wikipedians may have occurred. The involved Wikipedians may not have the expertise they think they have, or it may not be reliably transferable between relevant fields. See also Dunning–Kruger effect, other cognitive biases may also be relevant. (sunk cost, confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error, framing effect (psychology), belief bias, status quo bias, overconfidence effect, etc.)
 * How can evidence be gathered to support or refute a hypothesis that it is harmful?
 * Is there any evidence that the policies are willfully misapplied by anyone? (I think this is quite likely, but not frequent or a significant problem, but what do I know?)
 * In what ways could the policies be willfully misapplied?
 * Gatekeeping?
 * Attempts at Gaslighting? (colloquial meaning)
 * Selective interpretation (probably less likely, but possible)
 * Virtue signalling (hard to prove, but seems possible based on experience with Wikipedians over the years. Possibly more likely with less competent editors?
 * There are claims that there are not enough editors contributing to copyright cleanup. Why is this a problem?
 * Do people not care?
 * Do those who care recognise it as a minefield and prefer not to get involved?
 * How is "copyright violation/infringement" measured? how relevant, reliable and objective are the measures?
 * How is "close paraphrasing" measured, how does the measurement method take into account the necessity to accurately retain meaning? Do the people interpreting the reports have sufficient knowledge of the topics to judge whether accurate meaning is retained by an alternative rephrasing? (I have seen examples where "cleanup" has created inaccuracy, lost information, and distorted meaning)
 * Is such research desirable or necessary? Why?

Who would be most appropriate to investigate?
Investigators would need:
 * Someone with demonstrable expertise in copyright law (necessary for credibility)
 * Someone who is likely to be able to identify what data is relevant.
 * Someone with the skills to collect the relevant data.
 * Someone who has relevant knowledge and experience in WP policies and guidance.
 * Someone with competence in designing and producing such a study.
 * Various parties to cross-check, sanity check, and represent alternative philosophies.
 * Enough input from Wikipedians to develop credibility within the Wikipedia community, and to provide enough insider information to make the study relevant.
 * Enough input from offsite/academic topic experts to develop credibility in the rest of the world and balance insider bias.

A combined project between WMF and en:WP, with outside peer review?
 * A search and analysis of past cases,
 * A editor and reader survey?
 * On exactly what?
 * Setting up the survey questions could be critical to getting useful results. A basic opinion poll is unlikely to be useful.

Wikipedia references/links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1174178208

Is the FramBan case relevant?