User:Valjean/Ownership and talk pages



WARNING! This is MY sandbox! (no cats allowed... ) Please respect it.  

Ownership of content in user space
The guideline "Ownership of articles" does not refer to content in user space, but content contributed to article space. Editors do not "own" content in articles, but they do possess copyright and ownership, in a certain sense, of their own material in their user space. It belongs to them until they contribute it to the encyclopedia. At that time it becomes copyleft material. Before then, it should be respected and treated as though the editor owned it. It should not be poached (stolen) and placed in article space without the permission of the editor.

See my comment, and other comments here: Article taken from sandbox.


 * WP:Copyrights
 * "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses."


 * WP:Copying within Wikipedia (WP:ATTREQ)
 * "Contributors to Wikipedia are not asked to surrender their copyright to the material they contribute. Instead, they are required to co-license their contributions under the copyleft licenses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" (BOLD emphasis added.)

The important thing is to define "material they contribute". Although not mentioned, it is implied that it is the encyclopedia itself that is the object of the contribution. So, when does "contribution" to the encyclopedia occur? The act of "contribution" occurs the moment one adds content to an article in article space. (Essays, policy pages, and other common spaces would also be included, IOW anything outside of the editor's own user space and subpages.)


 * "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively."

At the moment one makes a contribution to those types of collaboratively edited pages, one accepts Wikipedia's terms and "co-licenses their contribution...." That's when it becomes copyleft content. Before that, the editor's own user space work should be covered by copyright in the full and normal sense of the word. Private work in user space which the editor has not yet contributed has not been "contributed". Synonyms: addition, donation, improvement, increase.

To use those synonyms, it has not (yet) been "added" to the encyclopedia, been "donated" to it, "improved" it, or "increased" it.

Since when is user space part of the encyclopedia itself? It's not. It is behind-the-scenes editorial working space. Contribution occurs when material is added to the encyclopedia itself.

Limits of user talk page ownership
Currently the talk page guidelines say this about editing one's own talk page:


 * "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history.  Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." - Other's comments

This should be modified because it does not deal with actions by controversial, uncollaborative, uncommunicative, and/or combative editors whose misuse of their own talk page defeats its purpose.

A user's talk page is an interface between the editor and the community, so it also belongs to the community, unlike the userpage itself, where the editor is allowed more leeway. A user has no right to shut down that avenue of communication. If an editor is unwilling to communicate with other editors, they should avoid controversy, or just not edit here. Wikipedia is a collaborative community, and community norms and needs dictate that a user talk page function for its intended purpose, which is to ensure that editing and communication processes work properly.

Although editors do not own their talk page, they do have some limited ownership rights, but those rights do not extend so far that they are allowed to do anything which inhibits the purpose of the talk page. It is for communication with all other editors and visitors, and that may include what they consider unpleasant comments and communication with editors with whom they have experienced conflict.

While truly minor refactoring is allowed, any deletion and/or refactoring of own or others' comments which interferes with smooth and effective communication is not allowed. The flow and meaning of visible content on the page should not be compromised by such deletions and improper refactoring. Use of the page history should not be necessary, except to refer to old content. Discussion should be easy, not hard, and deletions and improper refactoring make it harder to communicate effectively. Anything which can lead to misunderstandings should be avoided.

Editors have no right to ban anyone from their talk page who civilly adds or responds to comments and/or criticisms, or otherwise uses the talk page for its intended purpose. Unequivocal and repeated harassment, gross personal attacks, and blatant incivility are another matter, but that determination should be so clear that any other editor would also see it as obvious harassment, gross personal attacks, and blatant incivility. Far from all unpleasant communication is actual harassment, a personal attack, or incivility.

Allowing the accused to ban anyone from their talk page would be tantamount to allowing an accused criminal in a court case to ban anyone with evidence against them from speaking. That would be absurd, since it is exactly those people whose testimony is most relevant. They must be allowed to speak, just as editors who have been in conflict with an accused editor must be allowed to civilly present their arguments against the accused. Accusers must not abuse the accused editor, but must present their unpleasant accusations civilly, calling a spade a spade. They must be allowed to express their opinions about the accused.

If editors want to avoid seeing unpleasant comments on their talk page, they should behave and avoid controversy. One must act like a mature adult here, and that includes having a thick skin. While editors in good standing, who are not currently blocked, have some rights on their own talk page, those who are not in such good standing have even fewer rights. Such editors must be even more careful to avoid improper refactoring, and their right to ban even uncivil editors from their talk page is inversely proportional to their current controversial status as a blocked editor. A block does not confer more rights; it has the opposite effect.

When blocked, editors will naturally be the subject of intense and often quite unpleasant discussion, some of which may seem to them as uncivil, and their talk page is often the natural place for such discussion to happen. Therefore they will just have to roll with the punches and reply civilly and honestly, without responding with personal attacks, deletion of unpleasant comments, or banning editors with whom they are, or ever have been, in conflict. Failure to do so creates a very bad impression and increases the likelihood that their block will be lengthened, their talk page access removed, or their block turned into a full site ban.

Potential content here

 * My comments to Jenagewen


 * Discriminated treatment: My Page and My Talk Page has been heavily damaged! (Result: Filer indeffed)