User talk:MLauba/Copyviocore


 * See original template at copyviocore

What I've done and why
I've edited the template. I: So, what do we think? What did I mess up? What more could we do to make this as painless as possible without creating a wall of text? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed the color to a less stern blue and the copyright warning symbol to the copyright question symbol. This was done to make it less in-your-face and accusatory.
 * Moved the instructions not to restore the content up, because the knee-jerk reaction is often to remove the template.
 * Moved the instructions for filing to the bottom, but left a reference. The instructions used to be at the bottom; we moved them up because people weren't following them. However, they should not be so prominently the first thing people see. Alternatively, we could leave them where we are and collapse them if we can collapse content within the template without messing it up.
 * In the untitled "What the heck is going on?" section, removed bolding from the deletion pending warning, but kept it big. It needs to be visible, so people know what can happen, but not alarming. We've got a week.
 * Moved the "contents still visible" statement up to this section, as it doesn't really fit in the section it used to be in, which was all about copyright.
 * Linked to the CP instructions, which are now far more complete than they used to be, in the "How can you help resolve this issue?"
 * Softened the language about appropriateness of inclusion (but retained it)
 * Scary bolding removed from "You can write a new article without infringing material" section; clarified those instructions in light of rev-deletion options for admins.
 * Gave a title to the "about copyright" section and trimmed it, with a link to the very user-friendly Copy-paste.
 * Excellent changes. I decided to number the steps for donation to lessen the wall of text aspect further. MLauba (Talk) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I toyed around with collapsing some of the instructions, you can check it out [ here]. MLauba (Talk) 13:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like!!! If nobody objects, let's get it in, and I'll tweak the instructions after.:D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NortyNort rightly pointed out that collapsing doesn't work on IE8 and older, though. MLauba (Talk) 14:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for NortyNort for knowing that. :/ How do people in IE8 see it? (I have to log out now and go work as Maggie Dennis.:D I'll be back later!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Educated guess: They'd only see it expanded. MLauba (Talk) 14:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Other alternative layout proposed with filing instructions in a cell to the right. MLauba (Talk) 14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd use infringement instead of issue at the top. "About importing text to Wikipedia" and "Instructions for filing" can also be collapsed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 14:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we moved away from infringement - that one is a term with legal connotations. As we have a higher bar for inclusion than what courts currently consider infringement, I think using distinct language removes both the lawyering but also the bite from the conversation. For the other suggestions, the filing instructions I agree about collapsing (in fact we could move them back to the top), but I'd leave the 'About importing text" as is. MLauba (Talk) 14:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit more tweaking. I've reduced the color intensity for the collapse sections to keep it from popping as much as the header and overwhelming the text around. I've collapsed the "rewrite" section and taken advantage of that real estate shift by expanding them a bit. I agree about collapsing the instructions. I tried to bring the instructions back up and collapse them, but, alas, it breaks for me. I, too, think we ought to keep the "About importing text" section visible; it's pretty important to avoid good-faith contributors inadvertently landing on the wrong side of a copyright block. (Oh, our color contrasts are AAA conformant! Whoot!)


 * I'm feeling good about the direction we're taking here. :) I'm going to invite feedback from any interested talk page stalkers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Issue" is appropriately non-judgmental. How about softening the impact of the (reasonable) peremptory "do not touch" instruction by inserting an explanation along the lines of "Copyright issues are very important for Wikipedia so do not restore or edit the blanked content until ..." "Copyright issues are very important for Wikipedia - so the blanked content on this page must not be restored or edited until ..." etc.? Opbeith (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And how about a more direct invitation?:


 * //Can you// help resolve this issue?
 * For more //information about// this topic, see Wikipedia:CP#Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation.
 * If you hold the copyright to this text, //you can license it// to Wikipedia //X//. Click "Show" to see how.[show]
 * //Show// that this text is in the public domain, or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia. Click "Show" for more information.[show]
 * (or to avoid "Show" and "Show", "//Prove//that this text is in the public domain ..."
 * (or to avoid "Show" and "Show", "//Prove//that this text is in the public domain ..."


 * Explain this on this article's discussion page, //and provide// evidence. Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Compatibly licensed may assist in determining the status.
 * (Not sure where that came from)


 * //Write// a new article without //copyright-infringing// material. Click "Show" to read where and how.
 * Opbeith (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "About importing text to Wikipedia" - How about simplifying: "Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is // unlawful and against // Wikipedia policy."? And complicating: "//If you// repeatedly post copyrighted material //we will have no alternative but to block you // from further editing."? Opbeith (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What is meant by all the slashes? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * //The bit that's changed// the rest not changed. And //X// means whatever was there has gone. Opbeith (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the update, can you find a user-friendly collective term that can go in front of "(an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent)" - the Wikipedia titles are rather surreal when first encountered.Opbeith (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your suggestions, Opbeith, and have implemented them. :) One point of concern, I've tweaked the "write a new article" section. I don't want people thinking that this is in addition to the other steps, as it's an "all else failing" option. ("more details" is part of the more text.) With the "if you repeatedly post", I myself try very hard to avoid personalizing that threat, which sometimes does result in convoluted language. But I like to approach it less from a "If you do this we will hurt you!" perspective and more from a "This is what has happened to other people, but surely never to you" angle. I've tried making the language less officious without making it directly threatening, but I don't know if I've made it better or worse:
 * "Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material will be blocked from further editing."
 * "Policy requires that we block those who repeatedly post copyrighted material without express permission."
 * Thoughts on this anybody?


 * I think given the elastic of "repeatedly" and the emollient of "We will have no alternative" it's not over-menacing but I take your point about the "personalisation". "Those who ..." is less "voice of authority" than "Policy requires ...".  How about "If someone repeatedly posts copyrighted material after being asked not to we will have no alternative ..."? Opbeith (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have yet to come up with any collective term that isn't horrifically officious. :D "authorized personnel"? "designated agents"? I've linked up admin and copyright clerk. Maybe that will help? (I can't think of any better term for OTRS agent that will not confuse newcomers or get very long: "registered member of the Wikimedia Foundation volunteer response team"? Ack.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "Someone acting on behalf of Wikipedia"? (No need to worry too much how loose that is as you're defining who you mean inside the brackets) Opbeith (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I didn't mean that you needed to do away with Bartleby the scrivener et al, they could still be listed in brackets after the general description (might even help desensitise potential reactors coming across the copyright clerks and OTRS agents for the first time). Opbeith (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My only concern about that would be people saying, "I'm acting on behalf of Wikipedia" :D What about this:
 * "Copyright issues are very important for Wikipedia, so the blanked content on this page must not be restored or edited until the issue has been resolved by someone authorized to do so (administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent)."
 * (Formatting lazily removed.) Is that any better? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds OK to me - though perhaps another Wikipedia in there somewhere with the agents - "someone at WP authorised to do so" or (WP administrator, CC or OTRSA) would give "someone" a bit more anchorage.  Opbeith (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did that, but just because it was getting really long removed the "Copyright issues are very important for Wikipedia, so...." If that makes this too unfriendly, it can be put back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think at this stage some other opinions and diversification of input are needed, you've already done a lot to take my views into account! Opbeith (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the way this is going. More and more long-winded and convoluted wording for... what? The message is "don't touch it unless you're an admin, CP clerk or OTRS agent", period. The "someone authorized to do so" wording is very weak, and I'm tempted to add a after someone. Or to question who authorized anyone.

We can soften the rest of the text as much as needed, but this sentence worked best in its original form. MLauba (Talk) 10:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've been wasting your time and annoying you. Opbeith (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa! 0 to 60. :D Evidently, there's disagreement on this one sentence. Disagreements happen. I think you bring valuable perspective here, and I bet we can find a version that incorporates some of your concerns while still addressing MLauba's. What about if we use the original text but move the alarming jargony stuff to the end of the sentence?
 * The original: "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent has resolved this issue."
 * The current: "The blanked content on this page must not be restored or edited until the issue has been resolved by someone at Wikipedia authorized to do so (administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent)."
 * The "maybe-this-can-work": "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent."
 * That may not be quite as satisfying as a user friendly collective noun, but pushes the surreality to the end of the sentence while still keeping the clarity and brevity in place? It shouldn't leave any room for questions as to who can resolve, since it's spelled out right there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither wasting my time nor annoying me, Opbeith. Sometimes there needs to be an alternative proposed to find out what I don't like. Giving thought and voice on why the status quo is preferable (in my opinion only) is always better than simply doing things as they always were because it always was like that, if you catch my drift. So by all means carry on but don't take a statement of dislike as an attack or anything similar. This sandbox exists because we started challenging the usefulness of the old template, and there are certainly no sacred cows to preserve. MLauba (Talk) 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am OK with the "maybe-this-can-work" wording of the sentence in question. It's hard to get around but it is what it is. This isn't necessarily a suggestion for the template but maybe documentation but the use of  can put it in a blanked section as opposed to the whole article. I think this is helpful when the rest of an article' content is OK. Overall, I think this revamped template is good to go and an improvement.--NortyNort  (Holla) 12:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, added a blurb to the filing instructions segment. Am also fine with the Maybe this can work proposal, which I'm going to add in now. MLauba (Talk) 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl and MLauba, that wasn't intended as a genuine reply to MLauba, but it might have been. In "real" (ie for these purposes Wikipedia) life people do go from 0 to 60.  If you shout at me "Keep off the Grass!" I might possibly hang around to join you in a discussion of the vulnerability of adventitious root systems and other aspects of long-term turf management but alternatively I might very quickly decide that I can think of places I'd rather spend my time than in the park. If the first sign that I've done something wrong is a set of bared teeth I may not choose to hang around for the kiss that's coming. That's the point I was trying to make. Not baring teeth is the reason why we're here, isn't it? And actually, I think the "maybe this can work" isn't bad, just a bit odd. Opbeith (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it resolves the issues, it works for me. :D I've proposed to replace the original template with this at Template_talk:Copyviocore. I'll note it at WT:CP and WT:C, I suppose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses
Not sure whether this is where responses are expected. This new template looks very fine indeed to me. It is well constructed and, for me, has an appropriate tone. if you want a criticism, I would suggest that "Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement" is too definite. If the text is sufficiently modified it may well avoid copyright infringement. So a "may not be" would be more correct. Better, lead the editor into the spirit of Close paraphrasing (which I do agree with) with something like "Changing wording merely by closely paraphrasing copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement" and continue with the rest of the sentence unchanged. I'm sorry this is more wordy but someone else will be able to do better. Thincat (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) It's such a hard concept to convey. :/ I think your proposed alterantive wording works fine except that I think we should say, "Changing the wording and organization of the content merely by closely paraphrasing copyrighted text is not sufficient". I always worry, though, that people go "organization? What?" But I'm not sure how else to get across the idea that inverting words doesn't do it, not even if you change some of them, what the court refers to as a "crude effort to give the appearance of dissimilarity". Is there a better word than organization? Structure? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would "Close paraphrasing (close rewording) isn't enough to get around the problem of copyright violation, the information itself needs to be presented in a clearly different way." help? Opbeith (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't hold up the launch though. The existing template has the same wording but without linking to the close paraphrasing document. Also, I only realised after making my original remark that this seems to be in the context of writing a new article based on the old but with the previous editing history deleted. So, strictly, one should be avoiding copyright infringement of previous WP editors as well as the substantive material infringed. I have never been in this situation which looks as if it is something Dante might feel inspired to write about! Thincat (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! It's a pain, to be sure. :D I went ahead and implemented it as it is, since that portion is neither better or worse than what we had. Maybe we could move conversation about fixing it to the template talk page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One, minor, technical comment
Should [ page history] actually read [ page history] so that the template works correctly on non-article space pages? Otherwise I do think it's an improvement on the previous version and we should implement it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no clue, but I note that the inconsistent uses of PAGENAME and FULLPAGENAME in this template are the same as that in copyviocore. This is way outside of my area, though, so I don't know why the use is inconsistent there. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the reason it's inconsistent in the current template is that when I updated the current template to cope with non-article pages I missed changing one and so the PAGENAME should actually be FULLPAGENAME on the current template as well but I wanted to get confirmation it wasn't deliberate in this version and that it is just a result of copying from the original especially as fullurl is a function I don't know much about. Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it was just copied over as a base. But I didn't do that, so I'm not 100% sure. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can fix it so it works at all locations, by all means. :) It's in template space now. I had to repair one technical issue (see below), but since my repair method is trial and error based on what seems to be working elsewhere, I'd rather leave that to somebody who knows what they're doing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Implemented
I've implemented this, although I had to change part of the instructions. For some reason, the link to add the listing to the copyright page leads to an error message. I just imported the old instructions.

During my test drives, I did find the instructions inconveniently located. I'm thinking that moving them back to the top might be the best choice. We want people to actually follow them. :D Anyway, further conversation at Template talk:Copyviocore? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)