Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Without online source

I'd like to propose a change of process here for suspected infringements without a source.

The problem: In the current process, an article will get listed here, and everyone will agree that, yes, it kind of looks like a copyright violation, but then again it might not be. So it sits here forever, taking up space on the WP:CP page.

My proposal: If you suspect a copyright violation, but can't find a source, then don't list it here; instead, tag it with cv-unsure on the talk page. This tag takes in 2 parameters: your username and the oldid of the article version. So you would use it like. The template in this case would look like this:

This would automatically add the article to Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source. What do you think? Is this a good idea? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of points:
 * Do we still blank the article? I figure we do, since the purpose of blanking is to prevent us displaying text we have a suspicion regarding (and to discourage mirrors, who seem to display the tag anyway!). If we don't, then this will result in talk pages getting this tag, them never getting actioned in the same way as at present, and us continuing to display text that is semi-knowingly illegal.
 * We should definitely not use the language of consensus, since copyright infringement is not a matter of consensus. People often make this mistake. It either infringes or it does not, and we do not get to 'vote' on it. An admin who concludes it infringes, should delete it irrespective of the numeric balance of the discussion. Clearly discussion is fine, and can help clarify the issue, but it's not like a *fD process, where consensus rules.
 * -Splash talk 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. When it comes to suspected infringements without online source (SIWOS), people generally don't blank the page or add the copyvio tag, since they're not sure it's a violation. I would think this would be the same here. If you're sure enough to blank it, then go ahead and list it on WP:CP. But if it just looks like a copyvio (but might be someone's own work, or might be a PD US-Gov publication), then just put the tag on the talk page. If we aren't pretty sure that an article is a copyvio, I don't think we should remove the content. Since it will have a category, people can go through them, so they shouldn't wither on the vine. And if they do, it may be because it's not actually a copyvio.
 * So far as the word "consensus" goes, you're right. I'll change it. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing to keep in mind is that it is impossible to prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. If Smith posts a text, and Jones claims "This looks like a copyright violation to me", it's up to Jones to prove it is one, not up to Smith to prove it isn't one. Angr/ talk 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While this procedure might be okay for articles that have a some chance of being copyright violations, I don't think it is appropriate for articles that are almost certainly copyright violations. When the source is not found, but the article has blatant signs of being a copyright violation, the source is probably no longer online, is not indexed by Google or the text is from an offline source. Estimates of pages not indexed range from more than half to 80% of web pages and even if they are indexed, the content may have changed or the index might be too old or too new to have the content, as only a small percentage of websites are indexed frequently. Also, someone could add all the articles he or she wants from books and we'd be unable to do anything about it unless someone is able to recognize where it came from, which is unlikely in most cases. Even if someone devotes all their time to it, it would be nearly impossible to find most of these sources. Finally, it makes Wikipedia look bad if we are willing to accept material that is almost certainly copyrighted as long as the source cannot be identified.


 * I would not want to do any work on such articles, for ethical reasons and to avoid wasting time in case the source in the unlikely event the source is found. I think that the articles should be listed on copyright problems. Then an admin would look at the article and decide if he or she is sure enough that it is a copyright violation to delete it without finding the source. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed a misspelling in my comment and replaced a word that makes what I meant clearer. -- Kjkolb 04:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)