Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-29/In the news

"graphic banners featuring Jimmy Wales (which had been proved to be most effective in testing)" -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to find out who came up with the idea of being able turn those banners off in preferences. I'd pat them on the back for a job well done. :) Rockfang (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, see Fundraising 2010/Banner testing. It was the definitive winner. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fetchy, there's a nice little blog article where it shows that the statistics for the Jimmy banner are a bit skewed. I'm currently looking for it, but I remember sending a link to James about it (I believe James put together the stats). Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, can't seem to find it. Maybe James has logs or something. Killiondude (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and that page was already linked in the article (see "the Foundation's banner testing results" in the paragraph about AOL Urlesque), as well as in the Signpost background article linked at the top.
 * However, it does not appear to contain all the testing results (only mentions tests conducted before the fundraiser started, and none testing personal appeals from community members). According to the banner history page and recent updates from the fundraising staff (as well as earlier comments by Philippe in the media, see last week's Signpost), a banner featuring the appeal by Kartika was tested several times on US readers, and performed well, although I can't find a page giving actual testing results (wmf:Special:ContributionTrackingStatistics seems to be intended to provide that kind of information, but it appears to be malfunctioning at the moment).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the novel is automatically CC BY-SA, even when it would have included bits of Wikipedia. I can't remember the exact phrasing CC BY-SA uses, but GNU GPL (another copyleft license) basically has the statement "if you don't agree with the license, then you can ignore it, but your rights are then outlined in the standard copyright law". The author of the novel chose to ignore CC BY-SA, and chose not to apply it to the work. In that case, it is then up to the authors of the Wikipedia passages and the author in question to find an agreement that satisfies both parties (for example, relicensing the book), or the author has to remove those passages and cease distributing them in a manner that violates CC BY-SA. Copyleft licenses are "viral" because people consciously make note that they're obligated, by the license terms, to apply them in the derivative works. It doesn't work automatically. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and an addition: Since this issue also touches fair-use and excerpting, that's actually a good example of people ignoring the license and letting the thing revert to standard copyright law. If you're just taking a small quote of text out of Wikipedia, you're usually ignoring the CC license and exercising the fair-use power granted by the copyright law. Nobody is crying bloody murder over short, attributed Wikipedia quotes - and nobody should. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyleft

 * Regarding the Houellebecq controversy: that's certainly a bold claim! I'm not too wise on copyright law, but does Gallaire have anything even close to a valid claim on the licensig of teh book because it ripped Wikipedia?  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)