Forum Moderators: phranque
Wiki is made up of user contributed information, so what is to stop me contributing to ABC Articles and then also adding my work to Wikipedia?
Are you sure that the sites you are finding didnt scrape from wikipedia? I know of a few sites that use information from wikipedia, both with and without consent.
both with and without consent.
You do not need consent to re-publish Wikipedia information - it's public domain under the GFDL.
TJ
You do not need consent to re-publish Wikipedia information
I think the point is that most people don't feel they need to get consent to repuplish ON wikipedia. It is a problem. Well meaning contributors will sometimes republish wholesale things from another person's site. Sure, you can go in and delete it, but I think that most publishers do not want to police wikipedia's results on top of everything else.
I had my own work scraped with no credit back to me.
That's different - you should email or write to Wikipedia in the same way that you would ask any other website to c & d.
TJ
Wiki is a nice idea, but well meaning or downright nefarious people can and are taking advantage of it to the harm of other sites.
Wikipedia does not want or even tolerate stolen content.
As for deleting your own work what you find is the next editor just comes along and reverts your edit.
[edited by: soapystar at 4:08 pm (utc) on June 13, 2006]
Advice to all who find their original content on Wikipedia
like I said, that's alot of policing and work to protect what is mine already.
Wikipedia does not want or even tolerate stolen content.
Wikipedia may not, but what's to stop a troll like editor who has decided that an area is "their" domain. It is already going the slow road to death like DMOZ.
alot of policing and work to protect what is mine already
Welcome to reality! The information age makes it easier, but it's not the cause for IP theft.
what's to stop a troll like editor who has decided that an area is "their" domain
Everybody is a Wikipedia editor (one of the biggest differences to DMOZ). And every editor is the reviewer of every other editor (the second biggest difference). There is a clear escalation process to be taken in case of an "edit war". And as long as the content is by yourself, you are in the best position.
Yes, it is work to protect what is yours. But that is not Wikipedias fault. In contrast, Wikipedia makes it very easy to protect it, compared to the gazillion of scraper sites which you CAN'T control!
Everybody is a Wikipedia editor
Ahhh... yes. The same as anyone could sign up to be a DMOZ editor. Fantastic system both until the blush of novelty wears off. Then you are just left with people editing who are only doing so for their own benefit.
I understand that we have recourse, yada yada. What I am saying is that people are abusing the system and it will escalate until wikipedia is just yet another inernet would-have-been-nice-if-people-were-not-such-a$$es footnote.
In the end i had to leave a note in the history section that my work should not be used without a credit and prompted them to check the wayback machine for who had the information first.
That's a good way to deal with it. Good post btw pmk with the bullet point directions of how to remove.
TJ
Before the John Siegenthaler scandal, I think many people didn't realize it was an open source resource. If it's a controversial topic, be prepared to turn on your "garbage alert".
However consent is given in accordance with the conditions set out in the GFDL, if those conditions were not adhered to, would that not be a breach of consent?
If not then surely the GFDL is useless?
if those conditions were not adhered to, would that not be a breach of consent?
Sure. A breach of the "licence", technically.
TJ
