Skip to main content
Topic: Discussion of wiki policy (Read 12124 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #1
Proposed structure:
  • Behavioral: standards for behavior.
  • Content: which topics are welcome.
  • Enforcement: what action authorised users can take to enforce other policies.
  • Deletion: deleting articles that are considered undesirable.
  • Legal and copyright: firm rules about what material may be used here, and remedies for misuse.

A good starting point would be categorizing each TOS into these categories.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #2
Legal and copyright is amusing, we use images from wikipedia without permission - e.g. fooby screenshot.

edit: rather without crediting + adding gfdl notice. we don't need permission as such
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #3
I believe that the case you are refering to falls into fair use. I may be wrong though.
I doubt Peter would have any issues with using a screenshot of foobar in the official foobar wiki

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #4
I doubt Peter would have any issues with using a screenshot of foobar in the official foobar wiki

Of course he won't, the point is that you still supposed to say it's his, and not your original work (i.e. you didn't press PrintScreen to get it). Otherwise it's plagiarism. Just because you probably won't get punished for it, doesn't make it any less a plagiarism.
The Plan Within Plans

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #5
That is something to be addressed by the wiki policies (legal and copyright category). Until then, this kind of thing will most likely happen frequently.
Volunteers would be more than welcome to contribute. Specially people with knowledge about copyright such as rjamorim or yourself (apparently).
A lot of work is needed in the wiki and up till now we have only 3 or 4 brave individuals contributing on a regular basis (apart from the ones that contribute on a not so regular basis).

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #6
the thing about the low contribution rate is that most members of HA (myself included) are users/consumers, we know little to nothing, there are guides that tell us which switches to use, and we use them under assumption that people who made those posts know what they are doing. that's all there is to it, for most of us anyway.
The Plan Within Plans

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #7
I understand that, but I am sure there are specific areas where people can contribute. You know, the wiki is not only technical stuff. 
For instance, due to your comment regarding copyright in this thread I assume you know something about the subject. So you could contribute your knowledge to the wiki. Even if your knowledge is limited it would still bring value and someone could correct possible mistakes later.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #8
No, it's nicked from a GFDL image in wikipedia without saying it's GFDL. That isn't fair use, it's illegal. We can just add the GFDL image and link back to the one on wikipedia's foobar page and it'll be fine.
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #9
No, it's nicked from a GFDL image in wikipedia without saying it's GFDL. That isn't fair use, it's illegal. We can just add the GFDL image and link back to the one on wikipedia's foobar page and it'll be fine.

lol in that case, it'll probably be easier for someone to just hit PrintScreen again and upload that

as for my knowledge of copyright, it's actually fairly low, I'm just somewhat versed in the subject of plagiarism (having to write a bunch of papers almost every week, and even smallest plagiarism resulting in automatic failure, profs are not as easy going as teachers in schools on this subject)
The Plan Within Plans

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #10
I'd like to have the opinion of the admins to the proposed wiki policy (so far).  Maybe Jan (and others) could provide some input as to if we are on the right track and not missing anything obvious.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #11
Quote
I understand that, but I am sure there are specific areas where people can contribute. You know, the wiki is not only technical stuff.


... and it shouldn't go beyond the scope of the scientific stuff either. The only reason that's there to deal with DSP related topics that relate to what we are doing here. It's very time consuming task to write guides for the wiki I don't mind doing it myself, but you need to work on it one step at a time.  It depends on what the users needs are too. I noticed that software tends to be very important to a lot of users so it's good to expand out in that area. There are quite a few users that would like to see CDex ported over to Linux, etc. Also there is no reason to police the wiki. This is not wikipedia. I am sure they might be a few copyright violations here and there, but there is nothing substantial. References are important however.
budding I.T professional

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #12
I agree with HotshotGG.

I don't think "Policing" is necessary... but more "prevention". And if we do come across something, know how to fix it.

BTW, I don't think a screencap is copyright-able.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #13
The Korean Wikipedia takes fair use very seriously. Since Korea doesn't have any fair-use laws, no screenshots of non-free programs may be uploaded there.

Screencaps are allowed under US law through fair use.

At the English Wikipedia.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #14
BTW, I don't think a screencap is copyright-able.

Yes... yes it is. It is very much so. Just add a link back to the image and the appropriate tag, you can find them on WP's foobar page. I was just making a point.

And "policing" is neccessary on every wiki, IMO. Otherwise they become spamfests.
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #15
No kidding... I mean I am not trying to duplicate a program's functionality here, just wanting to show what the program is doing at a certain moment in time?

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #16
Yep, it's stupid. But surely we can use the one from the official site if we link to it and add a fair use description?
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #17
Due to the discussion in this thread I feel we have to elaborate the ownership of articles policy in the behavioral section of the wiki policy.
Apparently some members feel that a different policy should be applied to the user related pages. Well to me it makes sense to keep the user pages, well, personal in the sense that the user would have ownership and decide what to do with them.... However this is somewhat against the spirit of a wiki IMHO.
What do you think? Should we restrict editing of user pages to the users or keep it as is?

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #18
i think so. why would i want to edit your page?

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #19
Well, the talk page has to be editable by everyone so discussion can take place there. See an example: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Beto

What I mean is if the policy should restrict edits in the user pages to the user only. I don't know if it is technically possible to restrict editing of pages to regular users.


edit: clarification.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #20
Should we restrict editing of user pages to the users or keep it as is?


I think editions should remain unrestricted, in true wiki spirit. If someone messes with someone else's pages in a way that displeases him, he'd better have a good reason then. But I wouldn't mind if someone somehow noticed that my page was outdated (I'm 24 now) and fixed that for me...

The policy should be the same with other articles: if you fuck up, you'd better have a very good reason/excuse or face whatever punishment the wiki admins deem appropriate. In the particular case of the user pages, I'd say that, when in doubt, don't edit. But prohibiting editions altogether is a little too much and might come back to bite us later.

I don't know if it is technically possible to restrict editing of pages to regular users.


That would require some major hacks in MediaWiki. Big no-no.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #21
I agree with rjamorim. For all I care, nuke the user pages (with appropriate notice so I can back certain things up). I believe that the user whose username is given on the user page should be the one who ultimately determines its content, be it a talk page or the actual user page. If the user edits out someone elses comment on his user page, it's obvious he's read and responded to it.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #22
My opinion on wikis is that the way the software works goes above all (obviously), then for user: namespaces the users opinion, but other users may edit user pages, just as other users may revert it. Just my 2 cents.
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #23
I feel editing of other people's user pages should be strongly discouraged (except for fixing deadlinks or formatting errors, but no typo corrections.)

Adding messages to other people's user talk pages should of course be OK, but deletion of any content on user talk pages (even your own) should be discouraged. Archival should be OK.

edit: Notice how I said "discouraged" instead of "forbidden." These can be part of guidelines, rules that aren't policy.

Discussion of wiki policy

Reply #24
What if we do something like this:

ORIGINAL
Quote
Ownership of articles

You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.


PROPOSED
Quote
Ownership of articles

You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.
When editing user pages it is discouraged to make significant changes without discussing beforehand with the user in the user talk page.


Would that be too restrictive?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019