The myth of reference sources Options

[thekohser]

A recent study proves what most of us here knew all along. For all of the hype about how Wikipedia is more and more reliable thanks to the reference sources that pepper its articles, when it comes right down to it, even college students are oblivious to what the references are actually pointing to when they evaluate the credibility of a Wikipedia article.

(Thankfully, as a paid editor, I can sometimes use this to my advantage... puffing out references that are barely relevant to what is claimed in the article. But if that's what it takes to make the content stick, so be it.)

(It's also a nifty trick to get vandalism to hold in place.)

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 7th June 2011, 3:30pm

[lilburne]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

[communicat]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

Re copyright violations: WP can be sued for monetary compensation only in locations where it has assets. I doubt if WP has any assets in Netherlands, regardless of whether or not a Dutch court recognises the validity of CC licenses. Only in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers (and presumably its assets) are hosted, is Wikipedia effectively accountable to copyright laws as defined by Florida on the basis of CC licensing, which as far as I know is not recognised in the legal systems of most other countries. Naturally, nobody is his right mind would be tempted to sue for copyright violation in State of California, because CC licensing is officially endorsed there. For which reason nobody in his right mind would even contemplate suing the well-protected WP in California. Clever guy, this Jimbo.

There are many WP articles that have no text reference citations at all; they rely for their "credibility" purely on the strength of the images -- "a photo never lies", kind of thing. Meanwhile, I know of graphics oriented "editors" who're drawn to WP only because it gives them the opportunity to play around with a huge archive of "fair use" images. They're evidently happy to scrape together just any old mindless (and usually unsourced) textual content simply to fill the irritating spaces between pictures.

This post has been edited by communicat: Wed 17th August 2011, 2:17pm

[lilburne]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

Re copyright violations: WP can be sued for monetary compensation only in locations where it has assets. I doubt if WP has any assets in Netherlands, regardless of whether or not a Dutch court recognises the validity of CC licenses. Only in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers (and presumably its assets) are hosted, is Wikipedia effectively accountable to copyright laws as defined by Florida on the basis of CC licensing, which as far as I know is not recognised in the legal systems of most other countries. Naturally, nobody is his right mind would be tempted to sue for copyright violation in State of California, because CC licensing is officially endorsed there. For which reason nobody in his right mind would even contemplate suing the well-protected WP in California. Clever guy, this Jimbo.

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

[communicat]

Far as I know the only place that CC licenses have been upheld in court is in the Netherlands. That isn't to say that they won't standup elsewhere but that the Netherlands is the one place where the validity of the CC licenses actually were challenged in court, and the court found the infringer liable.

Re copyright violations: WP can be sued for monetary compensation only in locations where it has assets. I doubt if WP has any assets in Netherlands, regardless of whether or not a Dutch court recognises the validity of CC licenses. Only in Florida, where Wikipedia's servers (and presumably its assets) are hosted, is Wikipedia effectively accountable to copyright laws as defined by Florida on the basis of CC licensing, which as far as I know is not recognised in the legal systems of most other countries. Naturally, nobody is his right mind would be tempted to sue for copyright violation in State of California, because CC licensing is officially endorsed there. For which reason nobody in his right mind would even contemplate suing the well-protected WP in California. Clever guy, this Jimbo.

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

You misunderstand me, or maybe I've failed to make myself understood. Whatever. It is precisely because CC license is recognised in Florida that WMF can avoid being sued for copyright violation, because there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation" in Florida. Unless, of course, someone at OTRS and/or image monitoring crew really screws up and gets the license format completely wrong or something like that, which is quite unlikely. OTRS and/or image license monitoring crew seems to be one of the few, maybe even the only, administrative branch of WP that functions efficiently, for obvious reasons i.e to avoid opening WP to possibility of copyright litigation, even in Florida, with it's very flexible and accommodating copyright laws.

[lilburne]

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

You misunderstand me, or maybe I've failed to make myself understood. Whatever. It is precisely because CC license is recognised in Florida that WMF can avoid being sued for copyright violation, because there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation"

Whoops. The CC license is simply a license, it grants someone the ability to use a work, so long as they fulfil certain criteria, in particular attribution and the link to the relevant license. The question regarding CC licenses is whether the terms of the license are enforceable. Saying that the terms aren't enforceable because license is recognised, is nonsensical.

EDIT: Additionally the North California courts have found that the conditions attached to CC type licenses are a condition on the use:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200810...s-may-constitut

break the conditions and the use is copyright violation.


This post has been edited by lilburne: Wed 17th August 2011, 11:21pm

[communicat]

What makes you think that the CC license isn't recognised in Florida? And if it isn't then which part of it isn't, and how does that make WMF immune from being sued for copyright violation?

You misunderstand me, or maybe I've failed to make myself understood. Whatever. It is precisely because CC license is recognised in Florida that WMF can avoid being sued for copyright violation, because there is virtually no such thing as "copyright violation"

Whoops. The CC license is simply a license, it grants someone the ability to use a work, so long as they fulfil certain criteria, in particular attribution and the link to the relevant license. The question regarding CC licenses is whether the terms of the license are enforceable. Saying that the terms aren't enforceable because license is recognised, is nonsensical.

EDIT: Additionally the North California courts have found that the conditions attached to CC type licenses are a condition on the use:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200810...s-may-constitut

break the conditions and the use is copyright violation.

Interesting. But the real question is: Does WP/WMF have assets in N. California? If not, then it's not worth suing for compensation and recovery of litigation costs if the culprit is judged to have violated copyright. In other words, WP/WMF is theoretically only worth suing in Florida, where it has assets that can be seized if the judgment goes against it, and if it then fails or refuses to pay up. Given the singularly liberal and flexible CC-based copyright laws in Florida, however, the dice would in any event be heavily loaded in favour of WP/WMF. That's all I'm saying.