Difference between revisions of "Community Portal"
m
→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: breaking up over-large point #2
imported>DragoonWraith m (→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: more formatting...) |
imported>DragoonWraith m (→About removing bylines on mainspace articles: breaking up over-large point #2) |
||
| Line 812: | Line 812: | ||
::# "Courtesy is expected" does not mean and was not intended to mean "don't touch it" – it means literally that you should respect the original author if he or she can be found. I wrote that tag originally, so I would know. In fact, we were ''hoping'' that the line would, itself, ''encourage'' authors to edit the article, since it explicitly said that they could even though it was bylined. Bylines, prior to the warning being added to the page, struck many as claiming ownership, which is not (and never has been) allowed on this Wiki. | ::# "Courtesy is expected" does not mean and was not intended to mean "don't touch it" – it means literally that you should respect the original author if he or she can be found. I wrote that tag originally, so I would know. In fact, we were ''hoping'' that the line would, itself, ''encourage'' authors to edit the article, since it explicitly said that they could even though it was bylined. Bylines, prior to the warning being added to the page, struck many as claiming ownership, which is not (and never has been) allowed on this Wiki. | ||
::# While I agree that authors have had a very long time to respond, the fact of the matter is that there was never a systematic attempt to contact them, and as a result, there may be authors who have not been ignoring the notice for five years – they have been ''unaware'' of it for five years. Which is not the same thing, and moreover copyright definitely does not expire in five years even if you ignore it. While the authors ''do not'' have copyright on their contributions here, they may have contributed ''believing that they did'' due to a lack of clarity here at the time. The original decision with respect to bylines was that we would give those contributors the benefit of a "courtesy copyright" insofar as they could choose to remove the page in its entirety if they did not agree with the new enforcement of the rules. Note that contributors do not generally have the right to remove their work once submitted to the Wiki. | ::# While I agree that authors have had a very long time to respond, the fact of the matter is that there was never a systematic attempt to contact them, and as a result, there may be authors who have not been ignoring the notice for five years – they have been ''unaware'' of it for five years. Which is not the same thing, and moreover copyright definitely does not expire in five years even if you ignore it. | ||
::# While the authors ''do not'' have copyright on their contributions here, they may have contributed ''believing that they did'' due to a lack of clarity here at the time. The original decision with respect to bylines was that we would give those contributors the benefit of a "courtesy copyright" insofar as they could choose to remove the page in its entirety if they did not agree with the new enforcement of the rules. Note that contributors do not generally have the right to remove their work once submitted to the Wiki. | |||
::# We have long had a policy (sadly undocumented, most likely) of removing bylines when they are no longer accurate, i.e. that one author is not the only significant contributor to a page because later editors have (courteously) updated and improved upon it. Since this is ''exactly'' what we want people to do, it makes sense in that case to remove the byline. | ::# We have long had a policy (sadly undocumented, most likely) of removing bylines when they are no longer accurate, i.e. that one author is not the only significant contributor to a page because later editors have (courteously) updated and improved upon it. Since this is ''exactly'' what we want people to do, it makes sense in that case to remove the byline. | ||
::# Deprecated or simply poor articles should be deleted or rewritten, no matter who wrote them originally or what name they may have appended to them. In such cases, a rewrite would certainly qualify for byline removal under the third point (such a rewrite is sufficient but definitely not necessary for byline removal). | ::# Deprecated or simply poor articles should be deleted or rewritten, no matter who wrote them originally or what name they may have appended to them. In such cases, a rewrite would certainly qualify for byline removal under the third point (such a rewrite is sufficient but definitely not necessary for byline removal). | ||