Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

 Not logged in
Log in | Help
 

Talk:Vote:CopyingFromWikipedia

From dKosopedia

Contents

Dicussions at dailyKos

Pyrrho 13:45, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

I agree with rob, the "vote:" page has too many comments on it... they should be moved here and leave the votes clean looking name after name.

Stirling... the point for me is why copy a bunch of COMPLETED text as a "stub"..? I'd rather see a rough list of bullet points of points that we would like to make in the article eventually. If paragraphs from Wikipedia support those points they can be brought in later like text and ideas from other sources.

--Pyrrho 15:10, 30 May 2004 (PDT) Lestat... I don't want to cramp your style or method. I have my opinion on the matter and I'll follow it for myself. I don't really begrudge you starting with a wiki article. But if I made such a bulleted list and rather than evolve that someone stomped it with a Wikipedia article, I'd be bugged, that's what some people were complaining about yesterday (not bulleted lists, but their original stub/seed work just getting stomped). In my opinion the bottom line is that it's case by case. If you want to start with a Wikipedia article, even if the policy is not to, that's still a matter of personal discretion (I have mentioned the exceptions that I see, for example). My thinking is not just about wiki resources... I don't see dkosopedia as needing to have an article on something unless it wants to have a unique take. It's really all about this 'point of view' issue... this wiki is about presenting a point of view of it's own. If you want to edit that point of view into existing copylefted text, I don't have an absolute preference about that... I just don't tend to prefer it.

Alternative policy statements for "Copying from Wikipedia"

Here's a list of possible (mutually exclusive) amendments to the dKosopedia:Policies and Guidelines:

  1. Copying whole articles from Wikipedia is highly discouraged. While copying outlines and summary paragraphs may be acceptable in some circumstances, it is usually not appropriate to copy whole articles from Wikipedia. Such copying creates more maintenance work for dkosopedians, subtracts left-leaning contributors from Wikipedia (implicitly ceding Wikipedia to the right), and makes dkosopedia less of a unique resource. (Proposed by User:RobLa
  2. Copying articles from Wikipedia should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It generally should not be done unless there is an immediate commitment from the copier to add a unique perspective to the article. Bulk copying from Wikipedia is highly discouraged.
  3. Copying articles from Wikipedia is encouraged. Articles from Wikipedia provide a great starting point for dkosopedia material. When copying, ensure that you are providing proper attribution to Wikipedia. (Proposed by Lestatdelc)

I suggest we assign owners to the above statements (from among the supporters of each), let the owners flesh them out, and vote on these (and possibly other) alternatives. -- RobLa 13:25, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

Legally required attribution

To be very clear, the GFDL that Wikipedia is covered under states that attribution is required. Therefore, any Wikipedia copying policy above should include the following:

Rather than incorporating this prose into the proposal above, I suggest that this is a separate item for immediate inclusion. Also, I am not a lawyer, and thus, I cannot ensure that the above statements meet our obligations under GFDL. I recommend using the above as a stopgap, and then getting a lawyer to review as appropriate. -- RobLa

Proposed procedure for vote

I propose that we call the current vote off, and do something loosely based on Wikipedia's polling guidelines:

  1. Call for proposals - let's make sure we've got the right proposals. Each proposal should have an owner, who is free to edit it during this phase. If someone has suggestions for new wording, they can either suggest them to the owner, or create a derivative proposal which they own. This ends __________(fill in date/time)
  2. Brief period/polling period to determine if the right set of alternatives are available, or if further debate discussion is needed. Editing/addition of proposals is frozen during this period. 60% needed to end debate. This ends __________(fill in date/time)
  3. Call for votes - voting begins. Editing of proposals is frozen at this time. One option must be "invalid poll". This ends ______(fill in date/time)
  4. Policy chosen.

For a voting system, I recommend Condorcet or Approval. That choice, unfortunately, is fraught with its own debate. As I recall, on Wikipedia during the logo voting, Approval beat out Condorcet, but my vote was/is on Condorcet.

I'd prefer someone else chooses the dates. I don't mind stretching this out over a longer period of time, since we are talking about a policy that will stick for quite some time, but I'm betting others won't have the patience for that. I suggest that our "interim government" come up with a policy while we work this out (which should consist of the folks that set up the software). In general, until ownership of this wiki transfers over to a foundation, I think it should be entirely at the discretion of these folks, since they have the most vested in the success of this, and are libel if things go off of the rails. -- RobLa 15:29, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

COPY OF VOTE: PAGE to PRESERVE COMMENTS

Should it be OK to copy Wikipedia content to dKosopedia articles?

Point of procedure

We should get a couple of things cleared up here:

-- RobLa 13:10, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

NO

Pyrrho 06:10, 30 May 2004 (PDT)


-Waltisfrozen 12:40, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

--Aaron Gillies 07:46, 30 May 2004 (PDT) If it's a verbatim copy, why not just put a link? Where I think this Wiki might be most valuable is in the collection of data from many sources, synthesized in such a way that they reflect the values of the emerging Democratic Internet grassroots. This is the true value added. A verbatim copy of Wikipedia data probably does not reflect this.

Hamletta 10:38, 30 May 2004 (PDT): I think it's a bad idea. If you haven't done any further research, how do you know the Wikipedia article is error-free? If there's something funky in there, copying the article just turns this into a game of Telephone. Better to just provide a link for the time being, and leave it open for someone to fill in an original article later.

Are we looking to provide a rich resource, or to just fill up space? I think some patience is in order here. Let's take the time to create something unique and valuable.

RobLa 12:14, 30 May 2004 (PDT): No, for reasons discussed on the dkosopedia talk:Policies and Guidelines page. Also, Eric Raymond's discussion of forking is a worthy read. Copying the article is the equivalent of forking.

YES

Power 15:12, 30 May 2004 (PDT) Yes, but most of the pages will need editing. It is licensed so it is OK, and many of us have worked on both.

--Aaron Gillies 12:33, 30 May 2004 (PDT) Stirling and Mitch, your points are well-taken. However, I think you are mistaking the intent of this poll and the question that I and others asked which led up to it. We're in the process of negotiating the terms of user culture on the wiki, right? This means that people need to be somewhat reflective about "what is practiced" and "what is not acceptable to practice." Even a totally open source system has these limits. No, it is not necessary for an admin to take action on what these limits are, but at some point, we are going to have to reach a meta level in order for consensus to evolve. Eventually, it will, but it won't unless people can ask questions and forward ideas in this sort of interaction without charges of "goosestepping" and "making shit happen."

-- Lestatdelc I agree adimently with User:Stirling Newberry's point. Cut and paste articles from Wikipedia are STARTING points, to be edited and expanded. Why this is even an issue is beyond me. As a long-time wikipedian this "stop people" crap is ridiculous. Yes there will inevitably be edit wars as this is an open source collaboration. But using the wikipedia "NPOV" content as a STARTING POINT to be edited, expanded, culled, etc. is perfectly legit.

--Jumbo - (Wiki entries fine as long as they're cited and temporary)

--JohnLocke 07:53, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

-- Wikiprocess User:Stirling Newberry

People here are showing that they are in a "need a clue" position. Copied articles will be changed, and the "wikipedia" isn't a fixed reference source - it is evolving under its own pressures. To say "we trust the wiki to be reasonable" is to ignore the long ugly period where just about every right thinking person favored Iraq and hated the French. Having soldiered through wikiwars on Supply Side Economics, Ronald Reagan and a host of other topics, anyone who says "just link to this" is ignoring recent and established history. Wikipedia's community and objectives are not ours. If we branch an article, it will be changed in accordance with our needs rapidly. If you come upon a wiki article that you want to redo, then redo it, folding in the ideas from the previous versions.

The closedkos will be far less useful, because what that will mean is that people will refer to Wikipedia first which will be the "official" source, and this will be a "lefty commentary" on the "neutral" source. Wiki isn't neutral, it is consensus, consensus is often very, very, very biased.

There's already been goosestepping on this "make people stop that shit" is simply unwiki, unopen source, and top down. "Make" people?

Hamletta 12:20, 30 May 2004 (PDT) Stirling, I'm starting to see your point. (I don't know nothin' 'bout this new-fangled wiki-stuff.) I guess starting with the Wiki article is OK for starters, as long as the copier has something to add at the start. What concerns me is people going in and copying-and-pasting willy-nilly just to fill up space. I guess my suggestion would be to encourage people to stick with the topics they know or are willing to do some legwork on.

Clang 12:59, 30 May 2004 (PDT) I think Hamletta makes a good point. I think copying is a good bootstrap mechanism if the copier takes the time to verify that the article is accurate and is willing to invest at least a little effort in making the article conform to the dKos policy, which is not the same as the wikipedia policy. Forcing people to recreate content from scratch when there are legitimate other ways to get it is wasteful. But the willy-nilly copying is going to be counterproductive if dKosopedia starts out of the gate with a ton of content that is in violation of its own policy. If people are willing to take the energy to screen it and bring it into compliance, I think that's great. In the long term, I don't think it matters -- eventually, proper editing will fix all the articles. But isn't it better if we don't start out with a huge backlog that needs to be edited?

If not, should an exception be made for certain kinds of articles?

NO

YES

Pyrrho 06:13, 30 May 2004 (PDT) - (tables of data, lists which refer to dKosopedia articles instead of WikiPedia, also policies and standards)

RobLa 12:14, 30 May 2004 (PDT): Yes, agree with Pyrrho.

-Waltisfrozen 12:40, 30 May 2004 (PDT) I almost voted yes on the first question because I think people should be allowed to use Wikipedia articles as a starting point. If all you're gonna do if use dKosopedia as a mirror of Wikipedia articles, just put a link. If you have an update to make, only then should you copy over the content.


Discussion moved from dKosopedia talk:Policies and Guidelines

I'm hoping to consolidate the discussion of the Wikipedia from dKosopedia talk:Policies and Guidelines to this page.

--Pyrrho 05:40, 30 May 2004 (PDT) -- If it's a vote, no copying from Wikipedia. Read it as a resource... and if you want, you can make a stub that link to the Wikipedia article on the same topic. But don't just copy the article, that's useless. Exception might be things like tables of representatives or data like that which is worth having local mirrors of.

There has been a discussion on dailykos.com about copying from Wikipedia. While it's legal and even morally ok, that still doesn't make it a good idea.

I'd really rather this not become a fork of Wikipedia's political articles. Needlessly forking these articles creates redundancy, and we need less redundancy. It's fine that there's an article on Condoleezza Rice here on dKos, but starting from a copy of the Wikipedia article on Condoleezza Rice just creates two versions of the same information that need to be maintained/corrected/updated. The dKos article should point to the Wikipedia version, and add supplemental material here.

I believe this should be codified as a "never copy from Wikipedia when you can link" policy on dKosopedia, and linking to Wikipedia should be highly encouraged. -- RobLa 01:11, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

User:Stirling Newberry

Edit: refutation by counter example on Rice's early childhood. I am offended at RobLa's attitude and arrogance, and strongly advise the temperature on this matter get turned down. Words like "never" and challenges hurled are impolite, impolitic and unwiki.

I strongly disagree with the above posters. Many of us contribute to both Wikipedia and dKos - and it is obscene, insulting, immoral and unethical for others to order us not to place the contribution in both place. The wikipedia is NPOV - which means that any wingnutty point of view that has a following is woven into the threads of what is written, and there is a great deal of it. That means there must and should be a "branching" of much of the material - particularly that of a political nature.

Dkos should branch from wingnutpedia, and it is not a matter of keepig two versions up to date etc. It is a matter of one open source tree diverging from the other. It will not take long for a copied Wikiarticle to be worked over and modified by the needs of this project.

Ummm, I really don't know where to begin in responding to this. If I offended anyone, I apologize...that wasn't my intention. I had/have a strongly held belief (shared by others) which I stated in no uncertain terms. If you read anything more into it, I apologize. -- RobLa 11:36, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

I disagree to some extent. I see the wikipedia content as a good starting point. Much of it can be pruned and more politically relevant and news worthy information can be added to the core skeleton from the wikipedia culled content.

For example, I pulled the wikipedia content on Richard Mellon Scaife as a placeholder and skeleton. I KNOW there is a ton of stuff I intend to add to, and edit the hell out of that one, but for now the wikipedia's MOR content is ok as a placeholder. Lestatdelc 01:19, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

Please explain why there should be a local copy of Condoleezza Rice's childhood and education. Is the dKos crowd going to provide a unique perspective on this? I doubt it...and if so, let's wait until we have the material before creating a section to host it. -- RobLa 01:36, 30 May 2004 (PDT)
I certainly take RobLa's point. But you can go ahead and delete that section if you don't think it's relevant here, right? I don't think there's any harm in aggressive editing to shape articles into something appropriate to the aims of the site. Where Condi Rice grew up, that she's a pianist, and whether or not she likes broccoli, aren't really relevant to discussions of her politics and job performance. People aren't going to be coming to dKosopedia for a laundry-list of trivia on public figures, they're going to be looking for explanation and assessment of political issues. Edit out the noise and leave the good stuff. --Clang 13:11, 30 May 2004 (PDT)
Without a clear policy, such an edit could likely result in an edit war. Disputes will happen, and we need a shared understanding of what "acceptable" is before we get in the middle of a dispute. Also, encouraging poor edits is like encouraging littering, since "if you don't like my candy bar wrapper in the park, why don't you just pick it up?" The onus should be on the original author/copier to do the work. -- RobLa 13:38, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

Nature of the dKosopedia & the wikipedia problem

I've noticed two problems that this project is encountering, and I think they're related.

Some folks are of the opinion that the entries we put up here should strive to be dispassionate and impartial. the discussion on the Main_Page shows some of this thinking. But if that is to be the case, then the dKosopedia will not be unique - it would simply be echoing what has been written in wikipedia. If we follow the neutral approach favored by some, then there would be little difference between what we have here and what is on wikipedia. This, then, encourages theft of wikipedia articles.

Kos has said on the Policies page that "This is a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic site. Articles should be written from that standpoint." I understand that to mean that we should not be at all neutral - when we write about Richard Perle or Rush Limbaugh, it is our right, even our duty, to explain why these individuals are harmful, threatening people. We should not apologize for this, nor for making entries about Franklin D. Roosevelt that are a little hagiographic. This resource is to be OUR resource, to help us retake this country. And if we cannot explain how it is that we see and understand the world, if we're somehow ashamed of the fact that we think Labor unions kick ass and that the Libertarian Party is contradictory, then we're going to have a hard time advancing our cause. This doesn't mean we make stuff up - accuracy should be our watchword - but we don't necessarily need to be fair and certainly not impartial. We are activists, and should behave like them. We study the truth and facts, but we are free to interpret it in a progressive fashion and have every right to advance that progressive interpretation via this project.

So in the end, these two problems are really two facets of the same issue. Anyone can put together a bland encyclopedia. But what makes this unique is that it explains how we see and interpret the world, politics, history. This is a very good thing to do. Let's not neuter it for fear of not being evenhanded - the other side certainly isn't. And with such a unique way of interpreting, it means that a standard, just-the-facts wikipedia article would be out of place here, and hence, less likely to be plagiarized. --Eugene 01:30, 30 May 2004 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../v/o/t/Talk%7EVote%7ECopyingFromWikipedia_6963.html"

This page was last modified 09:50, 31 July 2005 by dKosopedia user DRolfe. Based on work by dKosopedia user(s) RobLa, Pyrrho, Power, Lestatdelc, Aaron Gillies and Jumbo. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ
View source
Post a comment
View content page
Page history
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Bug reports