User talk:CatastrophicToad

From TheLinuxVault

[edit] Wikipedia Copying

Do you have a good reason for reverting wikipedia imports? It is explicitly allowed (encouraged even) by the Wikipedia license, and makes this wiki more useful. Spark 12:10, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

From Talk:Main Page

" Wikipedia Content

What's the policy on ripping Wikipedia pages. I'd avoid it myself, but I've noticed it on RPM Package Manager for example. Thought I'd mention it craig1709 16:46, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

If it can be avoided, don't do it! If you really feel you must, according to the Wikipedia license, you MUST NOTATE that it is taken from the article. Uncredited plagiarism will lead to being blocked. *heads over to the RPM page* --Goose 17:28, 3 September 2007 (EDT)"

From User talk:Barnjo

"No, it is a terrible idea. While it's legitimate as long as it's appropriately credited, copying articles from wikipedia eliminates the point of this site. However, until the site gets a bit fuller, we've got to take what we can get. --Goose 19:38, 4 September 2007 (EDT)"

From what I gather, User:Goose is trying to make it the policy that we don't copy from Wikipedia, and for good reason; we could just be a mirror for Wikipedia and we could go around copying every page from Wikipedia. If we start with plagiarism and try to sort through it, we will end up with edited plagiarism, and it will be much more difficult. If we start from nothing, it will encourage people knowledgeable about articles to add original content to them. That's the way I think we should go, and it's the way I think Goose wants to go. The Template:Plagiarism should be used as a marker for a revert or a deletion, not an inclusion policy. Let's ask Goose. CatastrophicToad 12:23, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

You summed up my feeling very well. I did edit the TheLinuxVault:About page to reflect that as well. --Goose 14:59, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I also posted a similar question about bulk-linking to Wikipedia at TheLinuxVault talk:Community Portal#Wikipedia Content CatastrophicToad 15:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for deleting my own tutorial about NTFS Support and the Sidux info (taken from the webpage where I work). The least thing you can do is asking before editing like you were over all. --knithx 10:04, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Please add back my NTFS-3g tutorial to the NTFS page. It was not plagiarism since the original author of it was myself. Thank you.--84.78.70.116 10:11, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

ok CatastrophicToad 10:12, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey is the first paragraph of NTFS support plagiarism? CatastrophicToad 10:17, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Actually, this is quite funny, BUT! Even if something is your own content, but you've published it on another site, it still is considered published material, and is held under some sort of copyright. You still MUST cite the original print source. (Unless you were smart enough to license the first publication under a no-attribution provision CC or GPL license). --Goose 00:38, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, I don't think that policy existed when I did it (the fun of a new wiki!). I do see the need to not import Wikipedia articles everywhere, however I think we should not completely shy away from using some Wikipedia (and other GFDL site) materials such as diagrams (eg [1] could make a nice addition to the Linux Kernel page). Spark 17:38, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree that diagrams/pictures from Wikipedia/anywhere should be allowed. CatastrophicToad 17:44, 9 September 2007 (EDT)