Talk:PG Posting Team
This definition looks to be "word for word" off PG's site. Do we have their permission to use it? They used to have Copyright notices on the bottom of all their Webpages, but those seem to have disappeared during their remodel. The books they host are public domain, but my understanding is that anything in the Gutenberg namespace on their Wiki is copyrighted. If so, this page probably violates that copyright if permisison wasn't granted to use it. They probably won't have a problem with us using it, but they and we do try to be "legal" about things like using others' content.
I know that Wikipedia has explicit language on how to legally use their content on your own pages, and I have always been careful to do that when borrowing content from Wikipedia to create definition pages, but I couldn't find any similar instructions on PG's re-organized site.
Just wondering. -- kraester 22:53, 12 November 2006 (PST)
- I thought I changed enough for "fair use", and I don't just mean the 'we' for 'they' swaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAIR.
- Ha ha, I checked Gutenberg's Disclaimers page and got a chuckle. There is a FAQ on Linking that has the following rule: "Unlike our books the Project Gutenberg site is copyrighted. It is expressly forbidden to make our contents look like it came from your site irrespective of the method used (frames, image inlining, roboting, rewriting, etc.). Just use plain links." Now, this is "rewriting" but the See also link is showing it is coming from Gutenberg.
- This is the page I was looking for last night and couldn't find on their re-modeled site. I knew that they explicitly stated that their site, basically the Gutenberg namespace now, is copyrighted. Why did this make you chuckle? kraester 19:03, 13 November 2006 (PST)
- The chuckle was for the one line 'Gutenberg:General disclaimer' page: "Use at your own risk!" --- Jgillbank
- Maybe we should rewrite is some more? I only spent so much time on it on the first pass. I tweaked it a little more to give PG credit to the text. --- Jgillbank 17:40, 13 November 2006 (PST)
- I have to say that this is still plagiarism and would still get an "F" from this college professor, and if it weren't PG's content, could land DP in some deep legal water if it wasn't corrected and was noticed by the "wrong" party.
- Leaving out a few parenthetical phrases and clauses, and a sentence or paragraph here and there is NOT "Fair Use", or even re-writing; it's just condensing. And it is most definitely not "Fair Use" if there's no reference to the original (which you have now corrected) and no quotation marks used to signal the direct quotes (which you haven't yet corrected). kraester 19:03, 13 November 2006 (PST)
- Well, we can cut it down to a quick blurb, but after seeing the detail about the Team on PG, I saw some information and history that visitors to DP would like to know but might not go to trouble of reading on PG. So we should keep it long but clean it up as you point out. As I said, I am more of a fixer-upper than a creator, so I am glad someone is following up on this stuff. The WP way is to slap a cleanup tag on it and leave it for someone else. We don't have enough eyes on this Wiki to leave it to someone else. --- Jgillbank 19:49, 13 November 2006 (PST)
- Yes, actually, that was my first thought, way up there at the top of the page. ROFL. And then I got side-tracked into "professor mode" and got involved in a discussion of "Fair Use." Sorry about that. Leave it to Mike to bring us back down to Earth. :) kraester 21:26, 13 November 2006 (PST)
Rewrite
How is that rewrite? I named this page based on their official name, but since we don't use that maybe this page should be renamed to 'Whitewashers'. The Jargon File(s) should use that name and maybe a definition page can be created from the intro or a smaller revision of the intro. --- Jgillbank 20:56, 13 November 2006 (PST)
- This looks better to me, "Fair Use"-wise, but like Mike said, we could revert and slap a Used with permission of PG on the bottom if they agree, and they likely will. And, of course, we could just use the first half of the page (basically) and then do a "For more information, see PG's site" link technique that we have used on a LOT of pages here in the Wiki. And yes, whenever we get a relatively final, I think pulling out the intro onto a definition page that we can use to transclude into this article and the Jargon Guides is a good plan.
- I'm of two minds about the Whitewashers or PG Posting Team being the canonical term. I generally like using the formal term as the page name and then just mentioning the alternative terms and using them as re-directs to the formal name (e.g., diacritical marks, diacriticals, etc.,), but in this case, we always refer to WW onsite and I seldom see the actual "PG Posting Team" verbiage. So I'm leaning towards voting to leave it as is, but I'm not tied to that. FWIW. kraester 21:26, 13 November 2006 (PST)