This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
I wonder how promotional information, that appears on a public website, which is clearly and properly referenced as the main source of the information in the article, can be considered copyrighted material and not appropriate for use in the article about the LCSB. This is before even considering the fact that the information was used with the explicit consent of the director of this research centre. I agree that the list of stuff was unnecessary, but I was using as a template other research centres' articles, which use a similar format. But the rest of the information was pertinent to what the LCSB is and does, and their removal has left the article without any substance.
vangos (
talk)
06:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Can you show where they have released all their text into either the public domain or a compatible free use license. Public website does not mean it is public domain. They have inherent copyright protections under law,unless they choose to give those up. please see
wp:copyrightCalmerWaters06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Plus you can add information from those sites; however, you plagiarized, word for word (copy-paste), from those sites. That is what is not acceptable.
CalmerWaters06:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
So the explicit consent of the Centre itself and its director is not enough? There are in fact numerous press releases, University of Luxembourg promotional material, articles in the press, and other sources where they have released all this information and much more. This is not a company, it is an interdisciplinary research centre in an academic environment, their goals and resources are supposed to be shared and distributed. The information included here was only about what kind of research they perform and what goals they have set. (And it cannot be plagiarism when the source is clearly stated.) In any case, I accept the word-for-word criticism, and it was my intention anyway to improve this article. I considered what was here as the first iteration.
vangos (
talk)
06:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Where is this permission posted on these site? If he has given his approval to release information into the public domain, then you can provide proof through the
OTRS which can document this. Again, please understand that public organization does not mean
public domain. Public university's are public, paid in part by public funds; however, they are still granted copyright protection. These include public universities and their derivative works. Anything more than that is getting into legal speak, which I will avoid. Some but not all exceptions to copyright include most US government websites under certain conditions because they have choosing to release that copyright protection regarding domestic works (Title 17 of the United States Code) and sites that state their information is released under an appropriate license. Just understand that Wikipedia allows for
fair use material of most copyrighted sources with
attribution given to the copyright holder and written in you own words. That is the issue with what was removed. You can use the information, just write it is your own words and if you can
cite where this came from. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to post a question at
Wikipedia:Copyright_questions. They may be able to assist further. Kindly
CalmerWaters08:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
I wonder how promotional information, that appears on a public website, which is clearly and properly referenced as the main source of the information in the article, can be considered copyrighted material and not appropriate for use in the article about the LCSB. This is before even considering the fact that the information was used with the explicit consent of the director of this research centre. I agree that the list of stuff was unnecessary, but I was using as a template other research centres' articles, which use a similar format. But the rest of the information was pertinent to what the LCSB is and does, and their removal has left the article without any substance.
vangos (
talk)
06:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Can you show where they have released all their text into either the public domain or a compatible free use license. Public website does not mean it is public domain. They have inherent copyright protections under law,unless they choose to give those up. please see
wp:copyrightCalmerWaters06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Plus you can add information from those sites; however, you plagiarized, word for word (copy-paste), from those sites. That is what is not acceptable.
CalmerWaters06:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
So the explicit consent of the Centre itself and its director is not enough? There are in fact numerous press releases, University of Luxembourg promotional material, articles in the press, and other sources where they have released all this information and much more. This is not a company, it is an interdisciplinary research centre in an academic environment, their goals and resources are supposed to be shared and distributed. The information included here was only about what kind of research they perform and what goals they have set. (And it cannot be plagiarism when the source is clearly stated.) In any case, I accept the word-for-word criticism, and it was my intention anyway to improve this article. I considered what was here as the first iteration.
vangos (
talk)
06:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Where is this permission posted on these site? If he has given his approval to release information into the public domain, then you can provide proof through the
OTRS which can document this. Again, please understand that public organization does not mean
public domain. Public university's are public, paid in part by public funds; however, they are still granted copyright protection. These include public universities and their derivative works. Anything more than that is getting into legal speak, which I will avoid. Some but not all exceptions to copyright include most US government websites under certain conditions because they have choosing to release that copyright protection regarding domestic works (Title 17 of the United States Code) and sites that state their information is released under an appropriate license. Just understand that Wikipedia allows for
fair use material of most copyrighted sources with
attribution given to the copyright holder and written in you own words. That is the issue with what was removed. You can use the information, just write it is your own words and if you can
cite where this came from. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to post a question at
Wikipedia:Copyright_questions. They may be able to assist further. Kindly
CalmerWaters08:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply