@
Huon: quotes (text) are specifically exempt from the NFCC.
"brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media [need to comply with
Wikipedia:Citing sources]. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met."
(
WP:NFCCP emphasis added). That being said, many of the concerns around quoted text (defined in NFC and WP:CITE) are similar to NFCC. They, too, need to be employed minimally. Crucially, though, there are no namespace limitations and no "one article minimum". –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs)
16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for correcting me regarding the NFCC. I'm not sure I would call tens of KB "brief". We have articles shorter than that, and I'm pretty sure amalgamating an article by copy-pasting various copyrighted sources is not OK. Doing the same on a talk page is no better. The namespace is not my main concern, "lots of copy-pasted content" is the issue.
Huon (
talk)
17:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
It is not brief in aggregate, no, but each portion *is* text-based fair use ("tens of kilobytes" only in total... a few percentages-of-the-sentences from EACH of the dozens of sources... not tens of kilobytes from ONE source). All excerpts are attributed properly, with URL except in one case where the source is offline-only. And each excerpted-fair-use-snippet is trimmed to the 'minimum needed' for writing the neutral prose, aka for
WP:V-verifying the controversial factoid(s) that specific
WP:SOURCE is backing up, and facilitating draft-talk discussions with (and wiki-training of) the COI-encumbered. This is a borderline-
WP:N topic-matter, with a handful of in-depth sources plus a few dozen additional factoids spread out across almost that many sources, where some aspect gets
WP:NOTEWORTHY mention. The regular consistent fair use utilization of |quote= is what is keeping me
from needing to have dozens of tabs open in my browser (plus I don't speak Russian which is a hindrance for this particular article). This is not copy-n-paste; I'm carefully culling just the essentials needed into |quote= to facilitate crafting the article's body-prose, and also, to train the beginning-wikipedians on draft-talk.
So for instance, my |quote= excerpt
of 111 words from the
East Hampton Star original, which my browser tells me has 1327 body-prose words total,
[1] is roughly 9% of the source in wordcount. This specific |quote= excerpt will be used (eventually -- I just added it for consideration on draft_talk earlier today) to back a mainspace sentence like this:
But this is just my off-the-cuff effort, there are four other sources about the same symbolic-coffins-topic which need integrating, and some of the factoids (e.g. the Che costumes) were already mentioned by other
WP:SOURCES and thus might be pulled out of this draft-sentence, and placed into a different draft-sentence for better readability. Having the key 111-word-snippet, means I can discuss how best to write the article with the other participants on draft-talk, plus makes it easier for everybody to
WP:V that no source is being misrepresented. That's not
WP:COPYVIO, that is legit fair use on drafttalk, which will lead to legit fair use in the eventual
Oleg Atbashian#References material, when all is said and done.
47.222.203.135 (
talk)
21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Huon, I'm sorry, but now that I've declined the draft, received criticism on the talk-page for my decision, and responded briefly to it, I think it would be preferable if someone else did that. I know that
Diannaa has more than enough to do, but she might perhaps have a moment to comment here?
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
17:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Huon: quotes (text) are specifically exempt from the NFCC.
"brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media [need to comply with
Wikipedia:Citing sources]. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met."
(
WP:NFCCP emphasis added). That being said, many of the concerns around quoted text (defined in NFC and WP:CITE) are similar to NFCC. They, too, need to be employed minimally. Crucially, though, there are no namespace limitations and no "one article minimum". –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs)
16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for correcting me regarding the NFCC. I'm not sure I would call tens of KB "brief". We have articles shorter than that, and I'm pretty sure amalgamating an article by copy-pasting various copyrighted sources is not OK. Doing the same on a talk page is no better. The namespace is not my main concern, "lots of copy-pasted content" is the issue.
Huon (
talk)
17:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
It is not brief in aggregate, no, but each portion *is* text-based fair use ("tens of kilobytes" only in total... a few percentages-of-the-sentences from EACH of the dozens of sources... not tens of kilobytes from ONE source). All excerpts are attributed properly, with URL except in one case where the source is offline-only. And each excerpted-fair-use-snippet is trimmed to the 'minimum needed' for writing the neutral prose, aka for
WP:V-verifying the controversial factoid(s) that specific
WP:SOURCE is backing up, and facilitating draft-talk discussions with (and wiki-training of) the COI-encumbered. This is a borderline-
WP:N topic-matter, with a handful of in-depth sources plus a few dozen additional factoids spread out across almost that many sources, where some aspect gets
WP:NOTEWORTHY mention. The regular consistent fair use utilization of |quote= is what is keeping me
from needing to have dozens of tabs open in my browser (plus I don't speak Russian which is a hindrance for this particular article). This is not copy-n-paste; I'm carefully culling just the essentials needed into |quote= to facilitate crafting the article's body-prose, and also, to train the beginning-wikipedians on draft-talk.
So for instance, my |quote= excerpt
of 111 words from the
East Hampton Star original, which my browser tells me has 1327 body-prose words total,
[1] is roughly 9% of the source in wordcount. This specific |quote= excerpt will be used (eventually -- I just added it for consideration on draft_talk earlier today) to back a mainspace sentence like this:
But this is just my off-the-cuff effort, there are four other sources about the same symbolic-coffins-topic which need integrating, and some of the factoids (e.g. the Che costumes) were already mentioned by other
WP:SOURCES and thus might be pulled out of this draft-sentence, and placed into a different draft-sentence for better readability. Having the key 111-word-snippet, means I can discuss how best to write the article with the other participants on draft-talk, plus makes it easier for everybody to
WP:V that no source is being misrepresented. That's not
WP:COPYVIO, that is legit fair use on drafttalk, which will lead to legit fair use in the eventual
Oleg Atbashian#References material, when all is said and done.
47.222.203.135 (
talk)
21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Huon, I'm sorry, but now that I've declined the draft, received criticism on the talk-page for my decision, and responded briefly to it, I think it would be preferable if someone else did that. I know that
Diannaa has more than enough to do, but she might perhaps have a moment to comment here?
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
17:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)reply