Nope, go ahead. Jpatokal 11:36, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I just added a "Compatible licences" section. Should anything else be listed? ~ 184.108.40.206 09:47, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
What about "PD" - Public Domain - ? ~ 220.127.116.11 08:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
PD isn't really a "license", because it's entirely unconditional. But yes, we should mention that PD works are allowed. Jpatokal 11:36, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
asking permission to use forum reply at Wikitravel
I have received a valuable knowledge from other person on a forum/blog outside Wikitravel. Does someone have a template for a message asking whether pieces of that text can be used at Wikitravel? And I think this a good question for our FAQ here. --DenisYurkin 08:31, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I have the following text--how good is it for the above purpose?
Hi (person name).
Do you mind if I use some pieces of your post (its URL) to contribute to an article on Rome at Wikitravel, a free online travel guide written and edited entirely by travelers from around the globe?
I just realized an issue in this: with template like this, we promise attribution but don't actually add original author's name into "Based on work by ...". What we can do with this? --DenisYurkin 03:51, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Nothing. It Would Be Nice If(tm) we could add names to the attribution list somehow, but I don't think the Mediawiki software allows it. Jpatokal 06:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
But the license requires us do provide attribution whatever it takes from us in terms of software (or manual work), doesn't it?
Our copyleft has been rather neglected over the years, and is currently confusing and inadequate to explain how licensing works on Wikitravel (IMHO). I'd like to propose these revisions to the copyleft. Here's the revised version in my sandbox: User:Peterfitzgerald/Copyleft. These changes, I think, should at the very least clarify how we have been doing things over the past several years, and would provide a basis to make necessary updates to several other outdated policies (most notably, en:Wikitravel:How to re-use Wikitravel guides). Do these changes seem reasonable? Have I gotten anything wrong? --PeterTalk 02:35, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Personally, I believe that the current page assumes a great deal of understanding of licensing from a reader--and is hard to understand by others. Q&As like "how can I re-use texts from forum replies" would seriously help, in my belief. --DenisYurkin 04:19, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Fair enough, I've now added more basic information for contributors to the FAQ section. I think it's important to keep the "licensing" section clear and precise, regardless of how confusing it may be for the uninitiated. The problem is that the article serves different groups of readers—those looking to redistribute & create derivative works, and those simply trying to understand what they need to do to start contributing. Hopefully the new FAQ entries should help with this. I will mention, though, that a side benefit of moving our site licensing from CC-by-SA 1.0 only for text to CC-by-SA any, is that it would significantly simplify our site licensing and make these issues less confusing. --PeterTalk 19:09, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks; q&as like these are definitely helpful. --DenisYurkin 04:17, 22 February 2008 (EST)
Any objections to implementing the revisions as I made them at in my sandbox? Otherwise, I'll make them live (and will be sure to preserve Denis' last edit). --PeterTalk 16:29, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Alright, implemented. --PeterTalk 16:32, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Should we protect this page against anon edits longer term? It's a serious spam magnet lately, and being one of our most important pages, do anon's really ever need to edit it? – cacahuatetalk 18:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I protected the local spam blacklist recently, because of the same reason. However, it feels like the spammers target the different Wikitravel sites in turn - sv: was swamped a few months ago, but with loads of cleaning and blocking spam accounts and IP's, they stopped and currently they seem to be here. The reason I doubt, in this case, is that protecting a page is not something we do happily. Could the spammers spam to make us protect or lock the page and thus prevent contributions? Some sort of hidden agenda? Personally, I do not think so, not as long as the spam do not enter the guide articles. In other words - meta pages, which are fairly stable and with few edits in itself, could be temporarily protected from anonymous contributions. Riggwelter 17:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm generally against a lot of page protections, but this is just such an important page and I doubt the need for anons to edit it without discussing on talk page first anyway – cacahuatetalk 19:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
This is a really important page, and for that reason alone (combined w/ the spam problem), I am sympathetic if not enthusiastic for an anon-level protection. But I'd like to add that it's really important that everyone keep in mind that this is an editable & collaborative policy, not some sort of set-in-stone law of Wikitravel. If we do protect, we should remain amenable to temporary un-protects to help anon editors revise this policy upon requests. And we should consider only protecting for a month or so, to see if the spammers move along. --PeterTalk 14:07, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Wise words, and I concur. Besides, it is apparent that the spammers' interest is rather periodic. Riggwelter 14:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
User:18.104.22.168's rate of adding new Hyatt hotel listings (most seemingly copied from their web sites) is accelerating and I'm having trouble keeping up. Is everyone boycotting the site over the stupid ad kerfuffle? LtPowers 17:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not seeing a problem -- the listings need some detouting as usual, but otherwise look okay. -- Colin 17:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
In some corporate boardroom, somewhere...
Chairman of the Board: "You mean, we place ads all over their site for free"
C: "And these guys, they give up their free time, to reformat our ads, as traveller information?"
A: "Thats right, we just post the promotional material we already developed for our website"
C: "So, we spend no time or money, provide no destination information, no research...."
A: ".... and these guys incorporate it into their guide free. But best of all, when they have finished, the travellers can't tell our promotion from real information.."
C: "Why would they do that? Are you sure you are not making this up?"
Yes, it's the detouting I'm having trouble keeping up with. LtPowers 22:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
If any listing consists of material copied verbatim or almost so from another web site, shouldn't that listing just be deleted ipso facto? It's potentially a copyright violation, certainly inappropriate, and in my opinion ought to be specifically against policy if it isn't already. Sailsetter 11:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Nah, I think just deleting the description (where the touting is) and keeping the basic info (address, phone #, etc.) will suffice. Then either they can come back with a more honest description or someone else can jump in with their own description. PerryPlanet 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't agree with that. A listing with no description isn't of much value in itself and encourages other people to make similarly basic listings. (I think it is far more likely to just sit there than to be expanded by someone as the above assumes.) I say better to delete such things. Sailsetter 19:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting we delete any listing without a description? That we require every listing to have a description? I don't think that's going to help. Like LtPowers said, there's good things about just including a listing, even if you have hardly anything (or nothing) to say about it. And yes, while it is more likely that the listing is going to sit without a description for a while, I don't think we should delete a listing on the presumption that no one is going to add that info. I mean, we don't delete the "Buy" section in an article because no one's gotten around to adding a shop yet. PerryPlanet 21:17, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
We are not yellow page, are we? Why include a hotel if we can't be serious about recommending it? --DenisYurkin 17:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
My own preference would be for an explicit policy that listing descriptions should be concise, but listings with no description at all would be first in line to be deleted if the number of listings got too many. Sailsetter 10:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm fine with that, but I don't think "too many listings" is a problem we're faced with here in these articles with these Hyatt listings. PerryPlanet 15:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Well there is some value in just knowing what's available. Maybe not a lot, but some. Even just including it tells the reader some information: namely, that this particular establishment is not a complete dump and has at least enough redeeming value to be listed. (Of course, that would be true of any Hyatt, but we've moved to generalities here.) LtPowers 19:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
If other hotels are sold out (pretty common in some resort areas if one just shows up) there is a great value to having just a phone number listing. Alingelb 19:25, 29 September 2008 (EAT)
It seems to me extremely clear that extensive, uncredited quotes from other web sites shouldn't be put into Wikitravel, even by the owner of the other site. I think there ought to be a specific policy against this. If there isn't, where can I propose it? Sailsetter 19:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
We allow reuse of one's own work or work with permission. Now, normally we'd prefer the guy to say "yeah I'm from XYZ corporate and have permission to add this text", but it's pretty clear in cases like this that that is exactly what is going on. -- Colin 21:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
It seems to me there's a whole tangle of issues here. What if a destination article has extensive verbatim quotes from the Rough Guide or Frommers web site? Are we to assume that the quotes are done with permission, or without? What if a listing for a Four Seasons resort is a quote from the Four Seasons web site? Are we to assume that it was done with permission? Sure we can say people can quote their own stuff, but how do we know it's the owner who's doing the quoting? What if the destination page for, say, Rome, has extensive sites from the English language version of the official Italian government Rome tourist site? Are we to assume that the Italian government won't object? And then there's the larger principle issue of whether Wikitravel should to any extent be an anthology of passages from other web sites. A policy saying "no quotes" would at least simplify all these issues. Sailsetter 22:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Using text from other sites is fine, as long as the text is PD or licensed under a license compatible with CC-by-SA 1.0. If the user copying text is the author, he/she/it should leave a clarifying message on the talk page of the article to which he/she/it is adding the text. If none of these criteria are met, I say feel free to revert or delete as the situation needs.
Regarding this case, if a user comes along and adds the same message to countless pages, even if it's not copied from another website, that's clearly touting, and I would be liable to revert it. It might be ideal to instead delete the touting text and save the listing, but that takes 3-4x the time to revert, so that's not always feasible. So "clean up" > "revert" > "leave mess." --PeterTalk 22:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I see two problems with the above. 1) If I notice that a Wikitravel page has quoted text from another website, should it be incumbent on me as an ordinary contributor to try to figure out the licensing situation before deleting it? If that's the case, in practice no typical user is ever going to take the trouble. And 2) I have never, ever, on any of the very numerous Wikitravel talk pages I've looked at, seen a message from someone saying "I was quoting my own web site's text." Sailsetter 22:36, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
If you've already figured out what website the text comes from, it should be immediately apparent whether it is properly licensed. If it is CC-by or CC-by-SA, it will say so prominently on the website (as does ours). It is PD only if it says so prominently, or is the work of the U.S. Federal Government. And yes, those talk page messages are rare, but I have seen a few. --PeterTalk 10:58, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I notice that on Wikitravel Shared it says the following:
Can I copy text to Wikitravel from other sites? No. That is, unless you are the original author of the text, or the text on the other website is either Public Domain or has been explicitly licensed as compatible with Creative Commons Attribution/Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0.
I take this to mean that text on a Wikitravel page which is 1) copied verbatim or nearly verbatim from another web site which is 2) not clearly in the public domain and without 3) being annotated on the Talk page by the person adding it saying they are the owner, may be deleted. (I still think though that the owner's permission shouldn't justify such quoting.) Sailsetter 19:38, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
At the end of the day, this is really not your or even Wikitravel's problem. Like wikis everywhere, we assume good faith, and if IB gets a DMCA takedown from the copyright holder, they're still "safe harbored" under [Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act OCILLA] as long as they nuke the content then. Jpatokal 13:12, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
Maps created with GMT
Is it possible to upload maps created with the Generic Mapping Tools (GMT)? On wikimedia commons there is the template GFDL-GMT for such maps. I am aware that I cannot upload images under GFDL, but maybe under another license? Specifically I'd like to upload a modified version of this map with roads/rails added. Bamse 04:29, 24 February 2009 (EST)
It appears to me that we cannot use GMT material, as they state that "GMT is [released under the GNU General Public License."  There's a part of that, though, that doesn't make much sense to me. I thought the GMT was a set of tools for manipulating data, not the data itself? If so, then others could distribute and modify the tools under the GNU FDL. But if the data was public domain... Anyway, it seems to me that we cannot use GMT content, but I don't understand this fully—perhaps someone else could better answer your question. --PeterTalk 13:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)
My reading of the situation is that the licensing of the output files is restricted only by the license of the map data set itself. For the Bolivia example given, the map data is public domain, so the output image plus any additional user modifications could be licensed any way you like. The GPL applies to the GMT program itself, but we're not distributing the program; same way that the GNU C compilers themselves are GPL'd, but that doesn't automatically apply to a program built with them - only the license on the source code of that program matters. - Dguillaime 16:37, 27 February 2009 (EST)
That makes sense to me. --PeterTalk 16:44, 27 February 2009 (EST)
I understand that text from the NPS websites are public domain. Does the same apply to pictures, maps, and other media? Thanks! 22.214.171.124 14:57, 15 February 2010 (EST)
See the "Ownership" section on http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm. There are a number of pictures and maps on the NPS web site that they have licensed from private individuals, so those cannot be freely re-used, but provided that there isn't an author or copyright specified the default for NPS content is that it is released into the public domain. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:08, 15 February 2010 (EST)
I would like to propose that we incorporate the new CC0 license wavier into our licensing options. It's very similar to public domain, but designed to be applicable in jurisdictions that prohibit public domain releases. Image:Sarahan view.jpg is an example of an image whose original source is released under CC0. LtPowers 16:30, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
By all means, although I don't think it necessary to add to the drop down menu on the upload form. I believe that this license, interestingly enough, granted me the option to release the image into the Public Domain, which I did ;) --PeterTalk 23:59, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
That's an interesting interpretation. The legalities of that are beyond my ken, though, which is why I would prefer a CC0 template that removes that uncertainty. LtPowers 09:10, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
auto-translated CC:SA is still CC:SA?
If I Google Translate fr: wikitravel article to en: and include the content into an en: article, does it comply with our license? --DenisYurkin 15:05, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
I really liked the article, and the very cool blog