Talk:C. Ferris White

quotes

In this edit an editor removed some quotes which I think were/are perfectly fine, and I restored them. Views? --doncram 04:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because they are replaceable and thus not a fair use of content that is copyrighted with no permission for use here. Copyright law is not subject to discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend twice removed the short quotes, and I won't right now restore them, as the text edited by Nyttend also appears okay to me, though mildly less nice IMHO, and to avoid conflict. Nyttend has escalated this with threats at my talkpage, i am dumbfounded to note. --doncram 06:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I know you are regular enforcer of NFCC policy, but it's tough to reconcile your edit summaries with the actual language of the NFCC policy, to wit: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method. 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. . . ." It appears that you are misinterpreting language that applies specifically to "all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license," and misapplying it to "brief verbatim textual excerpts" that are clearly excepted. Please explain how you reconcile the actual language of the policy, including the express exception for "brief verbatim textual excerpts," with your edit summary interpreting NFCC: "Per WP:NFCC, no nonfree material may be used when it can be replaced with free material." Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure if the quotes at issue were added by doncram. I think I may have done so. My understanding is the same as dirtlawyer on fair use policy for textual materials. In such situations, I think a short quote is often more effective. Problems arise when the quoted material is too extensive. I will take a look at the specifics more carefully later today. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• . I confirmed that the quotes were added by me. Doncram did not add them. I believed they were useful in conveying some details about the Idaho project with greater precision. In some ways, the attempt to convert to a paraphrase has resultedin less precision, but also potential inaccuracy. For example, changing the word manager to executive (presumably to avoid unduly close paraphrase) is less precise, but also potentially inaccurate. In the context of a 1905 sawmill, a manager is not the same as an executive. Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Also,the quotes came from a 1912 book which is in public domain. Accordingly, the removal appears to have been unwarranted on copyright grounds. I will therefore revert, but I'm happy to discuss further if Nyttend still sees a problem. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • My apology because I had not realised the truth of Cbl62's final comment. Barring that, however, reversion would have been appropriate—all nonfree content must be irreplaceable. The point of permitting short quotations is the same as the point of permitting nonfree images: either a quote that is prominent by itself, or a quote that is representative of a body of nonfree work. Given that this is PD material, "slightly less nice" is a fine reason to revert, but "slightly less nice" is no better of a reason to use nonfree text than it is to use a nonfree map instead of a somewhat grainier self-created one. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Nyttend, I suggest that you take your interpretation of WP:NFCC regarding quotation of non-free text to AN (or other appropriate WP forum) for further review by the wider community of experienced WP editors. Not only do I firmly believe that your interpretation is 100% incorrect regarding short passages of quoted non-free text (but not non-free images), I also believe you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of very unfavorable commentary from your fellow admins if you attempt to enforce your interpretation by blocking users. If followed literally, your interpretation would mean that there would be virtually zero quoted material from the last two-thirds of the 20th Century found on Wikipedia and would make the NFCC express exception for quoted and footnoted text virtually meaningless. In 3+ years, I have never encountered another editor who shared your interpretation on point. I urge you to seek wider consultation and advice at AN or another appropriate community board. Seriously. If I am wrong, then I have been laboring under an incorrect assumption for 3+ years, and so is every other WP editor with whom I regularly work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Hi. I was asked to weigh in here by an uninvolved admin, presumably because of my work with copyright as a volunteer. :) I think there's truth to both perspectives. We not only use but actually welcome brief quotations (the "no free equivalent" provision applies to "other non-free content"), but their use does need to be transformative. The policy says, "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline" (my emphasis added); the guideline says, "may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". Using the content to simply convey the information in the original is not transformative. It's a very small amount, and would almost certainly be de minimis, but our practices encourage transformation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• MRG, your experience and reputation in such matters are well known to many of us. Here's my bottom line summation of your comment:

1. The "no free equivalent" provision of WP:NFCC applies only to "other non-free content," not brief textual quotations that are properly quoted and footnoted.

2. Brief textual quotations that are properly quoted and footnoted AND "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" (i.e. serve a "transformative" purpose) are permitted and encouraged.

Is that a fair summary of the NFCC policy on point? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

With point 1, yes I believe it is. Many of the non-free quotes on Wikipedia could be replaced by free content. With point 2, basically that is my position, but WP:C does point out that non-free text must (like other non-free content) accord with US fair use, which is a bit more nuanced than that. (For instance, what constitutes brief is dependent on a number of factors.) So I'm not limiting myself to that in terms of our policies on text. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your insights, MRG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)