User talk:Franamax/CIL

Comments

If we proceed with this statement, which I view as a very good start, we ought to do a little copy editing.

My main concern is that the statement: "We remove this material as soon as this is pointed out." may be a little too strong. I'd prefer to avoid absolute statements which are almost certainly not literally true. I'd prefer talking about the process which looks for an removes such offenses, and talk about the seriousness of purpose, but steer clear of absolutes.

I also note the phrase "The Copyright Investigator Login program is a cooperative program" implying that this program exists. Unless I'm missing something, this is a proposal.

I like including the caveat that "Limited quotations from the copyrighted works may be used publicly on Wikipedia to demonstrate violations in specific cases", as I have tried to avoid using specific phrases when, for example, asking MRG a question, but it hampers the logical way to ask questions, and it would be nice to have some freedom here. I suggest we could follow up with an explanation of revdel, and a promise (if you think it makes sense) that any such usage would be revdel'd in a reasonable time following the completion of an investigation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That was quick! Thaks for responding to every one of my suggestions. My next suggestion is to send me a check for...no better not push my luck. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c in my own userspace! :) Good points. I've watered down the "we remove" bit, perhaps too much. Ii certainly is just a proposal, although if a WMF outreach person can get even one major publisher to show interest, I think we could get it formalized in short order and take the "proposed" bit out.

A more detailed description of our copyright processes would be good, but I think maybe as an addendum, so as not to overwhelm the body of the statement. Care to write such a thing? ;)

On quoting (perhaps should say "limited excerpts"), I think the way we do it is prudent and well within fair-use, since it's clear in context that it's copyrighted material, though perhaps it could be tweaked (say, a "copyrighted material" quote box). An issue that occurs to me is that the CIL person may decide to replace close paraphrases with exact quoted text in the article, so that's an open point (I just changed the wording to "in Wikipedia discussion pages"). I would personally prefer to avoid promises of rev-deletion, since it can make such a mess of history. A lot of that would depend on what the rights-holders would want to see, consistent with the fact that we can go to a library and do whatever we want anyway.

Thanks for the comments! Franamax (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And isn't Maggie going to share her Christmas bonus with us? :) Franamax (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infrastructure rough notes

Origination of concerns:

- CorenSearchBot scans of new articles

- checking at DYK

- checking during audited content processes (FAC)

- OTRS complaints

- reader / editor notices something "funny"

Initial assessment:

- assess direct copying / too-close paraphrasing

- speedy delete new article copyvios

- remove (+revdel) copyvio text with note on talk page

- blank with {{copyvio}}, list at WP:CP

- note concerns at DYK/FAC

Followup assessment:

- spotcheck other editor contribs

- contact editor on user talk, request review (mini-CCI)

- ask at MRG's talk page

- discuss at ANI

- list at CCI proposed investigations

Remedial action:

- process CP entries one week after report

- block uncooperative editors

- close informal mini-CCI, followup checks as needed

- open CCI, remains listed until complete

- CCI creates presumption of copyvio in past edits

I'm undoubtedly missing something, but those are many of the steps we follow. Franamax (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a step ahead of me. I was planning to propose to MRG that we work on a summary of our existing processes. While I know we have processes, I feel that they are scattered and not documented in a nice package. Putting myself in the shoes of the other side, if I heard there were solid processes, I'd be happy, but I'd still like to see them. This list has the makings of coherent document of the processes, which will be valuable, not just for display to others, but for ourselves.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking, if this actually goes anywhere, of asking DYK and FAC (and GA if they do it) to write their own formal statements of procedure and best practice from their own standpoints, similarly as much for their own benefit as externally. But I don't want to run too far ahead on this, Mdennis is still enjoying her weekend. Documenting the entire process would be quite an exercise, since we all have our own approaches. I'm pretty sure my own way of doing things doesn't match MRG's, for one thing she's way nicer about it, and much better organized with boilerplate stuff she pulls out of her user sub-pages (which I'd also love to have a map for). Franamax (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent start. One thing that could use a little more discussion is the "warning" concept. We do have a lot of words written on what is allowed and not allowed, and when we see someone breaking the rules, we let them know. This serves the dual purpose of rehabilitating good faith editors who are simply unaware of what is permitted and what is not, while also sending the message that we are serious about Copyright.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "warning" concept is rather nebulous, as it's best down informally (IMO), with a view to both educating the editor and resolving the concerns. I hesitate to call out specific instances, but as a case study I'm rather proud of this: 1, 2, 3, 4 - as far as I'm aware that "mini-CCI" achieved all the desired results, with a little unfortunate bruising of the subject editor along the way, done with my typical lack of finesse. It's definitely tricky to navigate these waters. Franamax (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice sequence, and a nice outcome. However, I may not have made my point clearly, so I'll try again. Imagine you are a BP at a publishing house, with no meaningful familiarity with WP, and you are asked to review what they are saying is their process regarding copyright issues. If the only thing they see is your rough notes, they will come away with a clear picture that there are a lot of processes for looking for copyvios, and addressing copyvios, which is all good, but they might observe that there aren't a lot of bullet points about educating editors, or warning editors or taking steps to rehabilitate editors, other than the "request review (mini-CCI)" and the "block" step. In fact, we do a lot, as your sequence illustrates. My main point is that as this rough notes outline is expanded and filled out, it should be supplemented with notes about how we interact with editors at various stages of the process. For example, in the "Followup assessment" section, we might add "-sequence of escalating warnings, tailored to the specifics of each case, including invitation to discuss and pointers to relevant policies, guidelines, and nest practices." That might be a bit wordy, so maybe the Outline would have something shorter, and have links to more detail. I'm now rambling a bit, but after MRG weighs in, we can discuss an appropriate structure, and I can be more specific then.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe another heading "Educating editors" would be good. I did invite you above to do the writing. :) Probably everyone involved or likely to get involved in this would admit to being hopelessly wordy, I know I would. It took great effort to keep my initial draft as terse as I could make it, leeping the target audience in mind. If this goes forward, we're all going to have to counter our natural wiki-tendencies to add words, but never subtract. ;) Franamax (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, was it Sue Gardner who recently remarked that the Wiki model was good at adding material, but not so good at summarizing when the bloat goes overboard? Not sure, but it was someone, and the thought, if not the thinker, registered. I'm mulling how we address the larger task, not just a succinct summary of how we address copyvios, but the whole sprawling garden of copyright related information, which has literally grown like weeds, and could use some pruning and some organization. Our reluctance to never cut out any contribution which may be useful on a stand-alone basis prevents us from starting with a clean slate and writing Everything you wanted to know about Copyright Issues, but were afraid to ask.

That said, it may be worth the attempt. In theory, with some combination of links and collapsible sections, there ought to be a way to eat our cake and have it, too.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sending Large Portions

Just a note, the text currently reads "...large portions of a copyrighted work may be sent privately to other investigators...". I'm not aware of how online subscriptions work, but shouldn't/wouldn't it be possible for the investigators to simply pass on urls to each-other, without actually using the text? Or, if the url doesn't change with, say changing the page of a book you're reading as an investigator (using javascript and stuff), investigators could always tell each other to view page blah of book blah at blah publishers' website. It might be easier to get this flying if we weren't asking for sending large portions to each-other.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What I was thinking there was that CIL people might send copies of material to non-CIL people working on an investigation. Let's say I'm a CIL and you're not and you have been working through a long CCI and come to a passage sourced to a book. Since you're the one familiar with the CCI, it might make more sense for me to send you a copy of the chapter. You might read it and say "aha, I saw this other text in another article too, let's go back and have another look". That way CIL users could be a resource for other invesigators and/or do the evaluation themselves. I was trying to build in flexibility too, so as not to rule out such copying ever happening. Certainly if there was resistance from rights-holders, we could rework that. Franamax (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking the idea was to enable a few selected (trusted) wikipedians who usually work on copyvio deletions (copyright clerks, for an example) to be given access to the publishers' databases.

Is the idea to grant access to people who're checking already-suspected copyvios or is the checking for copyvios intended to be preventive in nature (random searches on wikipedia using large amounts of copyrighted text to check if that text is in any article)?

If its the former, access for a few regular checkers involved with copyrights should be enough (note that I don't actually know the quantum of workload, so I may be wrong here).

If its the latter, then copying might come in handy.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the former, however I think you are indeed underestimating the scale of workload. There are thousands of edits needing review at any one time, and the copyright regulars are also regular at expressing how much they would appreciate additional (knowledgeable) help. My idea on the copying aspect was to make the system scalable, so that "core" and trusted people would be able to effectively sub-contract some evaluations as the need and opportunity arise. The scale of ongoing copyright problems we need to address necessitates the involvement of a wide spectrum of the community, some just trying it out, some getting more involved, and some at the core. Franamax (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)