Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive

Attribution template

Hi. In case it's useful, I've created an ARKive attribution template at {{ARKive attribute}}, which could be added after the references section to acknowledge the inclusion of ARKive materials into the article under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Mike Peel (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it usual to put something like that on an article, as well as the banner on the talk page? I'm happy with either, or both, but am unclear as to which is the norm. If we are going to use it, I;ll add a link to the ARKive article, like that in {{ARKive}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think so, I've certainly noticed it on articles written using information copied from NASA. SmartSE (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. I've mentioned it in the project guidelines and added it to the improved articles where it wasn't already present. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An instance of the template has been removed from Hyacinth Macaw, with the edit summary "…unneeded on the article page. We don't have attribution like this elsewhere". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the person who said that is not familiar with Category:Attribution templates. We have a lot of attribution of the same sort. But the template should go at the very bottom of the article, IMHO. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing sth...

I am failing to find donated text. Does it inlude entire website? Bulwersator (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No; they have donated 200 articles, the first 80 or so are those listed on the project page. More will follow. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

comments/questions

The animals they cover are pretty notable. For some like Hawkbill, I would be unlikely to want to cut and paste their prose. Our article is already an FA and longer. Even if they had good stuff, would need to integrate it properly and probably just get the base citations and write it in without an Arkive attribution. At the most, it is another competing article on the Hawbill, which I might choose to read and learn from, but no priority for me.

There are a few though, where we have almost nothing (e.g. Common Box Turtle) where just grabbing their prose would make an article pretty quick. could see this being value add. After all we have let it languish for years. Yeah, we could build it from scratch, but have not. So why not take the content. I know Citizendium to Wiki project built some content this way.

Few things I'm not clear on:

1. How to attribute to Arkive? I mean their text itself is referenced, so what we take from them is the prose. Is a citation appropriate for that, or some edit history remark? And what are the exact nicities around it? I guess a good citation would make sure we spec the date and webpage and all that.
2. Is this "approved"? HAve copyright issues been thought through? Is this more than a one person initiative? Imagine running one of these by Mottenen.
3. how physically to cut and paste the text (especially the cites). Or doees that need to be done all manual or any tricks?
4. Anything else to watch out for?

TCO (reviews needed) 02:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of numbering your questions:

1. Please see the example edit given, for African Elephant, and the notes on the project page.
2. No, this is not simply a one-person initiative; I have been appointed by Wikimedia UK and ARKive, jointly, as explained on the project page and the Wikimedia UK page to which it links.
3. as [1]
4. The five pillars apply here, as elsewhere.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

screw it, will just do one!

I'm going to do common box turtle. You can look it over and see what I missed. My main concern is copying the cites...I can manage the section arrangement of extra text. I'll be your first customer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Please be sure to update the project page when you're done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Arkive a reliable source for the wiki?

• In the references section Archive says; "Authentication. This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible. If you are able to help please contact: [email protected]". With a notice like this, I think that we can not simply merge Archive into the Wikipedia, as it appears to me that Archive (or at least the part of Archive for the Hyacinth Macaw) does not satisfy the Wiki's reliable source guidelines. Snowman (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

disagree. We are not citing them as a source. Their content is reffed itself. For box turtle, pretty decently (I know the field). All we are using is their prose. It's no different than getting info from one article of wiki to another.TCO (reviews needed) 07:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TCO. also, you made the same comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, where I replied: "the text in the ARKive article on the Hyacinth Macaw is referenced to multiple reliable sources; per the African Elephant example, we can lift the text, with references, directly from ARKive. Accordingly, I have done just that, by way of example". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem then is that according to referencing, if we attribute fact 'x' in an article, which should have laid eyes on the material we are attirbuting it from. Hence the ARKive webpages are ok in the interim but past that we need to be looking at the sources they point to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not always the case. For example, if we just copied an entire Simple English Wikipedia article here, references and all, without changing anything, there is no reason we need to read all the references inside it first. We do need to attribute the copyright, but we are not using Simple English Wikipedia as a reference in that case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK - not original content

You currently recommend to nominate articles expanded using the info from ARKive for DYK, but I don't think you should as WP:WIADYK states "Try to select articles that are original to Wikipedia (not inclusions of free data-sources)..." therefore meaning they should be excluded. It's unfortunate, but I know that at DYK we have rejected articles made from free sources before, so it only seems fair that these shouldn't be eligible. I think it is a reasonable rule too, as it so much easier to create articles from sources like this. SmartSE (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My reading of that is that it refers to articles created by cut'n'pasting a full article from another source, not an article which has been expanded by weaving donated text and references into an existing article; or indeed including donated text and original material such as in the currently-nominated Terrapene carolina. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brachypelma albopilosum

I was unable to find the Curly haired Tarantula (what redirects to Brachypelma albopilosum). Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Brachypelma albopilosum, you will see it says "Brachypelma albopilosum is a species of tarantula known commonly as the Honduran curlyhair or simply curlyhair". The ARKive article confirms that "Curlyhair tarantula" is another name for Brachypelma albopilosum. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request: African elephant

I've asked for peer review of African elephant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

authentication?

On rock python, the Arkive article has an authentication. Not looking to make work, but think noting that on article talk page, maybe? I do think it is a useful reference if we ever take the article to FA, to try to get outside peer review (really would not bother an academic until then).

Authenticated (28/04/09) by Dr. Luca Luiselli, Senior Researcher in Ecology, Institute Demetra, Rome, Italy. http://www.intecol.net/pages/002_personal.php?id=lucamlu

TCO (reviews needed) 00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a parameter to {{ARKive attribute}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism at ARKive: Galapagos penguin

I was just starting to import text from the ARKive article on the Galápagos Penguin, when I noticed that the ARKive article was very similar, though largely better-written than the Wikipedia article. Examining the sources used, it is clear that at least some parts (like the main part of the "Description" section) on the ARKive page are closely copied from the sources cited. These sources were those formerly given in the external links section of the Wikipedia article, and it looks very much like the article was written using the Wikipedia article. (I don't think it's the other way around, given the nature of the Wikipedia article; the Wikipedia article's usage of these sources doesn't include any outright plagiarism or clear close paraphrasing, as far as I've seen yet.) Here's the ARKive text:

This diminutive penguin has a black head and upperparts, with a narrow white line extending from the throat around the head to the corner of the eye. The underparts are white with two black bands extending across the breast. The upper part of the bill and the tip of the lower part of the bill are black, the rest of the bill and a bare patch around the eye and bill are pinkish yellow. Although the sexes are generally similar in appearance, males are larger than females.

The second sentence is cited to a now non-existent BirdLife International page. Here's the text from the International Penguin Working Group, the main source:

They have a black head and upperparts, with a thin white line running from the throat, up around the head to meet the corner of the eye. The underparts are white, but are bordered by a black line which extends down to the blackish legs. The upper bill and tip of the lower bill are black, with the remainder of the lower bill and surrounding skin around to the eye being pinkish yellow. The females are smaller than the males, but have similar plumage.

And the Wikipedia article:

They have a black head with a white border running from behind the eye, around the black ear-coverts and chin, to join on the throat. They have blackish-grey upperparts and whitish underparts, with two black bands across the breast, the lower band extending down the flanks to the thigh. Juveniles differ in having a wholly dark head, greyer on side and chin, and no breast-band. The female penguins are smaller than the males, but are otherwise quite similar.

The ARKive article also is poor writing in other ways, as with the citation to the Penguin Taxon Advisory Group (archive), which refers to a genus (Spheniscus) as a family, and from which the Galápagos Penguin was said to be the "third smallest penguin in the world [and] the smallest member of the Spheniscidae family", though all penguins are Spheniscidae. Furthermore, some sources are definitely not reliable, like this class paper also used in the Wikipedia article.

Not great having to point this out, and hope this isn't found to be a problem with other ARKive entries. I do remember, though, seeing other ARKive articles that may have drawn on the sources present in the Wikipedia articles. —innotata 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I find that it varies article by article and you pretty much have to consider it the equivalent of cut and pasting from another part of Wikipedia (i.e. no assurance). I pretty much concentrate on using them for places where we have not much of an article and they have more. I think it can get you to a C-B category article...but to go to GA-FA, you will need to do the thing over yourself. Of course the same applies with any wiki article one takes over. Need to look at old content with skepticism if you have not checked it yourself.TCO (reviews needed) 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this assessment of the quality; I think the ARKive donation should be valuable, though it's going to be less so and harder to use now we need to be as wary as I've found. The articles reviewed by species experts are mostly very good, and the writing is usually high quality. —innotata 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hug.

The template's for user talk pages. And ho hum. This is serious and unpleasant; things need to be done yet. —innotata 01:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it would be a teensy one, like a "done" icon. TCO (reviews needed) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this with ARKive, and await their response. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive have provided this response, and asked me to post it here on thier behalf:

The paragraph marked "ARKive text" has a similar structure and the same factual content as the source, but the wording is different so it's different text, and should therefore not be considered plagiarism. ARKive have clearly referenced their source.

ARKive always try to make their texts as different as possible from the original source but apologise if on this occasion it is similar to the original text. When talking about characteristics of a species, it is often hard to re-word without compromising accuracy. ARKive feel that re-wording where possible and citing their sources is sufficient.

ARKive do not ever use Wikipedia as a source. The authors of the ARKive texts are all qualified zoologists / biologists and experienced researchers. Further to this, ARKive get species experts to authenticate the accuracy of their texts. While this particular text is still awaiting formal authentication, it has been written by a biology graduate, and so is to the best of their knowledge accurate.

This particular text was written in March 2004 and has not been updated since.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some, at least, of the text quoted above appeared in the Wikipedia article on 31 March 2004. It was a new article that day, begun by User:Smallweed. At that stage it included no references or external links.

What exactly this means for the sourcing of the Wikipedia page and the ARKive material, I don't presume to say, but it seems possible that both are derived from www.penguins.cl (the link to this site was added to our page, by a second editor, in April 2004). Andrew Dalby 13:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprised by some of the message from ARKive, though I was imagining they might say something similar. This is plagiarism, of one sort: as defined by the OED and Merriam-Webster, it can be copying ideas, or copying text. Rewording and citing the source can avoid plagiarism, but doesn't mean that this close an adaptation is not plagiarised. In the section above quoted, the order of the sentences, and the text of every sentence, is copied in its basic form from penguins.cl (which has been up at least since 2002); I managed to write up what was overall a very different structure and phrasing from that in all three texts, by adding bits of the ARKive text to the Wikipedia texts, before I noticed the copying, similarly to what I've managed to with a good deal of descriptions of species characteristics. And this sort of plagiarism is clearly stated to not be allowed on Wikipedia, so it can't be added to the article (WP:PLAG).

The article is indeed not well researched: one source is a student paper from a sophomore seminar, and the calling a genus a family after penguintag.org makes it seem the author did not research relevant general topics at all. At least they're probably right about copying sources from Wikipedia's: the Wikipedia article (of the current title, at any rate) only got all the same sources in the external links, with information presumably from them, well after March 2004. This article, and more so ARKive's response (text can only be changed so much from sources, rewording and citing is sufficient, this is accurate to the best of their knowledge) make it very much seem their standard of desired quality is below Wikipedia's, and that the donated texts are mostly not worth working on. —innotata 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What this seems to come down to is that ARKive's definition of an "acceptably close paraphrase" is not always the same as Wikipedia's, at least for older articles. Calling it a plagiarism allegation makes it sound worse than it is: copying of ideas is a necessary part of what both Wikipedia and ARKive are doing, so it's irrelevant that the dictionary definition of plagiarism mentions that. ARKive are clearly not in the business of copying-and-pasting others' work: the material is paraphrased. As others have said, we may have to exercise a bit of caution with older articles that haven't been reviewed. Not all ARKive fact-files are at the same level of quality: they are open about that and give indicators of quality in a similar sense to how Wikipedia does. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The copying of text and too closely paraphrasing (not exactly the right word) is the plagiarism; and of course copying ideas is not plagiarism. This not only fits into the definition of plagiarism we use, but that I've assumed and been told I'd be held to. This sort of plagiarism is unnecessary, and like the choice and reading of sources for this article, lazy writing. I don't think ARKive is clear about quality, especially looking at the response above, where they backed up what was definitely a very poor job. It's going to be rather difficult adding ARKive texts having to check for plagiarism as well as the other issues. —innotata 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess my problem is this - the British Museum and Smithsonian etc. are learning institutions which (I guess) function themselves as secondary sources and receptacles of knowledge that fit more easily with the wikipedia structure. The link between experts and the writing of Hoxne Hoard was a great example of cooperation. Here we have an entity, ARKive which functions as a PR and fundraising vehicle, and is in some ways in competition with wikipedia. To me, the connection on the 'knowledge chain' is somewhat suboptimal as it doesn't make it much easier for us to access secondary sources or images, just text, the benefits of which are patchy. In return, there is a push for acknowledgement on the article page (see Hyacinth_Macaw#References) in excess of what other source have had (e.g. no mention on the Hoxne Hoard). I don't think it is appropriate for the tag to appear in article space - other GLAM collabs have had it in the talk space.

Ultimately I commend them for their drive and wish them success in promoting an environmental agenda, but am wondering about the extent of the benefit for the PR that is being sought. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: They've spelt this wrong, it is Boletus satanas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• ARKive is *potentially* a competitor to Wikipedia, and to me that means it's a good thing that there is a collaboration project.
• I agree that a special template for article space is a step too far. (withdrawn MartinPoulter (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)) However, the case for external links to ARKive media seems very strong: they give further information, it's quality content that readers may well want to see once they've read the article, it's run by a charity, and it can't be copied into WP because of copyright.
• I don't accept that the point of ARKive is "PR and fund raising". Their mission is raising awareness of threatened species and they are part of a charity organisation dedicated to that topic. It's like saying that the point of Wikipedia is "PR and fund raising".
• Yes this is different from other GLAM projects. Again I take that as a good thing, in that it shows we can work with a variety of partner organisations, including ones that have not released free content before. If you don't find it interesting, fine: no one's forced to participate in it. The fact is that it speeds up the improvement of a range of articles on a scholarly topic. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To innotata, I take your point about article quality, but in ARKive's defence, the problematic article above was an old one that wasn't marked as expert-reviewed. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To comment on the article space template: the difference here is that the material arkive has released is under a CC-BY-SA license, and hence needs to be attributed to them (particularly due to the GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual licensing thing). My understanding was that the appropriate way to do this was to use a template at the bottom of the article (following the lead from a number of other attribution templates in Category:Attribution templates). It's very different from a Hoxne Hoard-style collaboration, in that Hoxne was about writing new content with curatorial input in standard Wikimedia style, rather than reusing pre-existing content. Also, take a look at {{1911}}, and e.g. Angle#References, where a similar approach is taken even for a PD work. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the 1911 content is a good analogue actually - I just wish this collaboration had been made five years ago. Of course their aim is good, I am talking more about how they have set up their website - it is written by designers and then vetted by experts, rather than being a source written by experts. I am still having a nose around so will comment more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive's text is written by biologists, with BSc or MSc qualifications in relevant fields. The checking by experts is an additional step, and its absence does not reduce the quality of their (cited) text. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you make a very good point. There is ample precedent for crediting shared text in article space and we should keep the template. Casliber: "written by designers"??? where do you get that idea? MartinPoulter (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when writing in-line citations

I have looked at several of the articles where ARKive content has been transcribed to the Wiki. I think that this project needs to be clear about sourcing the material correctly. In many instances contributors to this project have been writing the in-line sources as if the contributor had read the original articles and were sourcing the original articles, when they were actually sourcing from ARKive. Please make the necessary amendments across many articles. The guidelines on sourcing are all laid out in MOS and and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is highly relevant. Snowman (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference here is that the person that originally wrote the text for arkive will have looked at the references and verified them - and the contributor making the changes to the article pages is simply inserting the material from the arkive source (complete with the original references). That situation doesn't appear to be covered in the citing sources guideline. Mike Peel (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is explicit about this. ARKive is no different to any other source where authors have used information from a number of places having analysed the relevant information. The person who is writing the Wiki should say where he or she sourced information, and not only where the source got the information from. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's explicit about the situation where you're paraphrasing content from another source, which is different from this situation. An an illustrative example: if you were merging two Wikipedia articles together, would you modify all of the references in the material you copy over into another article referencing the original Wikipedia article? E.g. saying "Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Wikipedia article Blah"? That's a more analogous situation here. Mike Peel (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have some difficulty in interpreting "Blah" in your comment, so I would be grateful if you could explain your use of this word. I think that merging two Wikipedia articles is special case, and where the page histories are preserved. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have left messages at relevant talk pages (Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals, Help talk:Merging) for users who may wish to advance the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

By Blah, I just meant linking to the appropriate Wikipedia article in the reference (using "Blah" simply as a random name) - it might make more sense to say link to the other Wikipedia article. Apologies for the confusion it caused. Mike Peel (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am with Snowman here in that we would reference the webpage unless we'd seen the original source - which is ok as alot of us have university access and can check them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the majority of the project's work to date is flawed by in-line referencing that is below Wikipedia standards. Some examples such referencing are seen on : Giant Armadillo, South Asian River Dolphin, Wisent, and Bornean orangutan. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowman, instead of thinking of it as flawed, think of it as a stepping stone. I've used web refs that were verging on okay - some zoo sites etc - until we found some peer-reviewed material. We'll get there just is going to take a long time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure; it is an intermediate stage, which enriches the Wikipedia. However, I would like to prompt this project to be more helpful and reduce confusion in providing in-line references that indicate the actual source of the new text. I guess that the ARKive project editors have not been checking the references used to make the ARKive website, going on the speed in which the additions to the Wiki are being done, but I might be wrong. Some of the ARKive contributors have been writing in-line refs that indicate that a source from ARKive, and I think that this is more consistent with the guidelines; see Hyacinth Macaw on 29 July 2011, where the new in-line references end with "via ARKive". Snowman (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to involve what most style guides refer to as a secondary source— a publication that you did not read yourself, but is cited in a publication you did read. You can't directly cite a secondary source as if you read it, but you can mention it in-text. See Reference List: Other Print Sources at Purdue OWL. This unsigned edit was made by Gadget850 (talk) at 12:30, 29 July 2011.

So just add "via ARKive.org" to each citation that's copied from ARKive and not personally checked by the author: that's a sensible proposal that brings the project into compliance with policy and highlights the sources that might need further checking. It sounds like we should all be happy with that(?). MartinPoulter (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I came here to say exactly that. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Difference between citing a source and re-using free content

There is a difference between citing a source and re-using freely copyrighted content from another place. If we have another freely copyrighted source that we incorporate directly into Wikipedia, so that the text of that free source becomes the text of our article, that is not a use of the free text a reference. For example, if the Simple English Wikipedia had a sentence with a reference on it, and we copied that sentence into our article, we could also simply copy the reference as well. We would not say, "according to Simple English Wikipedia", because we are not referencing them, we are simply re-using their free content. This is the point of free content: we are able to re-use free text from other sources as part of our articles.

It is important, though, to indicate when we have re-used other free content. For example, at the bottom of Median, it says "This article incorporates material from Median of a distribution on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.". That text is not a reference. It is a copyright acknowledgment that indicates that some text from PlanetMath was used in our article. We would not use PlanetMath as a reference, but we can and do share free content with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is PlanetMath checked against the references given by PlanetMath before text from PlanetMat is added to the Wiki. How are the in-line references done on the Wiki for the added text that is from PlanetMath? Snowman (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CBM; it has long been the practice on Wikipedia to import articles intact from other sources that have appropriate license terms. Where it gets tricky isn't the portions of the imported text that has inline cittions; the tricky part is if the imported source is reliable, and as such, is allowed to state the author's conclusions without inline citations. Later, when we make further improvements to the article, it becomes difficult to distinguish novel statements copied from the original outside source from novel statements by Wikipedia editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that this is not compatible with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Surely, if the additions to the Wiki from PlanetMath were added with references ending "via PlanetMath" then some of this confusion would be reduced, and the additions would be consistent with the Wiki's guidelines on citations. Is PlanetMath text copied to well developed Wiki articles, or is PlanetMath mainly used to create articles or enhance Stub articles? Snowman (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

When we import text from another place, like PlanetMath or another language WIkipedia, the author of the original text becomes an author of our article, and SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to them. But SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is about material that is used as a reference for our articles, not about free material that is incorporated to become a part of our articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do the guidelines say WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does not apply to text under CC licence transcribed to the Wiki from external websites? Snowman (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that text is not used as a reference, and the policy you are looking at is about text that is used as a reference. SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says that you should not cite source B if you are using source A as a reference. But if source A cites B, and we re-use the text from A in our article, then our article also using B as a reference, and is not using A as a reference. That's why SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is irrelevant. I keep bringing up the easiest example: if we copy an article directly from Simple English Wikipedia, we would not try to claim that we are using them as a reference, we are just re-using their text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Text copied from an external website is not used as a reference, however WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says that it should be clear where all text added to the wiki came from. All references added to the wiki should have been read by the Wiki editor unless it is made clear in the citation that the editor read a specified block of CC text, but not the sources for the block of CC text. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says says: "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself". It could not be clearer; "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself" means that you can not copy creative commons text from an external website and quote only their references. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But we can indeed copy creative commons text verbatim from other websites without double-checking every reference the text uses before we make the copy. We do this all the time, in fact. It's one the benefits of free content that we can use free content from other sites without having to re-do all the work ourselves. The assumption is that the person who wrote the text originally read the reference. Remember we have AGF as a policy - do you have some reason to suspect that here that the person who wrote the article did not read the source? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to accept that the authors read the references they quote. Surly, you can see that coying text with references and not saying where it is from is not consistent with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly consistent: the text was written from those references, and the fact that it was copied from one free-content project to another doesn't change what references were used when the text was written. Would you also claim that if I copy a sentence from one wikipedia article to another, I have to double-check every reference in it as well? That's precisely the sort of thing we are talking about here: taking text that is already referenced, and re-using it in another place with the same references. If the original author looked at the references that were used, SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is satisfied. It's not necessary for later people to re-read the references every time the move the text around. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that all references have to be read every time text is moved around, because editors can say that they did not reed the references by saying in the in-line cite "book abc quoted from book xyz". This is the truth about the added text. It satisfies WP:V. Am I right in thinking that your style of references for a block of text copied from a CC external website would be "book abc quoted", where I would use "book abc quoted from book xyz". Presumably, you would put something exact in the edit summary to explain the added block of text, similar to writing a good edit summary with wikilink to the donor article when Wiki articles are merged. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at maths articles to see how PlanetMath is used, and I have seen a few examples, which seen to have been referenced well enough. I note that there is a PlanetMat template with attributes that is extremely useful for citation; for example. {{planetmath reference|id=4203|title=Proof of A compact set in a Hausdorff space is closed}} being added by this edit. I also note that maths Wiki editors that I am aware of make a brief comment about sourcing from PlanetMath in the edit summary, which is useful for future article editing (see this edit summary and note the explicit PlanetMath reference added). Surely, the {{Template:planetmath reference}} is ideal for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which cites PlanetMath as a reference; we're not citing ARKive as a reference, but incorporating text from it, which is cited to original sources. However, it is otherwise very similar to {{ARKive}}, which you were recently calling to be removed from articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is {{ARKive attribution}} that I think should be removed. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"No, it is {{ARKive attribution}} that I think should be removed." Oh, really? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reiteration: I think that the {{ARKive attribution}} template should be removed; see my edit. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reiteration: {{Planetmath reference}} is similar to {{ARKive}}, and you were recently calling for {{ARKive}} to be removed from articles, and removing it yourself. The evidence of this is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#External links to Arkive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have now reversed that opinion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have used ARKive as an external link on Great Northern Loon, and I have linked the quality video on ARKive. As far as I can see this is totally irrelevant to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I have not raised external links as an issue to ARKive on this talk page; although, external links to ARKive are under discussion on the WP Birds talk page about bird articles. After viewing videos on ARKive, I think ARKive is a resource that contains excellent BBC and other videos (albeit with a large watermark). I have put forward my view on WP Birds talk page in favour of selective use of external links to ARKive videos. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note a requirement to "say where you got it" and provide the copyright licence in the edit summary for a block of text copied from a CC website; see Wikipedia:Licensing update. Snowman (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What?

Snowman, I don't think I understand this question. It seems to me that this is what happens:

1. Editor goes to ARKive and finds a page on, say, Hyacinth Macaw: http://www.arkive.org/hyacinth-macaw/anodorhynchus-hyacinthinus/
2. Editor clicks on the #Find out more or #References links on that page.
3. Editor clicks on one of the links to some non-ARKive website in that section.
4. Editor reads and uses information from that non-ARKive website to write the Wikipedia article.
5. But you want the editor to give a shout-out to ARKive anyway.

Is that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not involved, but no. I think he meant that aside from copying the text and references verbatim from ARKive, we should also indicate that it was lifted off directly from ARKive using sources you haven't yourself touched. e.g.

1. Editor goes to ARKive and finds a page on Hyacinth Macaw: http://www.arkive.org/hyacinth-macaw/anodorhynchus-hyacinthinus/
2. Editor copies usable text with accompanying references verbatim into a Wikipedia article.
3. Editor then indicates that the ref of the text is not something he actually read himself, but is from ARKive.

Don't see the big deal really. It's donated text after all. If we have to go doublecheck everything, we might as well just grab the list of refs, ignore everything else, read it ourselves, and rewrite it our way. Which renders the whole donation thing moot.

Personally I'd treat ARKive simply as another editor. The person copying the text from there is not part of the equation, he simply copies the text and ref. The rest can be handled the same way we handle reffed additions by other users - we haven't read their sources, but unless we find conflicting claims or unless the info is really really dubious, we let it be, don't we? AGF and all that, assume the ARKive people did their jobs.

But a compromise somewhere between the two is good enough I guess. As you can't like, just go to ARKive's talk page and challenge his additions, LOL. Including the original ref used by ARKive and indicate that the ref and the text are both from there, would probably be good enough.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea of treating ARKive as analogous to another editor; in which case this project talk page is analogous to that editor's talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User Jc3s5h has explained it better than I did, and it is in agreement with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which says - Snowman (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example; there are several ways this can be written):

Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2." Snowman (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh?! Are you saying that volunteers who are moving the donated text from ARKive are now obligated to reread everything? You won't get any, which perhaps may be your intention.

Let me spell it out: Wikipedia editors who are transferring the text are not the authors. Nor should they be forced to then be responsible for the contents of the donated material. If they had to reread all the references used, then we really shouldn't be asking for donations then. We can just go to some other website, and look at their list of references.

ARKive is already saying where they got it by providing references. You don't need to do it all over again. It would be nice of course, and doing so would be admirably thorough. But it's an unrealistic expectation to have to redo all the things they already did, for a reason which as far as I can tell is simple distrust because they are not part of Wikipedia. At least ARKive's text contains inline citations.

I'm pretty sure we don't act this way every time another contributor adds something to an article, do we? Do we revert all additions because we can't read the offline source provided? Do we zealously look up their refs, order the book, download a copy, go through a paywall, etc. just so we can read it ourselves and confirm that what he added was true? No. We WP:AGF. Otherwise, Wikipedia would not work at all.

This is not WP:FAR. It's a donation. You know... something freely given? And all I'm seeing here are people looking the gift horse in the mouth. If this is the usual reaction, I'm not surprised that other databases are not exactly jumping to cooperate with Wikipedia.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not mad, lol. As I said, I'm uninvolved. Just my honest impression at reading all this, really.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, it is not a "gift horse in the mouth", it is a transaction with quid pro quo benefits. Wikipedia is often the first page listed in google for a search item. This agency is has a large Public Relations element to it, hence they are interested in cross-promotion. I respect their aims and all, I am just uneasy with how this is all working out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oooh. Fair point. Heh. Still, the atmosphere here is rather... I dunno. I'd really rather assume good intentions. Some of those articles would really benefit their Wikipedia counterparts. Mostly the more obscure species. I understand perfectly why people are leery of integrating donated text into perfectly good articles, which is the case with some of those dealing with more familiar animals.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Snowman's right. If you go to WebsiteX.com and copy sentences off it, then you must cite WebsiteX.com as your source. WebsiteX.com might have a dozen sources, but those dozen sources are not your sources. What you should do to accommodate licensing and copyrights has nothing at all to do with what you should do for citations. Your citation must name your source, not your source's source.

Besides, this ought to make everything easier for the people doing the transfers: You can name the ARKive page alone as your sole citation for every single sentence. You have the option of passing along ARKive's sources, but the only thing that CITE actually requires you to name as your source is your actual source—and your actual source is never a page that you've never even laid eyes on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the only time I've ever copied something wholesale from another site was from TOLweb, a single paragraph from a page which explicitly states that the text is under CC-BY-SA. And rather than cite their source, I did cite TOLweb instead. And yeah it's easier in a way. My concern is that it loses something in the process. What if the ARKive page changes? Knowing your source's source has to be good for something, and it would be that. You'd be able to [theoretically] read it yourself.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, I agree that it would be wonderful if editors choose to pass along these sources. CITE is satisfied if they provide only their source, but it would be lovely to have both if they don't mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would also help those who don't quite view ARKive as a reliable source. By retaining the inline cites, you can at least figure out which came from unreliable sources, which are solid, which are problematic, etc. Then you can improve it without having to worry about which sentences were reffed to what source. So yeah... a compromise? We can easily add a (from ARKive) or something like that in between the <ref> tags in addition to the actual ref cited in the original. While we may not have read the original, we did read the ARKive material.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I am sorry to say you're simply wrong in the post dated 21:09, 29 July 2011. If we copy an article wholesale from Simple English Wikipedia, we are not using them as a reference for our article. In fact they are not a reliable source according to our standards, so we can't use them as a reference. But we can still copy articles from there to here. When we do that we are simply using their text here as part of our article, we are not using it as a reference. This happens all the time with text from many free sources, which is why we have so many attribution templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Obsidian Soul's suggestion that we think of ARKive as another editor. Here's where the similarity between ARKive factfiles and WP articles is a benefit. However, unlike a real user, ARKive is not automatically credited in page history. That suggests the need for mechanisms to credit that user, and the attribution template and "via ARKive" addition to citations seem to satisfy that need.

Casliber, above, you say that this is not a donation but a transaction: surely you could say about any donation to Wikipedia projects (including a donation of labour) that the donor benefits. In Wikipedia educational assignments, students donate labour and content but they benefit from it in terms of grades. I benefit in various personal ways from editing WP, but it's still true to say my work is donated to it. What's wrong with that? I can't understand why you're trying to make a special case of ARKive. They want people to be more aware of, and informed about, threatened species. We want people to be able to inform themselves about anything at all. There's a very strong overlap of goals there, which is obscured when we incorrectly describe them as "designers" doing "pr". Wikipedia and ARKive will both benefit: that's the point of arranging a collaborative project. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl, I disagree. When we incorporate public domain text from EB1911, we cite EB1911 as our source. If we are incorporating text from ARKive, we should cite them as the source. This is not a WP:Transwiki issue. The rules for copying something over from Simple.Wikipedia are different.

Also, SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT actually prohibits editors from citing a source that they've never seen. If you add a new source to Wikipedia, you're telling the reader that you read the source. You should not mislead the reader by citing Book I've Never Seen just because it sounds more impressively reliable than your actual source of "Embarrassing Blog". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly permissible to directly copy text from EB 1911 to Wikipedia, without citing it as a source. This is the purpose of Template:1911: to mark that some of the text in the article was taken from that source, even though we do not directly cite them as a reference. This is why the template says "incorporates text" rather than "cites". That template does not indicate a citation, and there are many more like it in the category for attribution templates. We should use a similar template for ARKive and other free sources, but it still will not be a citation.

As I pointed out, you seem to be claiming that we could not copy word-for-word an article from Simple English Wikipedia to here without re-checking all the sources that are already used in the article. That's not correct, and it's not what SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is about. There is no difference, from the point of view of using free content, between Simple English Wikipedia, EB 1911, Citizendium, PlanetMath, or any of the other sources that have attribution templates. The rules are the same for all free content sources: we can directly use their text as part or all of one of our articles, with no need to change it at all. Certainly there is nothing in SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT to distinguish between different types of sources - because the entire issue of reusing content is orthogonal to SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Further to CBM's correct response, SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does not - and can not - prohibit anything. Please see the following section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not say that you have to re-check sources from Simple. Simple is already part of Wikipedia. You no more need to re-check sources from Simple than you need to re-check sources when merging two articles on the English Wikipedia.

IMO it is permissible to directly copy text from EB1911 without any citation (NB that there are other editors who believe that it is a "direct quotation" that requires not only an inline citation, but also the addition of the phrase "according to EB1911).

It is not permissible to directly copy text from EB1911 and then pretend that you read some other source that contained the information and cite that other source. You have to SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not where some other source got it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The same thing applies to Citizendium, or PlanetMath, or any other free-content project. There is no difference between WMF and non-WMF free-content projects in that regard: we can directly re-use free content that is compatible with our copyright policy. For example, we can directly copy Citizendium articles here without making any changes to the wording (apart from copyright attribution). Someone who copies text without claiming to be the original author is not "pretending" to have read the sources, because they are not pretending to be the author of the text. Free content is not a one-way street: Wikipedia gives free content to other projects and take free content from them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll note my agreement with CBM here. When you make an edit to an existing article, you respect the citations offered by other authors, and don't need to make any claim that you've verified every citation in the edit you just processed. The same is true when you reuse free content from another Wikipedia article, another WMF project, or an outside free content creator. The authors of the ARKive text play the same role as editors of the Wiki article in which the ARKive text is included, and share similar attribution rights in the final adapted work. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is a sub-section of a page, which opens with the words:

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

(my emphasis). HTH. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

I have emphasised some some of the meaning with emboldened text. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this is being debated based on the wording of a guideline is itself representative of a fundamental problem/flaw. Guidelines are just that - guidelines, not fixed approaches, nor approaches that will work in every situation. Let's evaluate this based on the situation at hand, and then figure out what that means in terms of general principles. Mike Peel (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; that was my point. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That being said, some of the guidelines have regard for the constraints of copyright laws and the need to avoid allegations of plagiarism. Snowman (talk)

SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is about referencing, not copyright. Attribution of copyright is addressed by the use of {{ARKive attribute}} - something else to which you have been opposed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

High visibility template

Re: high visibility template, {{ARKive attribute}}, which says:

"This article incorporates material from the ARKive fact-file Pagename xyz, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL."

It is present on the following pages: Snowman (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wisent
• South Asian River Dolphin
• Coco de Mer
• Giant Armadillo
• Apollo (butterfly)
• Common box turtle
• Python sebae
• Bornean orangutan
• Erioderma pedicellatum
• Freshwater pearl mussel
• Maxima clam
• Southern giant clam
• Brachypelma albopilosum
• Brachypelma boehmei
• Dracula vampira

I think that this template is too prominent should be removed from all these articles and that the template be deleted. ARKive have a box for the talk page which will suffice. There is also external links to ARKive (under discussion on the WP Bird talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#External_links_to_Arkive), and sometimes end references with "via ARKive". Snowman (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• We need to have something on the article page, because of the copyright license variation (ie not GFDL) and it is fair enough to attribute that site in a references section. It could however be less prominent. So don't delete the template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I do not understand what difference the different copyrights between the Wiki and ARKive should make to the need to have this template. When text is appropriately added to the Wikipedia it is licensed with the Wikipedia's copyright. I see no reason why the Wikipedia should need to give the licence of an external website in this way. This template does not help to indicate which text is from ARKive, so it is useless at pointing to any particular part of the article that is derived from ARKive. The Wikipedia is not required to explain the copyright licences of books or any other source. Is there a copyright problem about cutting and pasting text from ARKive to the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sad that we have to add these. It seems that it will be very difficult to get rid of these, and I would hate to have something so tacky on these articles in perpetuity! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the text added from ARKive should be attributed to ARKive with an in-line ref and that there is no need for this template. To me, this template which has been added to existing Wiki articles (including well developed articles) explaining the copyright of an external website seems to be as bad as spam. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The text here seems very similar to Template:Planetmath and the other templates in Category:Attribution templates. I believe these are usually placed at the bottom of the main article, like Template:Planetmath, but there may be some variation in practice. The use of this sort of attribution is well established and is important to acknowledge when we have re-used freely copyrighted material. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See also prior discussion, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence of any prior negotiation with the WP projects affected about the roll out of this template. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely "... but not under the GFDL" at the end of the template could be removed. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement for negotiation. There was, however, consultation, as you are well aware, having replied to it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively". Snowman (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As per above, if Arkive text is considered WP:RS, with its own internal references, use of the text should be referenced to Arkive, not to the unseen references within the Arkive page. This is the same principle as adding references to a book or a site like BirdLife. The reference is to the book or the website, not their primary sources. If an Arkive page isn't RS, it shouldn't be used. Thus, any appropriate use of Arkive text will be referenced to the site. Why do we need a spammy high-visibility template to tell us the text has been used? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the references listed on ARKive for the Hyacinth Macaw. Not one of these references is the page where information was sourced from. All these references are either home pages of websites or "Not Found". These have been copied to the Wiki, and because they do not contain the information they are not adequate of the Wiki for verification. Surely, it would be better to use ARKive with a url to the information on ARKive in the in-line citation (assuming that ARKive is RS). As noted above, this would make the high-visibility template unnecessary. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BIRD has in the past had discussions on photographers adding external links to their own sites marking them as "photographs by XYZ" and these additions were largely in good faith. The privilege of including names is largely unavailable to the authors or editors of text. The idea that one could use a template to indicate source could set an interesting precedent. An expert editor could write something perfectly reliable and with reliable sources on a personal blog and mark it under a suitable creative commons license and then copy-paste it into Wikipedia with a template at the bottom saying "text included from _mysite.com_". Allowing such templates could lead to more unfair practices. Shyamal (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that those are good points not raised before: 1. I would not like to see scores of these templates added to an article by users jumping on the band-wagon after writing a short referenced paragraph under CC licence on a website somewhere. 2. By comparison photographers release images under CC licence and their websites are not featured in templates on wiki articles. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive is not "a personal blog", so your example does not help us. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that my comments (1. and 2. above) are illustrative and helpful. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive is not merely "a website somewhere", so your first example also does not help us. Images are credited at separate pages, unlike text, so that example does not help us, either. Your attention has already been drawn to the precedents set by members of Category:Attribution templates, which is helpful. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have found something that sounds useful at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. This suggests that attribution templates are optional. It suggests that they are more useful when there is a lot CC text from a source website. It seems that {{citation-attribution}} template can suffice especially when there is a small portion of text added to a Wiki article form a CC source. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

{{citation-attribution}} is for public domain texts. ARKive's donated texts are not in the public domain. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution is a guideline, with the same caveats as the other guidelines to which you have previously referred. It also explicitly states that it "does not preclude supplementing that with the method described below" - i.e. the use of an attribution template like {{ARKive attribute}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It says "attribution for compatibly licensed and public-domain text", so it does not sound like it is only for PD text to me. It says "use of an appropriate attribution template", which sounds like this applies to all sorts of attribution templates including the ARKive template. I know it is a guideline; However, it seems to me to indicate clearly that attribution templates are optional. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the template's documentation; on which no such clause is found. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have checked this twice and both the quotations (between "" marks) are found on the guideline page at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution . Of course, anyone can use control + f to search the page. I think that I can rest my case that the ARKive attribution template that has been placed on Hyacinth Macaw is optional, since the in-line references attributing ARKive will suffice. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already addressed your selective reading of that page; nothing there supports your assertion that "{{citation-attribution}} template can suffice especially when there is a small portion of text added to a Wiki article form a CC source". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I made an accidental error mentioning a particular template rather than citation templates in general. It should have said; "in-line citation templates can suffice especially when a small portion of text is added to a Wiki article from a CC source". Snowman (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case: I think that the ARKive attribution template that has been placed on the Hyacinth Macaw Wiki article is optional, since the in-line references attributing ARKive will suffice. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have familiarity with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. In contrast to Category:Attribution templates, {{Copied}} and {{translated page}} are placed on the talk page. {{Copied}} is usually used to supplement edit summary attribution. Instead of focusing on ARKive, I think that we should discuss attribution of external text in general at WP:Village pump (policy)‎ and/or WP:Requests for comment. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• As User Mike Peel said above; "Let's evaluate this based on the situation at hand, and then figure out what that means in terms of general principles.". I expect that the discussion can be extended to WP:Village pump (policy)‎ and/or WP:Requests for comment when the discussion here has developed some anatomy, and that time may have arrived. My own impression it that all the general principals discussed here are already in Wiki guidelines and copyright laws, but they are dispersed in a number of guidelines. To bring all the parts together, I think that there is a need for a single document of community agreed protocols and/or guidelines for copying text from CC sources into the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OA support for the project

Hi Andy,

I had a look at your project and think there might be ways to join forces: If you feel that the result of complementing the original Wikipedia entry with ARKive text still does not yield a decent entry, I could try to find some Open Access resources (text, images or media) on the topic. Please post the requests at meta:Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science/Requests for Open Access materials.

I won't comb systematically through your pages, though I may check some of them on occasion, as I am also interested in zoology, animal physiology, taxonomy, biodiversity and conservation issues.

-- Daniel Mietchen, GLAM/OA 22:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel, that's a very kind offer, and I would encourage anyone helping with this project to consider taking advantage of it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More donated articles

ARKive have just released another batch, of 58 texts. I've added these to the list on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to know at this juncture if the ARKive project would like to make any changes however simple and small to address or partly address any issues that have been raised above. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

See Wikipedia:Licensing update about writing an edit summary at the time of addition of text from CC external website. This states that "With the transition, the Wikipedia community will now be allowed to import CC-BY-SA text from external sources into articles. If you do this, the origin of the material and its license should be explicitly noted in the edit summary." This being so, I believe that the instructions give to ARKive editors on the main ARKive project page as seen today should be amended. Item 7 on the ARKive project main page says; "Consider using this edit summary: Text from ARKive donated by Wildscreen under CC-BY-SA 3.0; see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive"; however, I think this need amending to say "It is important to use this edit summary: ..." rather than "Consider using this edit summary: ...". I believe that this is a legal requirement for Wikipedia licensing, however, I am sure others will be able to explain the legal situation better than I can. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I've been asked by Andy and Martin to comment here rather than on the WT:BIRDS page (where some discussion was already underway). So here goes. I've included some of the text from that discussion so that my question is more clear.

It seems particularly nuts (to have via ARKive following references) considering we already reference BirdLife International and the IUCN Red List on many (most?) articles — and now (looking at Hyacinth Macaw anyway) they will apparently say "via ARKive" after those references. Huh? Why not link directly to the references themselves? MeegsC | Talk 01:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MeegsC: Snowman has explained the answer in terms of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. When editors has not checked the reference themselves but are copying the citation from ARKive, they need to reflect that. It also means that we can identify which parts of an article have been improved as part of the collaboration project. If an article evolves so there are no more "via ARKive.org" references, then that would suggest we could remove the template.

Martin, that was kind of my point! Long before the ARKive project became involved with the Hyacinth Macaw page, there were already links to the BirdLife International and IUCN pages. Now those links both say "via ARKive". Why? MeegsC | Talk 02:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MeegsC, you appear to be mis-remembering what really happened. But as Martin P says, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive is the page for discussing the collaboration project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Andy, I'm not. Here's a link from before you, or anyone else from ARKive, starting editing this article. Note that both BirdLife International's species information page and the IUCN Red List page are already referenced. As before, I'm wondering why both now say "via ARKive", as they were clearly part of this article before!! MeegsC | Talk 12:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just replied to a duplicate copy of your comment, on the Birds project talk page, showing where you're mistaken. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to compare the article directly before and after ARKive additions on 19 July 2011 (from this to this). Unless I am mistaken (it is difficult tracing through the edit history), I do not see anything where an existing references has had "via ARKive" suffixed, so lets not spend to much time on this small point. Perhaps, the main point is that it is confusing listing some references "via ARKive" with others from the same source without "via ARKive". How can this be done better? Snowman (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. As you can see from the link I provided, above, all of the references added from ARKive were labelled thus (you were, I recall, calling for this to be done, a while ago); none of the pre-existing references were changed. Where exactly is this discussion getting us, and how is it helping us to improve Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what I am saying for Hyacinth Macaw; however, a mixture of references some via ARKive and some as a direct reference for the same original sources is confusing. To be clear, I think User MeegsC is mistaken and User Pigsonthewing is correct on this minor point. I replied to avoid a long discussion between you both. Lets not spend too much time on this. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to be taking me for an enemy of this ARKive project, which I most certainly am not. Please don't attribute to me things that I have not said/done (i.e your "recollection" that I'd called for all of the references from ARKive to be labelled as such, which I never did)! You are correct in that I was confused about what you'd added. It turns out that you added a second link to the same BirdLife International page. I'm assuming you did that to identify the bits that you added, as opposed to what was already there. That's what confused me, because I knew there was already a link to that page. Now there are two. I'm just trying to get my head around what this means to the BIRDS project (new material from a good source - great; new material that must be vetted because it may not be correct - still good, but perhaps a bit more problematic). I will now go away and leave you to it, because I gather that you already feel plenty harassed by editors questioning what you're doing. There are plenty of other areas where I can work without stepping on your toes! MeegsC | Talk 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking you for "an enemy of this ARKive project", and my comment about "labelling references from ARKive as such" was addressed at Snowmanradio, not you - note the indentation. My invitation to you and other WP:BIRDS members, to assist in adding donated ARKive content, stands. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another question/suggestion

Given the concerns some editors have raised (in sections higher up on this page) about the reliability and referencing of a handful of the articles, and the GLAM/ARKive response that some of the older articles haven't yet been properly vetted by experts, might it be better to wait and have that done before importing potentially bad information into Wikipedia? I'm guessing (from the official response) that there are plenty of good articles that we could be working with instead! MeegsC | Talk 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This point has already been answered, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for release

Hello, where is an evidence, that ARKive has supposedly donated exactly these texts under that CC license? Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Statements to that effect, by me, as the Wikipedia Ambassador appointed by them and Wikimedia UK, on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

hmm... thank you for the answer. I have also read the page http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/ARKive_project before, but I have found no evidence of release of these texts. If some wikipedian (or two wikipedians) will write on wikipedia that somebody else has released something, that may or may not be truth because you cannot donate what someone else owns. Evidence could be for example like this: statement on http://www.arkive.org/ that something was released or that any cooperation exist, or email sent by somebody from ARKive to Wikipedia:OTRS and then independently verified. Imagine, that somebody will mark these texts as copyvio and will delete them. Anybody can do it and delete them immediately. Could you provide this information in more transparent way, please? Follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Snek01 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no progress and it is highly suspicious even when reported as COPYVIO to the Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations#Suspected copyvio. --Snek01 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that there is a collaboration project between Wikimedia UK and ARKive, and that Andy is the appointed lead for this project, and that it involves sharing of text from ARKive under the Cc license indicated. Myself and Steve Virgin are the Wikimedia UK contacts for this. I dispute that anything here is "highly suspicious". If someone is planning to violate copyright, wouldn't this be the least subtle way to do it? If you doubt the collaboration project is real, a safer way to proceed is to check with either Wikimedia UK or ARKive, rather than disrupting the project's work here on-wiki. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS confirmation of release under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL confirmed in ticket 2011090810014488 and added to Template:GLAMARKive. – Adrignola talk 19:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Arkive Range Attribution

[copied from my talk page - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits]

Hi Andy,

I had occasion to look through the Arkive images a couple of days ago for Acrocephalus luscinius. I have a question. Is there somewhere on the species pages information as to the exact locales in which each photo was shot? I ask because the A. luscinius sensu largo is being split. V. Cibois, Beadell, Graves, Pasquet, Slikas, Sonsthagen, Thibault & Fleischer 2011. Charting the course of reed-warblers across the Pacific islands. J Biogeogr

Cibois, A., Thibault, J.-C. & Pasquet, E. (2011) Molecular and morphological analysis of Pacific reed-warbler specimens of dubious origins, including Acrocephalus luscinius astrolabii. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 131, 32–40.

It becomes of topical interest therefore the precise locales in which those photos were shot.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I put this to Arkive, who said:

Many of the images included within ARKive do not have location details accompanying them. The information we do receive about where a photo is taken is stored within the offline ARKive database.

On the ARKive website we identify subspecies within the image caption. Information on the range and distribution of species is detailed within the accompanying ARKive species text.

I hope that satisfies, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, satisfy, not really. Given the massive splitting that has been going on the last few years, ARKive should actively ask precise locations of their contributing photographers. I looked into the question myself and found that all of the photos (by Baumgartner, and by Hornbuckle) were shot on Saipan. Acrocephalus luscinius prout Cibois is now extinct. The Nightingale Reed Warbler is no more! The only hope for it being extant (since it was extirpated from Guam) was that the bird found on Alamagen was in some manner associable to the nominate A.l.luscinius (from Guam). It isn't associable, therefore the nominate luscinius is extinct. Given that all of the taxa, extinct or extant, that used to be associated to Acrocephalus luscinius sensu largo have been split, the Nightingale Reed Warbler sensu stretto is now extinct. The birds you have linked on ARKive are the split species Saipan Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus hiwae).Steve Pryor (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed reply; I missed that you'd responded. I think this is something you'd need to take up with ARKive; it's not for us (me; the project; Wikimedia UK; Wikipedia) to say what ARKive "should" do with their images; particularly as we're not using them. Otherwise, you're free to edit the article concerned; as you are any other on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Events

We're holding two events, on the afternoon, and again in the evening of 15 September, in Bristol. All welcome! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can't attend, follow the #GLAMARKive hashtag on Twitter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)