Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Scriptol

Scriptol
Blanked with the following comment:


 * Delete by the author. Don't revert, ask to Ruud

Either we should delete it or reinstate the content.

--Krischik T 16:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted - Legally once you have committed content to the GFDL, it is "out there" and it can't be taken back in. I don't know if perhaps we need to establish a policy allowing authors to "take back" their work, but the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit page pretty much says it all: ''Please note that all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence (see Wikibooks:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.'' We can't be more blunt than that.

I've done a google search for the programming langauge, and I've come up with the following links:


 * http://www.scriptol.com/
 * http://www.scriptol.net/
 * http://www.scriptol.org/
 * http://freshmeat.net/projects/scriptol/

This isn't original research, as has happened in the past, but is a real programming language. I don't see why this content should necessarily be removed, but it is unusual for an author to want it removed. It is at least as clear as anything else written about the programming language, and I don't see a reason why it should be removed.

The other issue is that the edit asking for its removal is from a different IP address than the one that contributed the content. It would be difficult at best to even find who might have been the original author, and if it was from a dynamic IP address you would have to get ISP records to trace the IP to a specific computer to legally prove that you had even written it. From this perspective we have the contributions of at least three different users (three different IP addresses) and any effort to remove the content would have to prove that it is a copyright violation prior to its creation here on Wikibooks. We could simply state for the record that the blanking instead was just vandalism. Harsh, but that is a pure legal stance on this issue.

I suppose we could be nice and simply kill the page to be polite to the author using perhaps common sense, but it isn't something we absolutely have to do. --Rob Horning 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)