Wikibooks talk:Ownership

Freedoms, editorial control and copyright ownership
The original text did have all this factors included as to make the distinction on what ownership meant in the specific contexts, recently people have focused more on establishing that no one has editorial control on works (I think that it is consensual and already expressed on other policies texts, probably not as emphatically as some would wish). The proposal draft was and is seen as necessary to clarify contributing Wikibookians about copyright issues, our new Terms of Use (July 2009) makes a real improvement on what was originally available at the time the proposal was first drafted, but it is still specific on establishing users and Wikimedia, responsibilities, requirements and freedoms, not in establishing or clarifying authorship/copyright rights, attributions, requirements and limitations. Some of these are very specific to the Wikibooks project and ultimately will require our community approval. --Panic (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much liked Darklama's previous version. I would like to suggest we revert back to this version and move forward from there. Thenub314 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have proposed to Darklama to include that statements in the Be Bold that already deals with the problem of editorial control (if you have the time read the discussion that lead to the adoption of the Be Bold text). I do not, and don't know of anyone today that opposing the views that Darklama condensed on that edit, I even don't object to have it included on this draft, but the point of the text is about copyright ownership not editorial control. See this talk page history for more information. --Panic (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read through the history diff by diff. My conclusion is that, of the people that have taken part in the talk page you are the unique person claiming that this page is about copyright.


 * Granted, there was much discussion of copyright in the history in response to points you have raised. But everyone else seemed to be clear that this was not what the page was about.


 * But it was pointed out many times by Whiteknight, , , . By SB_Johnny , and Darklama . The other participants Robert Horning and Jguk never explicitly state one way or another what the page should be about.


 * Overall, I agree with the sentiments above that this page has nothing to do with copyright. And seeing that others feel the same I am going to be bold and go back to DL's version. Thenub314 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which are very specific to Wikibooks and why are they specific to Wikibooks? --dark lama  00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Our specific requirements of attribution (not the same as Wikipedia), definition of author, the author page, the benefits of having stated licensing of the works. I know your opinion, by our previous discussions that you see little point on this issues but I ask you to respect mine and others that also have stated opposition to your sole satisfaction with the submit statement, to what we previously discussed and pointed limitation. IIRC the last issue on that front was on the volatility of the statement and the lack of discussion regarding it's changes. Note that I'm not promoting a discussion on these subjects now only attempting to remind you of past discussions about the subject of copyright in general, that you seem to have forgotten.
 * The information present here is not irrelevant and is not duplicated elsewhere, it can be easily extended to clarify our dual licensing scheme that to most users should be confusing and enable a future discussion regarding relicensing of works beyond the Wikibooks licenses among other issues relevant only to copyright owners. --Panic (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition of an author is no different here than anywhere else. While there are author pages the need for them is even less now than before. People are no longer obligated to refer to the authors to give credit when reusing book material and can instead just link back. I'm not sure what the current status is on stating licensing of works, I have noticed some Licensing pages have been deleted over time. I see even less point on these issues now than I did back than because of CC-BY-SA and a link back being sufficient attribution. I believe there isn't a need to clarify the licensing scheme because people don't need to use the GFDL license at all unless they want to.
 * I believe it would be a good idea to find out from Whiteknight what his intentions were and if necessary rename this page to "Wikibooks:Copyright_ownership" to avoid continued ambiguity. --dark lama  01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there isn't any need to ask Whiteknight, unless you are still confused on his intentions for this proposal. He has stated it many times including his last comments from 2007. --dark lama  01:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Due to the nomenclature used by the software the word author has been extremely abused, we had already discussed this issues, but I'm game to rehash the subject again if you fell it is important at this time. An editor is not an author for instance the C++ Programming book has (according to stats.wikimedia.org)166 registered authors.
 * I fact it has 166 editors, this is a non issue on Wikipedia (since there is no ownership over each encyclopedic article is not possible, only the over the aggregation). As I often stated Wikibooks is completely different in this respect, the closest project to us on copyrights procedure and overall structure is Wikisource. In any case you already know all these arguments I do fail to realize your purpose in failing to acknowledge already established positions.
 * The current status on stating the licensing of the works was achieved in a discussion that we had on Rob's talk page IIRC, it was determined that even if it was beneficial to clearly state the licensing on each individual work and the people that specifically own rights over them (as to permit among other things future license changes). That there was not a consensus on the best implementation, required verifiability of identity and that ownership must be claimed by contributors (not attributed, attributions are only necessary if using other works, per the licenses). The community also discussed the particular problem regarding print versions and in general the generation of stand alone copies of the works, as requiring the inclusion of the GFDL, at the time the only license (one of the particular issues we, me and you, clashed on). Today it is debatable if only the simple acknowledgment of CC-BY-SA suffices, this is the specific reason why in the works I participate as an author I clearly state adhesion only to the CC-BY-SA license (the GFDL will only be valid on the aggregation, under the submit statement concept).
 * I have a good memory of the past events, this specific draft was created in response to the claims being attributed to me about editorial control and the confusion regarding the point I was making about copyright ownership, Whiteknight created this page during one of the times I was blocked, discussion that lead directly to the 27 February 2007 RfD of the C++ book.
 * In any case I don't think that discussion of this draft is particular important and going anywhere at this moment, as we are only restating previously known positions, most of the subject is not consensual and now sadly the consensual part has been removed under my objections. I will finish this discussion with a post stating my objections to the changes and basis for them.
 * I'm certainly more interested on your view of the fair use of images and how you came to that position on the request for permission and in having that request addressed...
 * PS:Of note that the phrase "I believe there isn't a need to clarify the licensing scheme because people don't need to use the GFDL license at all unless they want to." doesn't have any value, it contradicts itself, it is equal to the statement "I believe that there is a need to clarify the licensing scheme if people want to use the GFDL license, even if people don't need to.", making it a failed argument. --Panic (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I will just chime in and say that I have to agree with Darklama's comment on his talk page that Terms of Use and Copyrights cover copyrights and licensing. I've always thought of this page in the behavioral sense of owning books, though I admit I hadn't given it a good read. However, I like what I've seen so far in terms of changes made to bring it to the current state. – Adrignola talk 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement of objection
I'm hereby making a statement of objection against recent changes to the draft, done under objection by myself above in 1 Dec 2010, as a clear bypassing of the normal process to archive consensus and a clear disregard and nullification of the discussion attempt that was taking place. My objection is based on the intrinsic change to the draft text, that was focused in copyright issues to the issue of editorial control, this draft had a significant historical importance since it reflected a difficult process to get consensus in a subject that is extremely controversial, these changes put all references to the draft out of context (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikibooks:Ownership) and disregard past Wikibookians work on it. Of note that I don't object to the statement about the editorial control but what started as a clarification was now made into the sole and primary content. The draft I support is the one from the edit by Adrignola, 9 August 2010 with the necessary updates (to reflect the CC-SA licenses ), reflected in the edit by Panic2k4, 1 December 2010 (any other similar update would be valid). --Panic (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I would like to address the objections raised as best I can. I was not of the opinion I was bypassing of the normal process.  I had read the page history as you suggested, and came to the conclusion that myself, Darklama, and the editors I linked above (Whiteknight, SB_Johnny) felt this was a page about editorial control.  The only editor that seemed to be advocating for this to be about copyright that I saw in the history was you.


 * Given that the latest version began "This text is about copyright ownership, licensing, responsibility and requirements, not about editorial control." I felt this version of the text missed represented the consensus. My intention was to go back to something a few of us agreed upon and imporve it from there.  Overall I don't feel there has been any real shift in the focus of the text.  No work has been thrown away, this text is largly based on what had been there before.  It is just that I had a new interest in revisiting this proposed policy and see if it is possible to shape it into a full fledged policy.


 * From reading of the talk page history the consensus seemed to be that copyright concerns deserve their own page, and they were given their own page ([WB:Copyrights]]). Is their an issue that the terms of use and copyrights pages fail to cover? What do you think is missing from the current set of policies that need further explanation?that you feel should be made clear here? Thenub314 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The revision changes I objected above regards this reposition you made. I have no particular interest beyond establishing consensus in the a community interpretation of the copyright law and licenses that affect us here and our creations outside of the project. There are extremely divergent views on these subjects of core importance, in any case I wasn't the creator of this draft, even if I and others did participate in writing it my motivation was to get those points established and visible to other contributors. My feelings is due to the work/time and discussions done on that regard to bring it to that state that will be as good as lost.
 * I note again the sequence of actions and not only on this page. In your position after seeing that I already had contacted the Wikibookian about my position and objection to the change explaining why, I would have participated with my opinion on the ongoing discussion until I had a felling for the issue.
 * I wouldn't have performed a reversal but considering that I would, I would have been impartial and reverted both changes, but I wouldn't execute a reversal against one of the persons having a dispute, especially considering that the two persons already had a checkered past in dealing exactly with this subject matter. --Panic (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your feedback is very welcome, and something I will think about. Sometimes I make mistakes, and it could be that decision was one of them.  But where do we go from here? Thenub314 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just reminding you that actions do accumulate and resonate, when using the written word perceptions is everything and memory is long. At this point we are mostly finished on this subject since by your own fulminating action you have decided against my position, in fact as I like to say, you ignored my right to block, and acted on a majority decision that you support, we can even say that you did exactly what the draft text attempts to prevent, you exerted unilateral editorial control over the text, that is the only result of an edit reversal... --Panic (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * These are very strong words (I had to look up fulminating, and… wow, that is a strong description of my actions). I really don't intend to decide against your position.  I simply felt the version you put forward did not reflect the consensus of the other editors on the page.  I have never held consensus needed to be unanimous.  So concepts like a "right to block" simply never entered my mind.  I have been on the wrong side of consensus many times and never had (nor wanted) to block a community decision by my disagreement with it.  Over all I don't believe a right to block exists.  The key point of it to me is that we continue to try to work together and make sure your concerns are addressed in a manner agreeable to everyone.  Which is really what the questions above are really trying to get to the heart of.


 * This ultimately is a public forum and the perception of ones actions is of extreme importance (I have learned that in a hard way). Even if I have came to know how you roll and am extremely appreciative of your capacity to argument a point, especially when we don't see eye-to-eye, as it make me reexamine my positions and actions. Ultimately this is also a political game, even if I believe in your good intentions I must put myself in your position as to consider your motivations and actions so to provide a valid, satisfying and useful response.
 * On the right to block, a value that I think is extreme importance for the safeguard of minority views and the community well being. It is covered and supported on the Decision making process step 6, with a reenforcement or prioritization of the necessity to repeat the process if a valid objection is not lifted. I don't defend that consensus is unanimity (all in agreement), it is a state of non stated opposition. --Panic (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I suppose I misunderstood what you meant by "right to block", which is not quite the phrase I might have used to describe step 6. IIRC there was some feeling that the particular processes was not the only accepted one for determining consensus, which is why the wording was changed slightly to allow for the fact that other methods are accepted and frequently employed and I was not following it particularly here.  I take your point about politics.  I can understand the value of putting yourself in my position and considering my motivations.
 * I suppose my view of consensus involves stating opposition when opposition exists. I think now I understand some of the discussion about reconfiguring a bit better, and perhaps some of our previous disagreements stem from the different ways we think of consensus.  Thenub314 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The possibility that the page was once used in a different way is a valid concern that should be looked into. Following the links you suggested (excluding some clearly unnecessary redirects, etc.) This is my opinion of now people were using this page in discussions.


 * User talk:DavidCary - DavidCary links in discussion of editorial control.
 * User talk:Panic2k4 - Panic links about planned essay on Copyright.
 * User talk:Remi0o - Panic links, used in terms of explain his view on the differences between author/contributor over in relation to C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors
 * User:Whiteknight/Behavior Summary - Links from an a short essay about behavior and editorial control.
 * User talk:Robert Horning - Linked in a request Roberts opinion about the page.
 * Reading room/Archives/2006/December - Linked to say WB:DM has derived some sections from this page. Doesn't seem to be discussing any copyright issues, consistent with views he expressed in this talk page.
 * Reading room/General - Link by thenub314 soliciting input to this page.
 * Talk:C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors - Link by thenub314 explaining how he became aware of the corresponding book page.
 * Reading room/Archives/2008/January - Link by Mike.lifeguard about editorial control. (But he does mention GFDL, so maybe this is questionable)
 * Requests for deletion/Physics Handbook - Link by thenub314 about editorial control.
 * Reading room/Bulletin Board/2006 - page creation announcement "in response to recent events". At the time of posting the page only discussed editorial controls and not copyright.
 * User talk:Darklama A discussion between Panic and Darklama about recent edits.
 * Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2008/November - Linked by Panic in a discussion about copyright infringment.
 * Reading room/Archives/2009/April - Lined by Panic in a discussion about copyright infringment (started by thenub314.)
 * User talk:Arlen22- Linked to by Panic in order to explain removing Arlen22 from the author list of C++ Programming
 * Talk:Marijuana Cultivation - Linked to by Adrignola in comparison to WP policy (which is not about copyrights) but copyrights were part of the issue, so the intention of this link could be seen as ambiguous.
 * Reading room/Archives/2009/December - Linked to by Panic in a discussion about using an Authors real name.
 * User talk:QuiteUnusual/Archive 2 - Linked by Panic in a discussion of copyright.
 * Cookbook talk:Table of Contents/Archive 7 - Linked by WebAware in the sense of editorial control.
 * Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2007/April - linked to a few times by Panic in a discussion about an edit conflict over C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors.
 * Reading room/Archives/2007/April - Linked by Panic in a discussion of authors and attribution.


 * Overall my conclusion is that, excluding links by you directly people were generally using this page in discussions of editorial control. Thenub314 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That conclusion seems partial :). Why should the use I gave the page have less importance? The important here is not the originator but the receptor.
 * Anyway I already expressed my views about the draft and if more people agree with the intended future use for it so be it, I will remove my objection. --Panic (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my intention to make your contributions seem less important. The only point is that your here making your point of view clear.  And you feel the point of the page was not about editorial control, you didn't object to editorial control being part of the page, but the core focus of the page seemed to be about copyright and licensing concerns.
 * I suppose I wanted to make the point, was that copyright concerns were not how the page is being used in discussions, and that people will probably not get confused by context if we shift the meaning of the text now. (Not that I really think we have but maybe I am biased.) Since your here to witness the sift, I am sure you'd use the page appropriately in discussions. Thenub314 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Authors
One thing, that perhaps could be made clearer is the issue of Authorship. I don't think it would be very appropriate for me to add anything about it at the moment, given that I am in a disagreement with Panic about the appropriateness of adding myself as an author of C++ Programming. But I do feel that the history here leaves something to be discussed. For example there was some initial conflict about who could be listed in the page:, , , this was perhaps unusual because the names being added were not by the people adding them (with the exception of Darklama who now choses not to include his name on the book). Later Arlen22 attempted to add his name to the page (it was his first edit to the book, but was followed by other edits) and it was removed. And later, after reading about the initial edit conflict in the history of this page I decided to add my name to the list. (In case anyone is curious yes I really did contribute a couple years ago). And this was followed by a long discussion about what it means to be "an author", and Panic felt my contributions were not extensive enough, I felt differently. But I self reverted to return things to the status quo for the time being.


 * I have also done the same verification in other works that I'm not listed as author, or even contribute too. Of importance to note is the wording of the list, some clearly list contributors or contributions (or derivations) in authors/license pages. I have also removed people from those lists if they had not made any contribution to the works and in performed similar verifications/corrections in works that clearly list authors, IIRC never based on "ratio" or quality of contributions. The only requirement in those types of lists is that the persons adds or removes itself from these last. --Panic (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that the terms author/editor/contributor/etc. should be treated as synonyms in the wikibooks context, and that anyone who makes a "significant edit" (something slightly more then adding a should be considered an author on equal footing with anyone else who contributed to the book.

Panic, if I understand correctly, feels there is and should be a distinction between these terms. Further, that an author has both special rights (and liabilities?) in terms of relicensing the work. (I could misunderstand, but I believe this is the whole book, as he can always relicense his own contributions. He will explain better I am sure.)


 * My view is not specific about labels, nor treatment, only a statement that they in fact reflect different relations between the volunteer and the content he/she provides. The exact definitions of authorship (or copyright holder, that may not be the same) is hard to establish due to the various laws (regional and international) that it would have to cover, but in the previous version of the text we already had made much clearer to those interested in the subject (mostly contributors, the term of use is in general directed to reuse/distribution and the Wikimedia requirements, all very distinct subjects). I don't particularly defend "author" beyond what constitutes authorship in a legal setting, I see that as extremely important for works to be "real" outside of the Wikibook project, in fact I see that as something that would get us more valuable contributions and more volume. It would also address the ad-hoc way the situation has been always treated, I was by no means the first one to point to this issue or use an author/license page. --Panic (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to make very clear that I am making no accusations of right or wrong. There is simply different points of view about the words should mean here at wikibooks. It might be interesting to glance at our more detailed discussion at Talk:C++ Programming/About the Book/Authors.


 * The point is why should they have another meaning in the first place? And that links to the need to educate. The use of the word author on the Wikimedia software is an historical artifact (and I already explained why). I haven't verified but I'm certain that those that contributed content to Wikisource are strangely "authors" of those contributions. --Panic (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel we should either explain the difference between these terms are (Roughly how much of a contribution must be made before one becomes an author of a book? What rights do you give up by not listing yourself as the author? What liabilities do you expose yourself to if you do list yourself as an author? etc.)

Or if we decide there is no difference, we should explicitly make that clear in the text as well. Since it is a matter that can lead to some confusion. Thenub314 (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The removed distinctions, and other considerations still in need to be created are relevant in regards to the legal protection of the project, the works and those contributors of intellectual propriety that so require.  --Panic (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to avoid mixing issues. How about Authorship for proposing what the policy should be on authors? --dark lama  18:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection here, but I don't think we need, or should, build it to be a policy, at best a guideline if that (or as an unstable version of Copyrights) . The issue is that we will be attempting to establishing a common ground on what are already defined legal matters (even if some things are open to interpretation as never legally tested) we will also be making terms or nomenclature clearer to the community. These are things that would have been best done by Wikimedia itself but for past discussion with people in the know there isn't even consensus on the subject there, and some issues are specific to Wikibooks.  --Panic (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the rule obsolete? Should it be corrected?
The rule that an author cannot refuse a modification of his or her book contradicts the usual practice on Wikibooks. Completed books usually have one or a few more or less identified authors. It is natural. There has to be a strong will for a book to be completed. That Wikibooks have authors does not prevent them from working cooperatively, between authors, and between authors and readers. See [1] (in french). This is why I think the rule you mentioned is obsolete, except in the rare cases when a book has not a clearly defined author, or list of coauthors. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks are not owned. This is how Wikibooks works; it is and has been (afaik; certainly for the nine-plus years I've been here) standard practice.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My practice in the english-speaking Wikibooks community is too reduced, so I cannot say. "Own" is ambiguous. Of course, wikibooks are given freely. But in the french-speaking Wikibooks community we respect authors and authorship. This means that an author, when there is one, can refuse unwanted modifications. Do you think this is a bad rule ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will modify this page in a way which seems to me the best for the future of Wikibooks. This is not a french invasion. If the english-speaking Wikibooks community does not like the french way, they are of course free to modify my modifications, or to suppress them. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this page could be rephrased a little to make things clearer (and of course, like so much stuff on en.wb, it's never been made "official"). Ownership seems to be to be fundamentally contrary to the concept of en.wb.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What is not true? Could you be more precise ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The present rule dissuade most authors in the world from writing on Wikibooks. Why dissuade them ? There are many ways to work cooperatively. Why do you want to forbid our way ? If I can not refuse unwanted modifications on my books - I signed them, it is nonsense. Like you I want Wikibooks to be a wonderful library and I work hard for that. Why exclude authors like me who want to work cooperatively with readers and other authors and be responsible for their books? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "official" process is just to vote on Policies and guidelines/Vote in favor or against this policy. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try this. But first I have to do some homework - reading what already exists. My "fight" for this authorship right was not my aim when I began to work on Wikibooks, thirteen years ago. When I wrote my two books, I knew that there would be no authorship right, and I did not want any. I hoped a little that other authors would help me but I knew from experience that it would probably not happen. Now that my books are completed, I still hope a little that other authors would bring complementary chapters, or useful criticism. But I do not want anyone to be allowed to disrupt my work, or to feel free to do with it what he or she wants. I want to be responsible for my book. It seems to me that my reaction is natural, and that most Wikibooks authors feel the same. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any vote has been conducted over at that page in all the time I've been on Wikibooks. What few such votes we've had in modern times have been, to my recollection, at the proposals reading room.  We'd want to discuss it first, I think.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not read the main page as is but I'm aware of how things historically and in practice worked on site and do have my own convictions that Wikimedia has always refrained (I would say intentionally refused) to make clear to all beyond protecting their own copyrights/legal liabilities.
 * As I read the post above I think I see some confusion or improper of definitions. If I remember correctly this page was started under another name by myself (or as a result for my own efforts or making things clear) it was later renamed into this more aggressive name (aggressive to the intentions of most of us when participating in the project).
 * Thierry Dugnolle: "The rule that an author cannot refuse a modification of his or her book contradicts the usual practice on Wikibooks."
 * Not so. Anyone, not only authors can reject modifications, even non contributing editors. Specific books/projects can create (and have) their own subset of rules for editing (subset, as in non infringing on the main wikibooks rules). The only issue is that ultimately any edit conflicts if not resolved amicably will be haphazardly open to forced resolution by the sysops (sysops are only on recent years selected under a more strick set of requirements and often their capability to handle this disputes is not a consideration).
 * Thierry Dugnolle: "Completed books usually have one or a few more or less identified authors."
 * Often do in the form or author or attribution pages. Note that there are different communal factions on this regard. A majority that does not care about this subject culturally, ethically or morally or even about the legal considerations. A larger minority that seem to intentional make this subject harder to clarify or work to make them system dependent, this is the general position of wikimedia. In my view they seem to feel that it may be confusing or even barrier to get a larger number of contributors onto the project and even open themselves for liability. Then there is a very small minority, that I include myself that would like to see this subjects made more clear to all especially those that may have higher aspirations or considerations for the works in general and content contributors in this we at wikibooks, wikisource and probably wikinews should be at forefront on this area this projects are often attributed to authors (signed, owned) so with stronger rights attached.
 * Pi zero: "Wikibooks are not owned."
 * It depends on what you are refereeing too. Everyone retains ownership on all and every contribution they made and can claim rights over. Wikimedia is only granted s specific set of rights over the content. This can be important for re-licensing works and even to take legal actions. Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Panic2k4: When I say wikibooks are not owned, I mean nobody gets to say &mdash; in content space &mdash; "you can't change it because it's mine."  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the point on which we disagree. For me, if a book is my work, it's mine and I have the right to refuse any change I do not like. See my proposal WB:RFA --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Imagine that a contributor does not like my books, Handbook of epistemology or Quantum theory of observation, that he wants to put them in accordance with his own ideas, and that I hate what he writes. If he says "I feel free to make of this book what I want and you have not any priority over me", I shall let him destroy my book, if I follow your rule. Is it really what you want ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, do you forbid authors to protect their work ? Do you think all authors should be afraid that their work could be destroyed the next morning ? If you do, I will never work again on Wikibooks. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ownership is not control and control is not ownership. In fact confusing the two has historically been a problem, not only in regards to the topic at hand but a real civilizational dilemma. Control has degrees and scales but is ultimately an absolutist shared mental construct that is defined by the capability to maintain and enforce the (legal) rights of ownership, often established by force or contest. Ownership on the other hand, more often than not, does not need continued effort and has different natures like cultural, moral, ethical or legal. Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thierry Dugnolle, you can't enforce control on wikibooks or any other wikimedia project without communal concent, as I said before you can establish a subsection of communal agreements (rules) on projects but ultimately it would be for the sysops to enforce in case of an hard dispute. Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I want is to say to future authors that their work will be respected, that they will be protected against anyone if they want it. Do you think it is a bad rule ? I do not want to enforce it. I just hope that everyone will agree. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not allow original research on Wikibooks. We also do not allow someone to put something up here and then say "you can't touch it, because it's mine!".  No more do we allow someone else to muscle in on a book with an active contributor base and ignore consensus.  Books here are collaborative; everyone has to respect that.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will never say "You can't touch it, because it's mine" but "Touch it as much as you want. If I don't like it, I will erase what you wrote, and you can't protest because it's my work". Am I wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 00:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't inherently have absolute veto on edits to the book. Though in a particular case, you might be right; who knows?  That's a difficulty with hypothetical situations.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need this absolute veto. I would never have to use it. But why do you want to frighten writers with a hypothetical situation which would never happen ?
 * Since there was a conflict of edition, the following answer comes a little late : What is the book with the active contributor base ? Why did I muscle in it ? Why do you say I ignored consensus ? It is what I work for. I also think that wikibooks are collaborative, and I respect it. In their largest parts, my books expose standard knowledge, not original research. It seems that you misrepresent me. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not misrepresent you. I simply point out that we know the content involved is not inherently yours because OR isn't allowed. You keep claiming this is something that is the way things already are.  In fact, there are various situations in which an active community (sometimes an active community of one) on a book may exercise a consensus to object to certain kinds of changes.  The process of adopting an abandoned book is discussed somewhere around here; we encourage caution in assuming just because you don't see active editing taking place on a book that there's no-one in its current community.  In effect, the intentions of past contributors to a book are generally given some degree of weight in considering future changes .  But it's all very fluid, with infinite variations depending on the circumstances of a book; trying to impose simple hard rules and make them policy is asking for trouble.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want Wikibooks to be a text repository. I don't want to be an owner. But as long as Wikibooks let me work, I want to be an active worker. My working conditions are already good. I don't want them to change. What I want is to attract new workers with the guarantee that they will work in good conditions. I will never need to use the rule An author can refuse unwanted modifications, at least I hope so. All I want is to say it, because without it, many writers don't want to work on Wikibooks. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is what I wrote in the french Wikibooks of rules :

Cooperative work

To hope to make a book by the spontaneous encounter between several authors who begin to work on the same subject is a beautiful idea, but too often it does not work, unless the book responds to a collective will (such as this help book). The books begun with the hope that other authors will complete them remain generally unfinished.

On the other hand, other forms of cooperation work very well:

...
 * Make additions to existing books,
 * Criticize or request clarification (the discussion pages are for that purpose),
 * Just to correct minor mistakes (typographical, ...) when one reads,
 * Help a contributor, novice or not, who does not know all the useful techniques (wikicode, ...),
 * Ask for help or advice,

The possibility of cooperative work distinguishes Wikibooks from other free online publishing sites. It enables authors and readers to get out of their isolation, to help others and to be helped by them.


 * Do you think I want Wikibooks to be a text repository ?Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I see you alternate between saying you don't want to change anything, and proposing to change things. From time to time in discussions you make moderate statements that don't imply ownership, but when you propose policy you write ownership into it.  I'm unable to find a stable position in what you say.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What policy did I propose into which I wrote ownership ? There is no such thing in WB:RFA. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I say, my work. But I reason as a worker, not as an owner. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose you meant the sentence : "If a book is my work, it's mine, and I have the right to refuse any change I do not like." I deleted "it's mine". But I still think I have the right to refuse unwanted modifications. It is not the right of an owner. It is the right of a worker. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The authors I have in mind, responsible for their textbooks, are active workers. Even if their book is completed, they are still present on Wikibooks, because their book is supposed to evolve with the progress of knowledge and because they know other contributors can give additions, criticize or demand clarification. If they are more generous they can of course help others in many other ways. If an author abandons his book, he gives up his responsibility to the community. In this way, Wikibooks can not be a text repository. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As an administrator you probably see problems I cannot see. If you think about inappropriate content, this is a separate issue. That an author is responsible for his or her book does not mean that anything can be published. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except on my user page, or to answer other's questions, I won't write anything anymore on this subject. I wrote enough.
 * If you think that as a newcomer in the english-speaking Wikibooks community, I have been incorrect, you might be right. I almost didn't do any cooperative work, I did a little more in the french community, and I like too much verbal "fights". I try to remain civil, but as an administrator, you should be careful with a nuisance like me.
 * If you think the page WB:RFA has not its place in Wikibooks, you can do with it what you think is the best for the community : delete it, or put on it anything which says that it does not belong to Wikibooks. I won't protest. You said the presentation of Wikibooks could be improved, so that future authors would be more confident. I'm waiting for seeing that.
 * A final word about my purpose. I think that for scientists Wikibooks is the best place to write a textbook, because it gives the best working conditions, through cooperative work. I hope that they will understand it, and that many of them will come to work with us. I want them to know that Wikibooks is the right way to write a textbook. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why exclude almost all scientists from Wikibooks ?
The advice "Do not contribute your content to Wikibooks if you do not want other people using your contents in whatever way they want without your express permission" cannot be accepted by almost all scientists who could otherwise want to write their textbooks on Wikibooks. Why exclude them ? Do you think you can make of Wikibooks a great scientific library if you exclude almost all scientists from it ?
 * There cannot be restrictions on the content here for it to be free culture. For instance, anyone has the right to fork or mirror Wikibooks in its entirety or partially or to copy it to a DVD and sell it or to print it with an on-demand printer and sell copies at bookstores. How would a scientist be able to control all of those...? And if you're granting that he can't (preview: he can't), then are you suggesting that only Wikibooks proper be under his control but everyone else be able to propagate whatever versions of the text he'd like? It just makes no sense. I have yet to see any actual, substantial problem that is solved by this proposal. Can you please point me to a user who would otherwise work here but isn't because it's an open wiki? Can you show me diffs of edits that you would like to have undone but couldn't? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want unwanted modifications to be published under my name. Am I wrong ?
 * About other scientists, I don't know. I think WB:OWN prevents them from working with us and that WB:RFA would be an improvement. If we want to know, we have to ask. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Published under your name...? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Don't you know that Wikibooks can be signed ? See my Handbook of epistemology for example or Algorithms. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These pages are all published under all of our names: attribution is a requirement of the CC license that we have. E.g. this page when published should give your username, mine, and a slew of others. Any medium that publishes this page should include all of those names. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not as you seem to describe above. Contributors (not all but most) are not authors (authors are those that have at least the copyright over the work contributed and in what remains the final aggregate) and even those, only the top authors of an aggregation may aspire to be included on any author attribution by the publisher of a work. Note also that Wikibooks is not WIkipedia there most content cab easely be covered by a simple attribution to Wikipedia and that authorship is not granted but claimed. Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)