Wikibooks talk:Ownership/Archive 1

contributors vs authors
The section under GFDL is in error, there are no mentions about contributors on the GFDL only authors (as in the level of contribution to a given work).

Wikibooks® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (registered as a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, USA, as such it MUST obied by Florida and USA Law), it consists in collection of free content books licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (protected for legal reasons) with some limitations, this is the license that protects all the works and authors on Wikibooks.

There are general Wikibooks policies that extend protection to contributors, but not all contributors are authors.

Copyright is the ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or international law.

Author is defined under the laws of Florida, USA. and no local policy can redefine it. --Panic 00:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The terms "contributor" and "author" are being used, interchangably here, to denote "copyright holders". All users hold copyright ownership over their own contributions, regardless of the quality or quantity of their contributions, and a page may not be distrbuted without properly attributing all copyright holders under the terms of the GFDL. However, what you are talking about are legal rights of attribution and do not specifically apply to what this policy proposal is about. What this is about (and a point that likely needs more clarfication) is "project ownership" as opposed to "content ownership". No wikibookian by virtue of contribution (and therefore being a copyright holder over their own contributed material) may excercise any amount of control over the project, nor claim to "own" the project. I will clarify this section. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, a point worth making is that the history lists of the individual pages count as proper legal attribution under the terms of the GFDL. Any ancillary lists of authors therefore do not count as legal attribution under this license or under any laws. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so, the history only provides a log of changes not all contributors are authors and the said list of 5 authors is not an obligation, due to the nature of wikipages the log or history is needed and does provide the facility to check authorship or disputes of content, the log/history is not a requirement of the GFDL but a way to keep a Wikipage legal (due to its volatility) under that license.


 * More, the history/logs may be changed or corrupted by any user with administrative rights, it is my belief that a history and reversal of that changes can be checked (but not by using the normal rights of a user), some administrators that are more careful that others. Example a administrator copies content of several pages to another and deletes the originals without doing a resynchronization of the logs, and so granting him the "credits" of the contribution/creation.


 * The interchangeably use of "contributor" and "author" in the context of GFDL or Wikibooks is wrong, the "contributor" does not have a legal protection (rights and obligations) under the law (and GFDL) and does have a small protection under Wikibooks/Wikimedia, any "contributor" get to   be a "copyright holder" if granted authorship (or part) of a work (see legal definition of author as defined on the GFDL and the laws of Florida, USA )--Panic 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The history pages constitute a byline, and therefore serve as legal attribution under the GFDL. That is the official stance of the WMF, and is not currently up for debate here. See also w:WP:OWN. I think you are also wrong about the distinction between "contributor" and "author", as there is no distinction made between the two in the text of the GFDL. Any contributor who makes change to a page, or (according to the GFDL) modifies the document may list themselves as an author, along with authors of the previous unmodified document. The history pages serve this purpose. We do not make a qualitative or quantitative distinction here between "contributor" and "author". The GFDL does not make such a distinction, our policy documents do not make such a distinction, and you are wrong to make such a distinction. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my prev. post is a bit confusing as I didn't had the time to recheck what I wrote...


 * Yes the log/history provides and is used on wikimedia as a bases for the legal attributions, but we here must deal with several pages not as one page article as in Wikipedia, the line or the attribution of authorship in this case is a bit harder to find, as I said again and again contributors are promoted to authors depending on the size of the contributions (this is defined on the GFDL) see translations or what constitutes derived work.


 * "Any contributor who makes change to a page, or (according to the GFDL) modifies the document may list themselves as an author" this is a wrong and a bad evaluation of the GFDL.


 * This affirmation could be valid on the bases of single page works (wikipedia vs wikibooks) but again not all changes qualifies one as author, minor corrections, spelling, reformat without adding content... to be an author one must provide a level of content to a work.


 * The GFDL doesn't create a contributor, wikimedia use of the GFDL needed to create some support for all edits, in a dead trees book you will have authorship of a work if you create a derived work under the GFDL, Wikimedia does try to simplify this, but not all edits create derived works (not on wikibooks) this can be troublesome, for instance I've been moving the books I was working on to another electronic support (tiddlywiki), but I haven't got a copy of the derived works I must point out on my new copy, since wikibooks only provides the last edit (one can't check the log/history) in a way that will enable the visualization of the hole work at a given point in time.


 * There is no definition in the law or GFDL to "contributors" or credits awarded/responsibilities/rights to them, there is a copyright law that defines authors, the GFDL addresses authors any other requests, formulations or policies are local to Wikibooks (and valid as long as they don't overstep/limit the GFDL and any legal definition without clearly state that it is being redefined).
 * Do you consider "contributors" is a synonym to "authors" ?!? --Panic 05:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * US Copyright Law (201.c) grants anyone who contributes to a collective work, copyright to his or her own contributions and permission to reproduce and distribute the collective work and any derived works. US Copyright Law doe use the word "contributor". US Copyright Law (201.d1) also allows transfer of ownership by any means of US Law. A license is such a formal legal contract that applies and that is what the GFDL is. The GFDL grants anyone permission to modify, reproduce and contribute material licensed with it. The GFDL grants permission to anyone who modifies it the right to add their name to the list of authors. The GFDL does not require a specific type of modification to be listed and since its a license thats legally binding under US Law, any modifications qualify for listing as an author. US Copyright Law (201.b) also allows work written for hire to be owned by the employeer. Under US Law a non-profit organization is form of business and such any work done for such a business could in effect be owned by that business, meaning the Wikimedia Foundation owns the copyright to any modifications made. Wikipedia for instance suggests giving credit to Wikipedia when reproducing such work. The Wikimedia Foundation could in effect be the one giving permission to anyone to contribute, modify, etc. under the terms of the GFDL. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, does this make User:Willy on Wheels a major contributor to Wikibooks? (laughing strongly at the thought) --Rob Horning 16:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reset ident

Laws of Florida don't apply
It is very important to note here that the laws of the State of Florida and the USA don't apply here regarding ownership of the content on Wikibooks. Instead it is the copyright laws of the nationality of the contributor. I strongly emphasis this to point out that you, yes you, who are reading this and are a contributor to Wikibooks, own your own words that you have added and you can seek to defend your copyright based on the laws of the country where you live.

While this gets ugly, it should also be strongly noted that the Wikimedia Foundation completely disclaims any and all copyright to anything produced on Wikimedia projects. There are legal reasons for this, and it should be pointed out that some WMF trustee members do have a copyright claim on their own contributions, but don't claim anything for the projects in general. In fact, the only "intellectual property" that they actually own is the logos and names to the various projects. Even that had to be coerced after a fashion, but was considered something important and was decided through a sort of community concensus. The rest of us are left "holding the bag" in terms of copyright enforcement.

Furthermore, in terms of the laws of the USA, it is still incredibly useful and advantageous to formally "register" copyright with the United States Library of Congress as it gives additional legal protections that you don't get with unregistered copyright. And to really muck things up, there are international copyright treaties like the Berne Convention (and others) that allow copyright protection across international borders. But to register copyright usually requires substantially more information than is found on user pages and on Wikimedia projects.

I know that I have fought people on these issues, and I'm willing to be patient until something comes up that let's me shout "see, I told you so", but this is an issue that most people involved with Wikimedia projects don't really seem to care about. Which is precisely why this discussion seems to fall apart without a real clear understanding or resolution either. --Rob Horning 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I had the idea that it all depends on the local where the work is published, or if the authors aren't local, to their national laws if so expressed on the work. I'll check that one. As for the rest I agree with you. --Panic 16:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up Rob, I had thought about sending you a message about it directly (because you are always very knowledgable on these topics), but I decided to send a message to foundation-l insteat (which turned out to be zero help). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: local publication
One of the many reasons why the WMF doesn't want to get into the "publishing" game (hence owning content and asserting copyright authority) is because there are some huge legal liabilities once you become a publisher as opposed to the current legal status of the WMF being essentially an independent ISP for Wikimedia-related content.

As an ISP, the WMF can't be sued into submission to remove content (although they have done so... even here on Wikibooks). The legal liability for what is said is also largely removed from the WMF, so if somebody here on Wikibooks posts something politically inflamatory or even libelous (the real worry here), that the WMF does not have to directly be responsible for it. Once you become a "publisher", you need to be considerably more careful about these little details.

As for being "published" on Wikibooks, this is indeed a legal grey area that needs to eventually be sorted out. Unfortunately, it will be done by lawyers in a courtroom, not by mutual concensus among a bunch of Wikibooks contributors. Once something is "fixed" onto some tangible media, the legal grey areas are fewer and the legal preceedence (of particular importance to UK/Commwealth/USA court systems using Common Law) is well established. That sort of preceedence has not really been well established for websites other than as common carriers of information. Certainly major wikis have not had copyright issues challenged, nor can I think of even a single legal case that involves libel issues and a major wiki website. The WMF doesn't want to be the first to be a party to such a case either. --Rob Horning 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Laws Don't Apply
I think the key issue thats being missed here is it is not about who does or doesn't own the contributions that are contributed, which is outside the control of anyone here, but who controls contributions to books on this project, which is not decided by any laws. So laws do not apply and neither does the GFDL. Those apply only to who owns the contributions made and what can be done with it outside of Wikibooks. --dark lama  16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case you are right, but to conform to the GFDL one must provide a framework or a interpretation of what is accepted since most people will not care about reading the license or even the wikibooks policies, on the other hand we must check that the policies we try to enforce are legal.


 * The point that I intended to make with my first post is that GFDL:


 * 1) doesn't address contributors


 * 2) the author's list in not the same as the log/history


 * and since I was addressing you, the removal of the authors list from the cover page (it's my interpretation that the cover page is the entry page to a independent work) is a GFDL violation if not done in consensus of all listed authors.


 * The definition of author vs contribution is very important if we intend on setting things like book communities and provide some structure to contributions (that is my main point), Wikibooks tries to provide works that are more complex and do take more time to build that lets say Wikipedia archives...


 * The definition of author and contributor should be expressed if not here on what are wikibooks if it gets to be a policy.


 * I'll agree with the Ownership policy and think that reference to a authors list isn't necessary in the text, by using GFDL authors and contributors give up the rights to their work (better say version, work under dual license etc...) to Wikimedia. --Panic 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the GFDL addresses contributors is not important, Wikibooks does. From what Whiteknight said, it would seem that the Wikimedia Foundation stance is that the history log is the only valid way to legally identify who is an author or not in case of legal disputes and you acknowledged this problem yourself, that its the only method of solving such a legal dispute. Its not pretty, its not cute, but thats the way it is. To do anything else could be violation of some law of some country.
 * I disagree that a distinction is necessary between author and contributor. There is no difference on Wikibooks, anyone is free to contribute and no single individual has the authority to say who can and cannot contribute. As you've already been told on numerious occations, decisions are made through concensus by those people active in editing a book. This is irregardless of who may have any legal ownership of the contents of the book. So whether a person is an author or not does not mater, they can be overturned just as easly as anyone through concensus. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup and there is where we diverge on our views, I can understand and even give you accolades for your point but you can not force your wishes on others even more if the legalities of the thing doesn't particular help you in your point, I like to sign what I do and in a later date point to what I have done, I don't particularly like to be part of an amorphic mass, I do take some pride for what I do. (pride leads to the achievement of quality), that is probably why I don't contribute to wikipedia (I do provide some level of content but only on the discussion pages).
 * I like even less when people start getting credit or placing their names in stuff they don't create.


 * "no single individual has the authority to say who can and cannot contribute" I agree with you on this and we have already got what our divergence is, but even this is a gray area, administrator on a daily base remove and correct spam or humm "null content" from books even more I was just wrongly blocked in sequence of asking a user to correct (state his intentions) its contributions (in place of just removing or correct them myself).


 * Even more confusing is the common understanding of things like a book community most users agree that there is such a thing, and is my view that placing a work under the control of a limited set of involved users will only provide and help building  better works as it provides a static framework were the work can evolve.


 * The logic is the same as the required edits on granting administrative right, etc.... --Panic 23:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand anyone wishing to be acknowledged for contributions that have been made. I don't think anyone here is saying your contributions can't be acknowledged on some page in books, simply that you can't prevent anyone else who wishes to be acknowledged for their contributions from doing the same. Its optional and not required to exist and like any page not guaranteed to be accurate, nor should it be attempted to be used for legal purposes, as I believe this proposal is trying to say.
 * When administrators remove or correct spam, etc. they are suppose to be doing so because that is what the community concensus is and is what the community wants them to do. All policies that exist on Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects as well, are due to community concensus by the people who currently make up the project's community. You know I and other people disagree with you views about controling books and limiting involvement. Wikibooks is a dynamic framework, not a static one, nor do I think it should be. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, the primary place to acknowledged contributions is set by the GFDL as the authors list (it sets rules and limits). All contributors are listed on the log/history but I don't agree with you, authors are (in law) and should be (by the Wikibooks community) accountable for their contributions.
 * Since no pool is made, the removal of "null content" (spam is yet to be defined on wikibooks, there is a proposal on that), it is done with assumed community consensus, I think this is the reason why the policy proposal was first created. If you extrapolate this further every single edit you make on a existing page that does not provide extended content is considered a way to enforce control on the previous work without any consensus being reached (you are imposing a personal view on a already existing work), this is expressed more clearly in esthetics's redesigns, page moves, pages/book renames or content moving. (I think corrections and punctuation will not fall under the need for consensus).--Panic 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've recently changed the text of the proposal to prohibit all listings of authors or contributors on a module page. Since the history pages serve as a complete byline to the pages, it would seem improper (if not downright illegal) to list a subset of all the authors to a page as "the authors", especially if a complete list exists in an easy-to-find and easy-to-read format. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly and vehimently oppose any such prohibition to listing of authors and contributors on a module page. The WMF has strongly opposed any efforts to collect the necessary information legally that is required for publication of information under the laws under the United States of America, and these author pages are the one and only legal means to collect that information.  Far from being illegal to list the authors (even a subset), it is legally required to collect specific information about these authors if you wish to enforce copyright.  In addition, the notice that such a page exists is quite clear on most Wikibooks.  I also put in the disclaimer (see Wikijunior Solar System/Authors) that this is used if you want to claim authorship.  I think that is a very reasonable method for Wikibooks (Wikipedia may have other problems, as seperate pages like this are discouraged). Frankly, this is something that the WMF needs to work on, and there are many people who bury their heads in the sand about this issue, including WMF board members and developers.  Brad simply doesn't care here, as the WMF doesn't want to get into the publication business and the current information is all that is needed as an ISP.  But you may end up seeing that the content on Wikibooks (and other Wikimedia projects) may end up in the public domain instead of being protected by the GFDL.  Is that what you want? BTW, It will take an act of GOD (or Jimbo, as it may be) for the alternative solution to author pages to happen.  What is really needed is for personal user information such as the year you were born (because of the life+75 rule for copyright), where you live (for purposes of nationality and residence), and your true legal name.  This may be voluntary information (should be IMHO), but the only way to collect this information at present is to request it directly as a seperate module page.  --Rob Horning 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you as well Rob. The history pages count as the necessary legal attribution for these books, and any listing of authors outside the history pages (especially a manual list) will only represent a subset of those authors. Books that are going to be published should include prominent mention of the history pages as a byline. If your only worry is about the legality of publishing the material, perhaps we need to find an alternative to the traditional notion of "publishing". Wikibooks (and other wikimedia resources) are already available for reading online, and any printed version of those wikibooks that include mention of wikibookians as the original authors, and wikibooks.org being the home for the book project should serve as all the attribution we would need. I don't see why we would need to be enforcing any copyright: We have history pages that show the origin of our texts and the edit history thereof, and we are also not intending to publish books for profit around here (at least not in an organized way). Worst case scenario, we could print out the history pages along with the text of the book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Worst case scenario, we could print out the history pages along with the text of the book."


 * Do you see this as possible or practical ? (most history pages are several times larger that the book content that they refer to), I don't see it as possible on the a dead tree book, the best way of doing that is to recreate (what a task) just before printing a smaller version extracted from the global list of edits based on each user contribution (lets simplify and say the level of each contribution), even harder is to determine who has done what...


 * Reading the Wikibooks limitation to the GFDL (here), we get "To display author information, please check the "Page history" for modules and "Authors" page of any book" this is pretty clear.  --Panic 03:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, i'm not saying it's possible or practical. If Rob is right (and I have no reason to doubt that he is), then legal attribution for copyright and publishing is going to require actual information about the authors (real names, etc), and not just the screennames that people use to sign books. If a person wants to list themselves as an author, we should require that they provide their real names and valid (verifiable) contact information. If they don't provide such information, any list of authors is simply going to be a distillation of the history pages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The text (get to the point)
To return to the primary point of this thread, Darklama is right: this policy doesnt address legal issues directly (no local policy can superceed laws). Instead, the idea of this policy is to affirm and strengthen the notions of collaboration and community, and mandate that people are on an equal footing when contributing here. Wikibooks membership isn't a hierarchy of any kind, and the newest of new members has just as much say in the content of a page as the oldest and most experianced veterans. Wikibookians should not be qualified based on their edit counts, the length of membership, or their expertise in the areas on which they write. Also, no user can mandate what kinds of edits can be made to a page, or who makes those edits. The notion of "ownership", in this sense, is different from the legal meaning of the word. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have examined the proposed text again and found other points that probably need a rewording/rephrasing.


 * "and any user can edit any page at any time."
 * to and any user should be able to edit any page at any time.

1. Prevent other users from editing a particular page or book."
 * "No user may:
 * administration can and do prevent users from editing pages, this should be made clear with reference and/or links to the other policies that grant that right to administrators and explain the why...


 * "Revert edits made in good faith by another contributor."
 * if edits are done in good faith there wouldn't be a need for a revert, this leaves a wide space to interpretation with the only reason being a contribution that is on error/outside of the book context and this shouldn't be left to personal interpretation.


 * "Treat edits that were made in good faith as spam or vandalism."
 * this is a bit of blind faith and I have pointed that out on another policy that has the same text, this should be easy to solve by the use of the proposed spam/vandalism policy" and restated, it is a call for the interpretation of another person state of mind or the supposition of intentions.


 * "Force people to ask permission from you, or to gain your acceptance in order to contribute to a particular book or module."
 * this again is confusing if a consensus is needed, people need to have a way to impose a consensus decision (there isn't one at the moment and simple users should not have means to do it) or a fixed set of rules that explains and gives users the bases on enforcing/asking to reach such consensus, even more important a way of protecting the content/work until a consensus is reached (there is not such thing at the moment).


 * "the books and modules"
 * there is no such thing as modules you are contributing to books on Wikibooks.
 * I will edit the GFDL section... --Panic 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * the individual pages in a book are known as "modules". Next, I don't think many of the things that you brought up are confusing in any way. No person can demand more respect or consideration in a discussion, then any other person can. Also, no person can have more "say" about a book or module then any other person. I will make a note that administrators can protect certain pages for certain reasons. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, I stand corrected (I just noticed the definition on the limitation to the GFDL), I don't understand the need for a redefinition do you have any idea ? The GFDL deals with pages not modules it calls authors pages, cover pages, etc... why make it more confusing redefining pages as modules (pages and modules aren't even the same thing, IMHO) Is it backlog from Wikipedia project? They deal with articles and each article is indeed a module to the Encyclopedia, here we deal in books and book pages. --Panic 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting alternative...
I thinki one of the problems with this policy is that it's based on the wikipedia concept (but thoroughly stripped down. The policy on commons is a bit clearer (and prose-written).

The GFDL issue is about "end-usage" (rather than editorial control, which is what this policy is about), so I'm not sure why it's in here. Meta and commons both have excellent paterials developed for that too, so perhaps we should have a separate page explaining that rather than trying to combine it with this. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

GFDL and Authorship
I want to start this as a seperate thread, even though I posted a reply to Whiteknight regarding the use of author pages.

I want to state very clearly here that the "history" section of Wikimedia pages is woefully inadequate for the purposes of asserting authorship on a number of levels. While I will openly admit that the basic information that is absolutely required is there, much more information needs to be gathered before it can be used as "evidence" to enforce copyright.

More to the point, can anybody, and I mean anybody, point to content that has been developed using MediaWiki software and has successfully been defended against a copyright claim of ownership? Even if just to enforce the GFDL?

I can only think of one (and only one) legal case that even involves the use of the GPL (much less GFDL) where the terms of the license have even been a major issue that could result in the outcome of the case (it is still in the court system at the moment... (see SCO v. IBM and very closely related cases)

Some people (like myself) use their legal names as user names, and this helps somewhat. And perhaps some additional information can be gleaned from user pages and correspondance such as the various mailing lists. But unless these three critical pieces of information are stored and kept with user accounts, copyright enforcement can't be done:


 * 1) Real Legal Name (you can author under a psuedonym, but at some point you have to admit who you really are to claim authorship)
 * 2) The Year of your birth (to determine exactly how long something is copyrighted.... often ignored in many situations, but required to enforce the life+75 rules)
 * 3) Your nationality - what country you claim citizenship in, even if you don't have a country you claim to be from.
 * 4) Where you currently "reside" - this may be different than your nationality.

Without these very critical pieces of information, you might as well be donating your contributions to the public domain, and issues surrounding the GFDL are no longer valid. That means no GFDL protection at all and everything that goes with it. And it means you can't even claim authorship. While it may be true that nobody cares here, it is important to note that there are plenty of vultures around that would love to get especially Wikipedia content without having to go through the hoops of the GFDL.

While I will admit that there has been some legal bluster around, the current scheme is really just a house of cards waiting to fall apart. What I'm trying to do here is make an air-tight case for defending copyright, and giving proper assertion to those authors who want to claim authorship of a given Wikibook. The only way to do this at the moment is precisely through the use of "author" modules. If you kill these pages (as the current wording of this policy would provide), you are in effect throwing out the GFDL entirely. And I mean that completely. There is no other way to deal with this issues.

BTW, I did make a Bugzilla request about this (see 2993). Note particularly when I wrote the bug report, and the reply that was recieved. --Rob Horning 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely: the author pages can be important, and by no means should be disallowed (in fact they should be encouraged). However, we are mixing apples and oranges: this policy is about "owning" wikibooks content in the sense of editorial control. We might need to rename it to better reflect that, but other wikimedia projects tend to use ownership in the sense we mean here.


 * As far as attribution for publishing off-wikibooks, see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, which contains the sentence "What methodology or metric regarding how you determine these five substantial authors for the purposes of the GFDL is not defined in a legal sense, but it would be wise to use a consistant method such as edit count, word count, hours contributed to the content, or something of a similar nature." But that's an issue of attribution, not an issue of who can edit!!! I would support a policy about how we attribute and when we should do it, but that's not this policy. This policy is about ensuring that wikibookians are free to contribute to wikibooks without being hounded by another editor who insists on editorial control. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding: the reason the GFDL has been made an issue here (again, inappropriately), is because User:Panic2k4 has been claiming authorship (sole or nearly so) of a particular book, and has interpreted this as giving him the right to editorial control over the book. He was blocked, twice, for demanding that the edits of others be done to his approval, and arguing that it is his right to do just that. In this sense, WB:OWN is simply the enforcement end of "anyone can edit"... if someone violates this policy and makes it difficult for others to edit and collaborate, the consequences need to be laid out. Without a policy, it's simply at administrators discretion on how to enforce "anyone can edit", which is fine as long as we have careful admins. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please try to restrain yourself in making claims that have no base, I see you are back online again and this wasn't the place I had intended to reply to you but here it goes...


 * Again I don't claim sole authorship and never have I claimed editorial control (I claim the right to get a consensus on changes to the status quo, that is changes to pages or the structure of the book), you know that and Darklama also (in this particular example, I have been contributing to a work for years and Darklama who had not contributed content and started editing the book for lets say 4 months now, disagrees with it's structure, moved pages to other books, changed the cover and introduced an alternative TOC, corrupted the pages histories by merging several pages into a new one, deleted content and created a print version of that alternative TOC without including the GFDL copy, in a clear GFDL violation and sanctioned by you).


 * The problem with the other user and the reason you blocked me and I again say wrongly doesn't have directly to do with reformatting or big changes, the problem was that the user in question made some changes that corrupted the logic of the text on that particular page, I recognized that the user was participating on the book (for some time) and did not want to interpret is actions as "spam" and asked him to correct the problem in a time frame or I would do it. (The validity or imposition is like saying to you; please call me in 10 minutes or I'll call you back), for this I was blocked for 2 weeks. (Well I was blocked twice for the same event)


 * « You shouldn't try to impose "deadlines" on your fellow contributors. You are an equal partner, not a "chief editor" »'
 * Under no active policy is giving a user a time frame to complete an action before one takes action/reaction a violation...
 * If you had done some group work or had a need to synchronize stuff under a collaborative framework (probably I as a programmer know this more that you) you need a way to check if you have control of a structure before you make changes to it.


 * The problem is bigger yet as the blocking action resulted on the monitor of a different conversation (on another unrelated user page) were I was explaining this problem, this violates my freedom of expression and even if your interpretation was correct, my point of view had the same value as yours, since I was talking to a third party on a private page, that is, by your action any person that disagrees with any policy can't talk about it or express the wish for changes (not the problem here but the final result is that).


 * Policies exists to be challenged and updated and express the community views on it and as it stands not even a majority has control on general policies. Users are all equal, you personal views, even if divergent from mine shouldn't influence your actions as an administrator.


 * More I have been an active contributor and participative on votes, policy creation/building and in the community in general, by being blocked I did not only become unable to continue working on the books I normally do, but could not express my vote on other subjects, and Darklama took that chance to impose his views on the book in question, the other user changed my signed posts on the talk page, etc...


 * "if your fellow authors create new pages in order to experiment with the structure, format, or style of the book, do not tag them for speedy deletion (if you feel there is a problem, list the page on vfd instead, as I don't think any administrator will take a speedy nomination from you at face value as things stand now)."


 * I have no problem with the creation of pages (I even incentivated Darklama to create the alternative TOC), the problem was that Darklama duplicated content of several pages inside a new single one (a copy of several existing pages) on the bookspace and replaced the TOC with that page (this is a big no no under actual policies and my speed deletion tag was correct).


 * "Don't move talk pages around or consolidate them. If people leave a note on a particular page, they probably meant to leave it where they left it. (What you do with your own user talk page is of course completely at your discretion: this page really is your page)."


 * I disagree we are working on books not o separated modules there is a book structure and all pages must be a single work, a user that isn't monitoring EVERY single page of a book will not get notification of talkpages posts, by centralizing the talk pages it eases the burden for new users and facilitates coordination of the work. More the pages WERE all centralized before Darklama stated imposing his views.--Panic 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll reply to the above on Panic's page in a few hours (#real.life has me busy during daylight). My (now very well illustrated) point was that the GFDL additions by Panic have a long history, and the need for a policy about editorial control is mostly due to his behavior over the last 1.3 years ("his" book was more or less abandoned by other contributors because of this problem). The above post clearly shows the need for having an "active policy" about asserting ownership on this wiki, since the lack of a policy has allowed over a year of wikilawyering and other bad behavior to go on without redress. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "("his" book was more or less abandoned by other contributors because of this problem)."
 * Again with this kind of affirmations, please check the stuff out before you try to make your points...


 * If you can try to verify the level of contributions of the 2 books (before the merge) or the level of the book before I did any contribution to it... Then you may rethink your actions...
 * I have activity requested help outside of wikibooks for more contributors, requested authors to palace works under the GFDL for use on the book and requested authorization to use others, even the user that was the cause of my block have probably found our project due to a post on the C++ newsgroups (I think I remember a reply from him), I have the responsibility to protect the other authors expectations placed on me that the works would be used under the GFDL, for instance your sanctioned print version of the alternative TOC removes the credits they are due, and Darklama removal of the authors list form the cover page (the entry page to the book, violates the GFDL also). I have no problem standing for my convictions and I'm ready to learn from my errors. --Panic 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I post it here as the definition of author and contributor, it can have some specifics to national laws that I'm not aware of (I know that the US doesn't sign every international treaties on this subject):


 * Author - Author is the one that creates or contributes for the creation of a work, after creation and/or publication of the work, the one that assumes legal responsibility for it and rights over it, each subsequent alterations to the same work fall in several categories including revisions, re-editions, translations etc... It is considered that a existing work can only be co-authored with the previous authors if it is considered a derivative work.

NOTE: my national copyright law permits anonymous authors, in that case the limiting date on copyright will end in a similar fashion as states above by Rob Horning (70 years after publication).


 * NOTE: GFDL states that any derivative works should remain FREE under a compatible license to GFDL itself.


 * derivative work - new work based upon an original work to which enough original creative work has been added so that the new work represents an original work of authorship.


 * Contributors - the one that contributes to a work, as editors, collaborators, an author can be considered a contributor but not all contributors may be authors, for example spell correction, reformatting will not constitute original creative work, on the other hand translation do.

I had (a few years ago) a class on law but that dealt specifically with my Nation and European Community Law and mostly on software, personal data and electronic(databases and security), but from what I have gathered this seems to be correct, it is my interpretation that most subsequent edits to a book here on wikibook don't particularly fall under derivative work definition and the GFDL doesn't give this definitions on its text but address those concepts and even provides rules for them, are the definitions wrong in any way?

It is generally accepted by a large percentage of Wikibookians that contributor is synonymous to author... --Panic 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand a little of what you are going through here. The largest problem that copyright laws face here in a situation similar to Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects is that they were not written with the idea of massive cooperative authoring of the nature that exists here with this project.  Generally speaking, it is rare for even multiple authors getting together on a single published work, and even then it is usually just two or three people.  Far more often you will see perhaps "collections" from multiple authors, but even then it is very clear who wrote sections "X,Y, and Z".  Usually with a byline or other attribution.


 * This does not happen here on Wikibooks. While I will admit that minor edits also occur that would be analogous to perhaps an editor at a major publishing house, there are also times when on a given page that substantial changes will occur by multiple authors, and it is difficult even to pull out what words were really written by one author as distinguished by another one.  The best example I can come up with is wikia:novelas:One-word-at-a-time, where literally every word is (practically speaking) authored by somebody completely differently.  Some Wikipedia articles are almost that bad, where you can attribute nearly every word to a different contributor.


 * The point is that we are operating on something a little bit different here than is typical. Wikis are a little unusual in general anyway, and the GFDL does add some dimensions of its own on top of the typical Wiki editing experience.


 * BTW, not to belabor the point, but you should remember that "free" is as in freedom, or a "libre" (to use French) license. That does not mean that you have to give the content away at all times, and charging money or making a profit off of GFDL content is perfectly acceptable.  Where you get into trouble under the GFDL is that you can't restrict (hence freedom) how that content is subsequently republished once you have given it to somebody else.  This is precisely why it is often called Copyleft, because while copyright laws are invoked, it doesn't really have the same philosophical basis as is typical for copyrighted material published by a traditional printing house.


 * It is reasonable to point out in this policy (or guideline... as I see it) that once you have released something into the GFDL, that others can "edit mercilessly and redistribute at will". In some ways you have lost "control" over your own words to a certain extent.


 * That said, there are international laws that do recognize the "rights of authors", which is one of the reasons why I put into the Deletion policy a specific clause about allowing a speedy delete by the author when there are no other major contributors. What we don't have is a policy in place that even addresses what we should do if the original author no longer wants the content on Wikibooks yet several others have contributed and can all claim joint-ownership.  In theory the same thing applies but in this case all of the authors would have to agree that the content needs to be deleted.  That is a particularly thorny question with anonymous edits.  All of this implies some authorship control on this project.


 * French law in particular has some very specific laws regarding authorship that the GFDL disregards or doesn't cover and supersceed any license agreement. Other similar EU laws also apply, which is perhaps what Panic is trying to say here.  In the USA, there are no other "moral rights" other than what is explictly spelled out under United States Code, section 173 (copyright law), or at least they are not interpreted the same way.


 * As to if subsequent edits past the first original page creation count as "derivitive works", are more "co-authorship" or some other legal status, I can't answer. It is something that hasn't even been tested legally, which is one of the problems we are facing here and where some of the uncertanty comes from.  But the spirit of Wiki editing is such that for most pages of content, anybody and nearly everybody has the opportunity to make changes, including very substantial changes.


 * What you enjoy as an author is the "right to fork" the content if you don't like the direction it is going. Unfortunately, those content forks can't exist simultaneously on Wikibooks, so a fork must necessarily exist on an external website or other publishable medium.  What is so amazing is that in spite of this free for all principle to create hundreds of versions of the content, that we have been able to come up with policies within this project that are largely followed and keep these fork to an absolute minimum.  Or that a fork is such a huge event that everybody in the community is talking about it when it occurs.  --Rob Horning 14:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I call you attention that Wikibooks and Wikimedia project differ in content and objectives, Wikipedia is considered a single work constituted of multiple modules, here we have an repository of distinct works (books), example, the user I have been having a depute moved some pages from a book to another this is a legal problem as he didn't credit the work or the author of the original book, this is not a problem on Wikipedia but it's a problem here that none seems to be willing to address...


 * it is rare for even multiple authors getting together on a single published work


 * Not so, this is very common on the software and even music world, I know a bit about the first but the licenses are a bit more elaborated and copyright holders are a bit more protective of their rights.


 * The Wikinovelas example provides a warning to us at Wikibooks of what we should avoid, things aren't that complex here, and some work should be taken to make that clear to the users.


 * As for the "rights of authors" as in "moral rights", it is my view it doesn't apply to Wikimedia as they are located on the US and the US did not sign the convention.


 * "derivative works" are "co-authorship", even if the GFDL is not tested it is in the spirit of the license to treat them as such, example they use "derivative works" on its text and "modified work", they even treat a translation as a "derivative works", they aren't very clear but what the license misses is basically defined in every copyright law. Any contribution that doesn't add enough original creative content creates a modification and if it does it creates a derived work, it's pretty simple, by being a derivative work the contributor can sign as a author, if he wishes more problematic yet is that if doesn't sign it is taken that he gives his rights to the other listed authors (but that is another mess).


 * As for the fork policy it doesn't exist, please take the time to examine my post below were I address directly what my disputes are and the fork policy in specific.--Panic 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm really surprised to see the fork policy as a "proposed" policy. It has been refered to in the past as justification for deleting content and was one of the motivations for the merger of two very different C++ textbooks.  It certainly fits in as a defacto policy even though no formal "vote" has ever been held on it.  I certainly wouldn't go against the spirt of this policy, even if a more formal vote for acceptance perhaps ought to occur.


 * As far as multiple authors are concerned, yeah, I know music and computer software are more typically done with multiple authors. And the case law is much more established for those two forms of expression in that situation as a result.  That a court might use computer software examples to extablish precedence for multiple authorship of a Wikibook is possible, but you might end up being surprised here as this really is a different kind of work.  Besides perhaps a major college science textbook (which is typically written under contractual terms, establishing case law to work under) I can't think of another major authorship situation where a very large number of authors are involved with the same paragraphs of text simultanously, except with perhaps other Wiki environments.  This really is a new area of law and something that will IMHO be tested in the not too distant future.  Just like the legendary test of the GPL that has been discussed in the past on many hacker mailing lists and forums.


 * BTW, except for FOSS software, I can't think of too many software authoring situations that also have multiple "authors" where the copyright "owner" isn't also very clear. In most cases including typical software copyright issues there is a clear "owner" (usually a company like Microsoft or EA Games) that "hires" an employee or contractor to write the software on their behalf.  This situation for Wikibooks is much more like FOSS and any such legal precedence would rely upon interpretations of copyright law under very similar situations.  --Rob Horning 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your views except the defacto state of the fork policy, I would agree if it was a imposition from Wikimedia, but even so the arguments that have so far been proposed for defending the existence of such a policy are easily refuted.
 * As for your stance of the copyright/authorship/GFDL problem, it is my opinion that steps should be made to inform, protect and preserve against future legal problems, by avoiding to discuss or address problems we are putting blindfolds on users and trowing them out of a moving helicopter that we have no control over. (couldn't find a more descriptive image) --Panic 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely misses the purpose and intent
I believe Panic's changes completely misses Whitiknight's purpose in creating this policy and its intentions. So I reverted his changes to the last revision made by Whiteknight and tried to explain the purpose and intent of this policy a little better. Which I believe to be not about ownership and copyright at all, since that depends entirely on what license is being used, but on how Wikibookians are not expected to conduct themselves when working together and briefly on how to acknowledge contributors when printing or copying to another source. --dark lama  05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The way Wikibookians should or not behave is well documented on other policies and guidelines and there is no need to include it in a new policy (probably a guideline will suffice) a simple phrase will probably do it, as for the other points the GFDL and Wikibooks Limitations to GFDL already address it, if a clarification is needed the Wikibooks Limitations to the GFDL page is probably the best place to extend a more basic GFDL interpretation for Wikibookians. --Panic 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Culling the legalistic content
I removed the following section from this page:


 * Under the terms of the GFDL, attribution for a book must be made to at least 5 authors of the book (if there are more then 5 authors), or all authors (if there are less then 5). Every module of a textbook contains a history link that lists every contributor to a book which is used to satisfy this clause of the license. Manual lists of authors on module, talk and discussion pages do not count as proper, legal attribution. Lists of authors of this sort are prohibited.


 * Do not sign your contributions. Your signature only belongs on the talk and discussion pages, not on the module pages. The page history records your contributions, and that is all that is needed.

First of all, this is giving legal advise when it isn't stritcly necessary. As I stated above, I also think this is patently wrong advise as well for many reason, as I don't think the history page is all that is necessarily needed. Much more is needed. And making an issue about the creation of author pages completely detracts from the purpose of this page, which is to define what ownership of Wikibooks content is really about and why we do what we do for collaboratively developing textual content to create books.

I also have tried to give this policy a much more positive tone, by noting that what we do isn't because of the GFDL (although that does allow us to create derivative works, etc.), but because we are using a wiki and what wiki editing really means. In this case emphasizing the "Wiki" in Wikibooks.

The whole issue over how many authors can be claimed on a book and the legalistic stuff perhaps ought to be instead with some republication guidelines, which would be also where an explaination as to why author pages have been created in the first place. I'll say it again, this is not the place to argue and debate over the merits of author pages, and I don't think it is necessary for this policy to work to even have that clause in this policy. --Rob Horning 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think we need to have 2 policies here... one about "collaboration ethics", and the other about the publication issues. I think we can come up with something reasonable and precise for the first issue, the second (as Robert knows well) is a complicated issue that's constantly debated on many fora, including wikiprojects, mailing lists, etc.


 * I had suggested "Ownership" because that's what the similar policies are called on other wikimedia projects. It might not be a bad idea to call it something else here though, as is our tradition. Maybe Collaboration?


 * The trouble comes about when a user has worked on a book for a while, and then has difficulties collaborating with a new contributor. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll do one better, since now User:SBJohnny seems reluctant to point to the 800-pound gorilla in the room...
 * (since User:SBJohnny told me that my actions are the reason for the creation of this policy, I feel very strongly that if this will not prove my POV will serve as a base to resolve a similar problems in the future, I do this for the benefit of every other Wikibookian as I will probably avoid to contribute to a project here after the troubles I been trough...)
 * This fallowing points for me are closed and I don't intent o debating them I give them as examples of things that for me weren't right, I'll use the definition I provided above...
 * Fork - I and Paddu (the user that was the most active contributor at the time to the CPP book), had a small and not intervened war (even upon revert and other motions), on content and format. I unilaterally  decided to created a news book (at the time on the posts we used the term fork, that was badly chosen but there was no policy on it so that was not a problem) and by doing so the dispute was resolved and I could continue to write.
 * Fork policy - The fork policy to me shouldn't even exist, I will talk to anyone on that policy talk page to defend my POV on it, but the policy wasn't agreed upon (I am/was against it) and so the decision process wasn't fallowed, or am I missing something ?!?
 * Forced merge - 2 administrator took to the task of forcing a merge on the two books, I was against it and fought to prevent it, the first administrator really did understand the problem and provided me with some insights and I started to adapt the book format a bit from the monolithic (one page) status it had (and the problem that most aggravated Paddu before the so called fork) and other changes, the second administrator did a lousy job at it, forced the merge, imposed a new definition to the scope of the book, format, image, name change etc... a mess, again no consensus on most of the changes, but as the cpp book was not evolving a copy of the new book survived as result of the merge (strangely enough no voice tried to defend the original cpp book).
 * So my point is, does the decision process work or any user with a bit more rights or the support of community (form a majority) can disregard the policy ? What constitutes the "be bold" ? What structure do we give to contributors to build books, since any one seems to be able with enough time and support to impose radical changes without due process...


 * The actual problems that must be addressed so I can stop making a fuss about it...
 * When a user has authorship of a work, (not really the main point, it should be valid for any "type" of user) and a "new" collaborator forces a reformat of the work without consensus, that is by violating the Wikibook decision policy (since the user has the right to propose changes to the whole Wikibook community), and administrators who should know better, fail to protect the work as required by the simple policy of decision making, What is the solution, protect the work and the first user or the second user rights to reformat the work ?!?
 * Administration also has failed to note that "cover page" is the entry point to any specific wikibook namespace (if you prefer the most linked to page on the specific namespace), and that the GFDL requires that authors/copyright should be "accessible" from there), this one is simple isn't it ?
 * Another point that I made and was (without the fallowing of the decision process, as it should suffice my opposition to resolve the issue) the creation of a new print version of a secondary TOC that removed authors and a copy of the GFDL from the final product, that is was intended to generate a copy without those informations, is a violation of the GFDL or am I missing something ?!?
 * I've taken the time and patience to point to the users that even if they didn't want to get on the legal matters, if they just fallowed the existing decision process, the issues even if the other part didn't concede, would be rightly "resolved". What I have noticed is a collapse of the decision process here at Wikibooks.


 * Again, state the I do not invoke special power, specific rights or claim sole ownership or power of decision greater that any other user this is not the problem here, there is no other claim or dispute active that the ones stated above, I refused to "be bold" this time and tried to see if administrators really took up the task of enforcing a policy or proving that I was on the wrong, none so far and more problematic yet is that the administrator that did take any action based on his interpretation of the problem, blocked me, let the other user do even more changes to the work and in his last post on the talk pages seems to think that he has done his task and all is resolved... --Panic 18:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that IF this proposal is to be adopted at all that it should be renamed so as not to be misleading. I generally believe though it is not necessarly a seperate issue from decision making, which is why there is similar wording in Decision making/Unstable. I think I will adopt the more positive wording used here on that one as well. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed The terms of the GFDL do not override these principles because I believe it to be giving legal advice which may not be true. I added and "legal rights" granted to everyone else as another example in addition to the "moral rights", in its place. My thinking is there may be too many legal issues to try to cover without seeking some type of formal response from the Wikimedia Foundation as to their position on any copyright and ownership issues here, if legal issues are to be addressed. My intent with the addition example is to cover for example that the GFDL may very well be considered a legal binding contract of some sort that is stating the author is giving up certain rights, like the right to prosicute someone of they publish the contents for profit, since the GFDL allows someone to do so. This I think would be in contridiction to the "do not override these principles" statement. Perhaps their needs to be something added about how Wikibooks does not try to give legal advice and is no substitute for a copyright lawyer? --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Guideline vs Policy
I have changes the text from policy to guideline since the proposed text isn't more that a clarification on other policies and guidelines on a specific topic, it doesn't introduce innovations or in itself creates a new imposition to users. --Panic 16:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You also reverted the wording again which is incorrect. Books consist of more then just text which is copyrighted. All contents that is contributed whether its text, images, sounds, videos, etc. may be copyrighted. I disagree with those changes. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we don't accept images, sound, video, etc under GFDL, all references to contributions on that pages deals with text, you may add that other kinds of content do have other licenses and such but any resulting work or aggregation of works will not be like adding text, that is you can change text I had on Wikibooks but you can't edit, modify a sound or other type of content without generating a separated work that have some other rights in itself, and not directly on Wikibooks you must dl the content change it, upload it again and change the text on the book. --Panic 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We do accept accept those things under the terms of the GFDL, even if its not technically correct to do so. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to a book with more GFDL content than it's text ? txs... --Panic 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See commons:Commons:Copyright tags. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A mention to that would probably be usefully, as I'm not proposing the policy or guideline, I will refrain to do that change, as it its, I see a very small usefulnesses to it (the only one that I see is the aggregation and clarification of concepts from other policies and guidelines in a single text).
 * I would like to see the definition and clarification of other concepts like author, contributor and modification vs derivative work, page vs module but this isn't probably the policy or guideline to do that (well author and contributor could probably get in the text until they are added elsewhere as people do confuse the two). --Panic 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

reset tab

I don't believe there is any confusion between author and contributor, because as far as Wikibooks is concerned there is no difference, and only has relevence when reusing the contents of a book (text, images and all) outside of Wikibook and maybe when uploading previous published works to Wikibooks. I believe as far as Wikibooks is concerned every modification creates a derivative work. I think page and modules are more or less interchangable words here, with possibly the only distinction being when printing out is that more then one module may make up a single printed page.

I will again change the text of this proposal to say contributed contents and refer to it as "works" rathern then "books", in order to cover the fact it applies to more then just the text of a book. I don't think there is any real need to clarify beyond that. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No sir, you are wrong, and I have stated that to you many times before, author and contributor are defined above if you are intending in redefining those concepts you must pass the decision process of Wikibooks, make the new definition highly visible and extend the limitation to the GFDL (that probably won't work as you are recreating the rules of copyright).


 * One of our disputes for instance, shows how there is a problem with your interpretation in this case when you move pages between books here in Wikibooks, you are obligated per the license used to refer on the target book the source book, a more common example is when you copy text from Wikipedia (a bit different but basically the same) you must provide that info on the copyright information of the target book.


 * And not every modification is a derivative work, derivative work implies that you added a significant contribution to the work (see above), as in a translation, not in moving pages, simple reformat or spell checking.


 * In Wikibooks, a policy, a user page, a guideline or basically every page that is not part of a book is a module (if protected by the GFDL), as it is part o Wikibooks as a whole, every book pages is part of that particular book not a module, you can't move it freely on the Wikibooks namespace, as they have particular rights a legal protections that make them different from the rest.


 * Most of this things are the basis of our work here, they came not from the community but from what Wikimedia gave us, the license and the legal framework we must work with, I hope that this is the last time I have to say the same thing over and over again, if you have another interpretation please can you provide me with the basis for you claims ? --Panic 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to keep missing my point: Is it irrelevant what definition You or I believe that author, contributor, modification and derivated work have. They have no relevance within the framework of Wikibooks. I don't believe Wikibooks defines them as you have stated and I am not trying to change their meaning here. I believe however that you are trying to change them and that you are also confused about when such things do and don't mater or are possibly trying to change the does and don't. I'm simply trying to clarify things to adopt to the community while I believe your trying to force changes to make the community adapt to you. As usualy this is going nowhere and is a waste of time. I don't believe I have a need to justify myself. I know I disagree with your stance and am simply waiting for the community to help clarify and put an end to this mess. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it your point that there aren't authors in Wikibooks ? or that all contributors are authors ?
 * The first statement is wrong and the second also, I gave support to my POV based on the GFDL and normal rules we agree when we start writing on Wikibooks as it doesn't stand on a vacuum, if you can provide any bases to your POV please do or at least say that they are based only on your personal wishes. I go so far as to state that my interpretation does not even need a debate for reaching a consensus on the bases these are legal presets that we must comply to as set by Wikimedia, these concepts are protected by law and can't be changed. --Panic 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will say that the issue about authorship is something that has not had any real significant review on Wikimedia projects. Of course, it has been said that Wikimedia projects are the only "Web 2.0" projects that actually take copyright seriously at all, but that is an issue better left elsewhere.  I have seen a gross misunderstanding of the GFDL and copyright laws or even copyright ethics in general when it comes to pages like Copyrights, particularly on Wikipedia.  I have recieved advise that I can radomly pick 5 people from the user list to meet the authorship requirements of the GFDL (vandals and bots included!)  I find that so far afield that my mouth actually dropped open when I read that.  Still, I think it is reasonable to say that somebody who has added a signficiant quantity of content to a page in the form of words can be considered an "author" for the purposes of the GFDL. What is the big issue here on this policy page is what sorts of control does the author have on their work here on Wikibooks after you have hit the "Save page" buton?  There are many here who would say "absolutely none at all", and others that would say "it is mine, mine, mine, all mine, and you can't touch it unless I let you".  While I would lean to the "none at all" camp in terms of general thinking, I am willing to entertain the idea that perhaps an author has some legal and ethical "rights" regarding what they have written.  Of principle concern is that if you have substantially contributed to a Wikibook, for example, your name ought to be cited as an author of that book and you should be given credit for helping to create that content. Now what other "rights" does an author enjoy in regards to Wikibooks content?  You do have the "right" to object to changes in a Wikibook you helped create and raise a fuss if you think the book has changed substantially from what you originally intended.  Now this doesn't mean you always win, but it does mean that people should take seriously suggestions of those who helped put the content together.  This also includes page formatting and even module names, in terms of where those contributing should strongly suggest how this is put together.  A person who steps in and has not been involved with the development of a Wikibook but decides to make huge changes to the format and structure of the book should legitimately be questioned and held to a tougher standard in terms of answering why they need to make these changes, particularly if the major contributors don't want them happening. If all of this seems like common sense, well it should be.  But at the same time, often people act before they think and sometimes run roughshod over others, and in this sense what is written here for this policy is to help smooth things out a bit and try to explain some of the reasons why things are done instead of pontificating that it should be done in some particular manner.  --Rob Horning 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with User:Robert Horning on several point but those aren't directly related to this guideline, I don't agree that a author should have more rights over a work on Wikibooks, this is, after a book exist the community can ask for his removal (VfD) or ask for forced alteration (NPOV) even if the author objects, etc ... (humm... well we actually can't because of the problem that all decisions are based on consensus, so we have to have much more detailed polices to create violators that will let us impose such decisions, we must create rules to have criminals we can punish)
 * What I don't agree is that all users that contribute are equal on the decision process of a book evolution (this is further extended on my talk page and this is not the indicated forum).
 * I've now come to notice that User:Darklama thinks that all users regardless of the level of involvement/contribution to a work can be defined and added to it as authors (or as you give in example pick 5 elements and fill the authors page), this is plainly wrong, and I have by now proven why. the license (GFDL) we use here is not to protect Wikibooks, it's users or contributors it is to protect the works (books) the authors and finally to guarantee that the works can forever remain free for all. --Panic 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks is not a hierarchy, there is no distinction made between wikibookians based on the number or the quality of their contributions. All contributors to a book hold copyright over the materials that they've contributed, regardless of how small the contributions may be. A book with multiple copyright holders needs to maintain the rights of all the copyright holders, regardless of the scope of their contributions to the book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Other policies with similar points
This proposal appears to refer to items already covered by Copyrights and GNU Free Documentation License. I therefore do not believe it should be a separate policy. Keep it as an unofficial guideline or summary, by all means, but I'd be loathe to see it gain any official status. Jguk 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that, the fact that wikibooks is not a hierarchy, and that users are not ranked or graded is an important point. The main idea of this proposal (even if the language is a bit too harsh) is that all wikibookians are on an equal footing, and that all people should be given equal opportunity to edit, and all people should be allowed to participate equally in the wikibooks process. This is a fundamental point that isn't written in stone anywhere, and really deserves to be. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixes and Copyright Stuff
I've gone through and cleaned up this proposal, there was alot of stuff in here that needed to be removed, and alot of other stuff that needed to be rewritten. This page is about the exercise of editorial control over modules, it is not a replacement nor a competitor for Copyrights. Things that are only about copyrights do not belong here, they belong in a new proposal for that other policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the text as it is now addresses the concerns that lead to the proposal creation, it gives useful information to the unaware, by making it a policy we will be enforcing that no one can claim editorial control, in a few days a call for comments, would be nice so we can proceed in passing this as a policy.
 * For the added information that was removed some, it is very important and part of it was, I think, behind the creation of this proposal, and it also addressed problems that should be made clear or at least passed in a NPV way to Wikibookians, some I know you disagree with me, some should be discussed or stated that there isn't a consensus on it (ie: the aggregation of works and the positive side to it), or at least make the points accessible in a single forum and I agree that the copyright page is the best location for that discussion. --Panic 05:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Things that have to deal with copyrights are certainly valuable, but they would belong at Copyrights instead. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We could, like the user on the thread above pointed out, make the case that all should go into the copyrights policy, if we really extract only what is the being attempted to pass along with the text we could reduce it to 2 lines or very few words that all people agree and never was contested, but I think it will probably be less troublesome if we do it by parts we can always decide to merge the two texts later. --Panic 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)