NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book

[William King-3]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/

Chris Anderson, the author, summarized the situation in two words: "Mea culpa."

Your thoughts?

William King (Willking1979)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, William King <williamcarlking@...>wrote:

>
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/
>
> Chris Anderson, the author, summarized the situation in two words: "Mea
> culpa."
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> William King (Willking1979)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/24 Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:

> Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit.


Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration?


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

William King wrote:
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/
>
> Chris Anderson, the author, summarized the situation in two words: "Mea culpa."
>
>  
Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
and thought "damn, doesn't work that way", and then just went ahead.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Slight correction.  It was Time Magazine that ran my Brandeis restoration
uncredited.  The one Wired ran uncredited was the San Francisco Earthquake
of 1906.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0418

Wired gives sole credit to the original source:
*Image: H.D. Chadwick/National Archives and Records Administration* * *


Here's my restoration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg

The unrestored version:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3.jpg

Any suggestions what to do about this?

-Lise

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2009/6/24 Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:
>
> > Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit.
>
>
> Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Well, taking a first stab at this.  Here's my letter to Wired:
----

Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized
content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media
work of mine that Wired has reproduced without credit.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/

This reproduces a photograph in the digitally restored version I generated
through painstaking restoration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg

My restoration of this image was selected as a "featured picture", which
designates Wikipedia's best content.  It ran on Wikipedia's main page on 16
March 2008: one month before your uncredited reproduction of my volunteer
labor.

I seek no compensation other than credit.  Please post credit as follows:
"Restoration by Lise Broer (Durova)".

Thank you very much,

Lise Broer

San Diego, California.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:

> Slight correction.  It was Time Magazine that ran my Brandeis restoration
> uncredited.  The one Wired ran uncredited was the San Francisco Earthquake
> of 1906.
>
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0418
>
> Wired gives sole credit to the original source:
> *Image: H.D. Chadwick/National Archives and Records Administration* * *
>
>
> Here's my restoration:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg
>
> The unrestored version:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3.jpg
>
> Any suggestions what to do about this?
>
> -Lise
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
>
>> 2009/6/24 Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:
>>
>> > Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit.
>>
>>
>> Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://durova.blogspot.com/
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

As a brief aside, when you sign up at wired, they send you a
verification email.
In that verification email... they paste your password.
Bizarre.  You'd think something like "Wired" would be a bit more
security conscious than to do that.


-----Original Message-----
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying
from Wikipedia in New Book










Well, taking a first stab at this.  Here's my letter to Wired:
----

Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors
plagiarized
content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for
media
work of mine that Wired has reproduced without credit.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/

This reproduces a photograph in the digitally restored version I
generated
through painstaking restoration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg

My restoration of this image was selected as a "featured picture", which
designates Wikipedia's best content.  It ran on Wikipedia's main page
on 16
March 2008: one month before your uncredited reproduction of my
volunteer
labor.

I seek no compensation other than credit.  Please post credit as
follows:
"Restoration by Lise Broer (Durova)".

Thank you very much,

Lise Broer

San Diego, California.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>
wrote:

> Slight correction.  It was Time Magazine that ran my Brandeis
restoration
> uncredited.  The one Wired ran uncredited was the San Francisco
Earthquake
> of 1906.
>
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0418
>
> Wired gives sole credit to the original source:
> *Image: H.D. Chadwick/National Archives and Records Administration* *
*

>
>
> Here's my restoration:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg
>
> The unrestored version:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3.jpg
>
> Any suggestions what to do about this?
>
> -Lise
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...>

wrote:
>
>> 2009/6/24 Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:
>>
>> > Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without
credit.

>>
>>
>> Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://durova.blogspot.com/
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l






_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/24 Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:

> Well, taking a first stab at this.  Here's my letter to Wired:
> Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized
> content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media
> work of mine that Wired has reproduced without credit.


Restoration is painstaking work on behalf of the cultural commons and
well worth encouraging and crediting.

It's a different question whether it can use the same big stick of
copyright that CC or GFDL can. Possibly not in the US, per Bridgeman
vs Corel. (Though any actual statement on the subject would have to be
in court.)

I would expect that asking nicely and encouraging credit of restorers
is the best that can be done at this stage, and that it strikes me as
worth doing.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that not crediting a restorer
(when crediting the original) would count as "plagiarism." That's a
different kettle of fish, I think.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Durova wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg

This file says its in the public domain.

[[
Permission
 (Reusing this image)
Public domain
]]

[[
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.
...
]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
> and thought "damn, doesn't work that way", and then just went ahead.

Particularly ironic given the title and perhaps subject of the book.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

David Gerard wrote:

> 2009/6/24 Durova <nadezhda.durova@...>:
>
>  
>> Well, taking a first stab at this.  Here's my letter to Wired:
>> Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized
>> content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media
>> work of mine that Wired has reproduced without credit.
>>    
>
>
> Restoration is painstaking work on behalf of the cultural commons and
> well worth encouraging and crediting.
>
> It's a different question whether it can use the same big stick of
> copyright that CC or GFDL can. Possibly not in the US, per Bridgeman
> vs Corel. (Though any actual statement on the subject would have to be
> in court.)
>
> I would expect that asking nicely and encouraging credit of restorers
> is the best that can be done at this stage, and that it strikes me as
> worth doing.
>
> I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that not crediting a restorer
> (when crediting the original) would count as "plagiarism." That's a
> different kettle of fish, I think.
>
>  

I agree. But on the moral rights angle, it does breach
the inalienable right of paternity to a work. Paternity
is there even for modifications.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>  
>> Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
>> and thought "damn, doesn't work that way", and then just went ahead.
>>    
>
> Particularly ironic given the title and perhaps subject of the book.
>  
My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
issues this as an apology.

Charles



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> Any suggestions what to do about this?
>

After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:

No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL requirement for
credit. Soon, we will stop asking for it.

In order for it to happen, we would have to:
a) Make the requirement really really prominent
b) Respect it ourselves
c) Vehemently complain in a very public manner when a few individuals
fail to do so.

when d) we have far bigger fish to fry.

I think ultimately most organisations divide media into two
categories: properietary or free. We can certainly label all our
material as proprietary and tell people not to reuse it. Or we can
tell people they can reuse it. But our message of "please reuse it,
but ...." is not going to get through.

And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
producing useful free images?

(These questions are rhetorical and deliberately inflammatory. Take
the bait with caution.)

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Siobhan Hansa]

Steve Bennett wrote:
...
> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
> producing useful free images?
>
> (These questions are rhetorical and deliberately inflammatory. Take
> the bait with caution.)


A less ego bound reason* for wanting to see some acknowledgment -
especially through a link to Wikipedia or the like - is that it is
advocacy for the intellectual commons. This could encourage others to
get involved or to consider making their content free.

Also if the importance of free content isn't widely understood it will
be harder for policy makers to come to good decisions about laws or
other public support that might impact it.

Siobhan

*Not that I think there's anything wrong with wanting to see your name
in lights - vanity can be a big motivator.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
> the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
> WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
> issues this as an apology.

I agree, permalinks are the way to go. However, I can sympathize with the ugliness of permalinks and access requirements, which are standard Chicago. If you have more than one Web resource referenced in a note (if you don't want every sentence to have a footnote), it's really difficult to read:

[[
53. Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View,” Wikimedia, September 16, 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Neutral point of view & oldid = 6042007 (accessed March 5, 2004); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View,” Wikimedia, November 3, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Neutral point of view&oldid=249390830 (accessed November 3, 2008).
...
63. Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (oldid=249390830).”
]]

In the context of the two Chicago notes variants, I've made the following experiment in my manuscript:

1. Long (end) notes upon first instance (including URL) and subsequent short notes (with version number noted in title of Wikipedia pages, such as in note 63 above) subsequently yields 396 pages.
2. Short (end) notes (such as note 63 above) followed by bibliography with full citation (including URL) yields 452 pages.

Option 2 is more readable, but requires a redirection by the reader if they want full bibliographic detail, and adds pages (and weight and cost) to a book. Another option is to use an adaptation of Option 1: standard long-then-short Chicago without URLs, which are provided online. This make a practical sort of sense (and this is what Anderson *says* he was planning to do), but is non-standard and I'm not sure how it would be received.

*However*, this difficulty doesn't mean that one should simply "write through" one's sources (whatever that means) and remove the attribution all together.



This thread also inspired a blog post:
  http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/method/anderson-and-citing-wikipedia

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/25 Siobhan Hansa <helenseal@...>:
> Steve Bennett wrote:

>> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
>> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
>> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
>> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
>> producing useful free images?
>> (These questions are rhetorical and deliberately inflammatory. Take
>> the bait with caution.)

> A less ego bound reason* for wanting to see some acknowledgment -
> especially through a link to Wikipedia or the like - is that it is
> advocacy for the intellectual commons. This could encourage others to
> get involved or to consider making their content free.
> Also if the importance of free content isn't widely understood it will
> be harder for policy makers to come to good decisions about laws or
> other public support that might impact it.


Yes. It will help the commons considerably for free content licenses
to visibly be out there and acknowledged. And it's not onerous for a
newspaper to print "Photo by xxxx, CC by-sa 3.0". Or even "Photo by
xxx, restored by xxx," even if the restoration wouldn't generate a
fresh copyright.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Joseph Reagle wrote:

> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>  
>> My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
>> the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
>> WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
>> issues this as an apology.
>>    
>
> I agree, permalinks are the way to go. However, I can sympathize with the ugliness of permalinks and access requirements, which are standard Chicago. If you have more than one Web resource referenced in a note (if you don't want every sentence to have a footnote), it's really difficult to read:
>  

[[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
"how to cite Wikipedia"?

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Joseph Reagle wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> >
> >> My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
> >> the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
> >> WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
> >> issues this as an apology.
> >>
> >
> > I agree, permalinks are the way to go. However, I can sympathize with the
> ugliness of permalinks and access requirements, which are standard Chicago.
> If you have more than one Web resource referenced in a note (if you don't
> want every sentence to have a footnote), it's really difficult to read:
> >
> [[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
> "how to cite Wikipedia"?

We want people to have to rely on an external URL redirecting service to
cite us?

Online, I would go for maximum convenience of links. In print, I'd go for
readability and put citations at the back of the document or the end of the
chapters. Footnotes that might need to be read with the text, can be put at
the foot of the page or end of the chapters.

Carcharoth
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle <reagle@...>:

> Option 2 is more readable, but requires a redirection by the reader if they
> want full bibliographic detail, and adds pages (and weight and cost) to a
> book. Another option is to use an adaptation of Option 1: standard
> long-then-short Chicago without URLs, which are provided online. This make
> a practical sort of sense (and this is what Anderson *says* he was planning
> to do), but is non-standard and I'm not sure how it would be received.

This reminds me of a thought I've been having for a while. *We* can
pro-actively take steps to make citation easier for our users, at
least in theory; we can provide more elegant URLs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=6042007

can be rendered as

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007

Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
the DOI playbook, and set up something like:

http://[site]/wp:en/6042007

At first glance, this doesn't seem to actually add very much - it's
just a shorter URL. But we could then use it as a platform to help our
reusers...

a) if that revision is deleted, we could generate a page saying so and
identifying the next live revision *on that page*.

b) if one day we get a marvellous system for identifying authors, this
would be an obvious place to display the generated list of them for a
given revision.

I'd be curious as to any other applications people can think of.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> [[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
> "how to cite Wikipedia"?

I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's fine for Twitter in the short term, but what happens when they go under and now all those URLs point to porn?) However, institutions should give thought to their URI architecture, including stability, terseness, etc. The ACM provides a relatively short URL for everything it publishes, and there are other DOI services.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l