Forum:Does an article author have some priveleges over his or her piece?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Does an article author have some priveleges over his or her piece?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6289 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I recently had a couple of unfortunate encounters in which other members of Uncync edited my articles in a way that, at least in my opinion, damaged the original form of the article as I wrote it down. In both cases I pleaded my case with them on their talk page and asked them to refrain from further editing the article. In one case I also apologized for being too sensitive. However, in another case that specific user kept changing and re-changing the article even though I reverted those changes several times and asked politely that he stop editing. Now, you can say - this is a wiki, get over it. I have to say that usually I go along with that and I don't remove all changes made to my pieces and I don't believe that my sense of humor is superior to others. But sometimes, the changes made are just, well, annoying! And since I was the one who wrote that piece in the first place, I feel like I have some right over its form... After that long rant, do you think that within the community - is it reasonable for an author to keep some sort of ruling over changes made in his article? Mind you - I'm not talking about vandals and sporadic IPs.... Opinions anyone? ~ 14:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest, i don't like people editing articles i've written, i get a bit protective, but it is a wiki so if i think an edit someone's made is an improvement i'll be glad of it and leave it. if i think someone's made a bad edit though i'll revert it, and mostly people don't notice. if they do and they try to re-edit, before you get into a revert war, you should find some third party and get them to decide if the article's better off with or without the edit - jack mort | cunt | talk - 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the price to pay for free spell checks, images, additional jokes and other improvements. And also free notoriety, that is, not waiting five years for people linking and flock to admire your insulated weblog. Maybe you should let the n00bs doing their dirty work, wait a week and revert everything. Probably they will not notice. Alas, we all find this funny, but few of us really took the time to think seriously about the "wiki" ideology. Most of us, I guess, are not copyleft activists. We just don't have great pretention$ on the kind of work we do here. -- herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I have that happen to me as well, either I revert the article or I hunt down the anonymous users and find clever ways to hide their bodies. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your situation. Personally, I don't mind, as long as the edits they make aren't entirely stupid and random. - Prof. Ahh(to the)Diddums^{[FUCK-A-DOODLE-DOO!]} 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think most long-term users realize that there is an etiquette about editing others' work, but unfortunately it is not really a hard-and-fast rule. Persistent mean-or-stupid edits are often judged "vandalism" and dealt with harshly by our fine administrative staff. Personally, if I disagree with edits made on "my" articles I just remove them, and if warranted put a bit on the article's discussion page explaining why I did it. It's just politeness, not rules. But stub articles, VFDs, and NRVs are pretty much fair game for editing. I've screwed up someones article before, and was asked to revert it. (Mind you, I thought it was funnier my way. But that's the way the lobster crumbles.) ----OEJ 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, everyone is entitled to change and tinker with articles that I started, otherwise I wouldn't have put them up here in the first place. Luckily this also means I have an equal right to either accept their changes or reject them and revert the whole thing to an older version or in my turn change their input. I assume that, having started the article myself, I have more affection for it than someone else and thus will try more persistently to keep it in check, whereas the tinkerer will give up after a while. If not, I track down his domicile and unleash the hounds. Different story with vandals, of course. -- Dutchy 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues

Well, this reminds me of another question we lightly debated before. If we are plagiarized, can we sue the plagiary? And if we win the complaint, who got the the money? Wikimedia? If I publish something here and after receive a proposal to publish my own articles in the traditional means, that is, a book to be sold, should I be sued by Uncyclopedia? If we publish a commercial "Best Of" with the sales money directed to Wikimedia or a beneficent foundation, can we have at least our real names published? -- herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All content published at uncyclopedia is released under the Creative Commons liscence. That means anyone can copy it, change it and republish, as long as he indicates the source and he is not doing it to make profits. Uncyclopedia has no connection to wikimedia whatsoever.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, yes, the author can be sued if (s)he publishes his(er) own Uncyclopedia articles for profit. Is that right? -- herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess. But I don't think anyone would care enough to sue you. If someone besides the author was making the money it could bother the author, but this is not the case. And I'm not sure who would be entitled to sue you in the name of uncyclopeda, Wikia maybe. And they couldn't keep the money from the trial either, couse that would be making profit too. In any case, I don't think they'll reach you there in Brazil.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they could, as Brazil is signatory of several copyright treaties that shall include copyleft, I guess. But, yeah, I think the author himself could ignore his copyleft release, as long other contributors have agreed about this. But I was just hypothesizing, I don't have a deal now... And if I had one, of course it was not to be released in that little precious shithole I've been unlucky enough to be born in. Hehehe. -- herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I tricked you! So you are from Barzil indeed, I made the right guess. Not that hard after catching you throwing some sentences in portuguese. So now, you bring the garotinhas and I shall not expose you.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man, I've admited my guilt just today. Didn't you see my archived poll? Blanka is my Caudillo. -- herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're the original author, you can re-licence your work under any licence(s) you like. But the version you relicence must be all yours, i.e. if some IP or other user added a few sentences, you can't relicence any version with those in without their agreement. I think versions of the work modified while under the original licence remain covered by that. I think. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 17:15, 25 Feb 2007

AFAIK, the only one that can sue would be the author - as the authors retain copyright to their creations. If you wrote everything on a page but a few sentences? Just remove those few lines, replace them with your own text, and do what you darned well please with what's left. You wrote it, you own it. All any of these "free licenses" do is grant permission (from you) for others to copy, modify and redistribute your work. They don't restrict the author in any other way - you are still the owner. --66.102.73.101 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the nice things about having Wikia around is that they have lawyers that will fight for us if we do get into a legal spat. It is recommended you come into the IRC channel and beg sannse for help, at which point she'll swoop in and save you.--<<>> 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

With a cape and everything. —Braydie 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)