Forum:Ownership of Wiki Material

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Ownership of Wiki Material
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 August 2008 by Xdragonaite.

I want to open up a discussion about something that really, REALLY scares me in this Wiki. It's about people thinking that they own the material they add to this site.

Let me first say that this site is a collaborative effort. Any time that you assert that "that's my material" or "this is my image," you're absolutely full of crap and don't understand our community at all. Attitudes like this are absolutely detrimental to the spirit that this community tries to foster.

There are a number of things that I have taken note of, and don't have any really good way of articulating it, so I'll just list what has pissed me off. I want you all to know that I am not trying to be accusatory to any one person; it's a general community attitude that has me worried. So if you're quoted here, forgive me, but I'm just trying to show examples:

  1. "The character in the animation should look as the animation taker wants them to look. It's their animation, not our's." - Chiafriend12, on YG
  2. " Fifthly, as Chia has said - the animations are directly contributed by the makers, they should have the right to design anything inside the animation frame. " - Xdragonaite, in response to #1
  3. [[:Category:Tarikochi Animations]]
  4. User:Tarikochi/Image Contract
  5. The entire RS:UOTM process

All of the things I've mentioned above just go to glorify the editor, not the content. The category I mentioned there really set me off; I could not BELIEVE that we had a MAINSPACE category target solely on giving someone recognition for work they did for a COLLABORATIVE wiki.

Now, I've admitted in the past that I hate the animations on this site; I think they're tacky and they require way too much bandwidth. Not too many people cared, so I'm past that. But can't we all agree that claiming such ownership over Wiki material fosters an attitude of competition and selfishness, when we're trying to strive for collaboration and selflessness? I mean, I don't even want to know where some people get off thinking they have the legal copyright to screenshots or animations of Jagex' material...sorry to tell you Tarikochi, but I have just as much right to redistribute your caps of Jagex' art as you do.

I suggest the following action steps:

  1. Immediately remove any categories used to consolidate "ownership" of animations.
  2. Immediately dereference the author from any image whose copyright legally belongs to Jagex.
    1. If someone else truly does own the copyright to an image, and it is legally used here, the owner's name can be included solely as a copyright notice.
    2. This includes moving any image that contains a username (unless only used for a userspace) to a username-free name.
  3. Make editing about editing again! Not about fame and glory. Oh, this includes obliterating UOTM.

Whatever the result of this discussion, I will likely perform step 1, unless people can convince me otherwise. Endasil (Talk) @  03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I should note that when I said listed the things that "pissed me off," they didn't all piss me off...some of them just supported what I was trying to say. Endasil (Talk) @  03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems to me like something that is being blown way of proportion. All the editors I have seen making gifs wholesomely realize the content is property of Jagex and that whatever they upload to this wiki can be used anywhere. As a common courtesy, I ask for a credit to my userpage if you decide to use an image I created off the wiki. As for Tarikochi, she (he?) uses the same copyright for Jagex in all of the images she uploads and also gives permission for use off the wiki with a credit to her userpage. There is nothing wrong with requesting that someone else not take credit for your work, or that they link to you when they use your images. Tebuddy 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Whats "wrong" with it is, it means someone is trying to take credit. Period. The wiki is not about who can do what, but rather what we can achieve together by each contributing. It is about the project, not what each person individually puts in. With you wanting credit, and Plazarocker naming his uploads with his name it, and the other examples listed, I totally agree with Endasil . If someone wants it to be about them, they can go make their own site. Because that is not what a wiki is about.--Degenret01 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your making it seem to black and white. For example, is the community going to reimburse an editor for leveling a skill to 99, earning 99k ingame to buy the skillcape, reimburse them for the money spent on the program they use to record and edit the images, the time that person spends recording and re-recording the image to make sure the lighting, coloring, and framing are perfect, and the cost of the internet used to upload it to the wiki? No. The way I see it, with a community project that no one is being paid to maintain, you should count your blessings and thank each person who spends more than a minute making sure something is correct. That doesnt mean because you contribute, that you have the right to ignore rules and policies. All it should mean is that you should not punish creativity and effort by pasting a "by the community" sticker on it. Another point I want to make that you all seem to be missing is that the editors are not demanding credit or watermarking everything that goes through the wiki, its that they have messages asking for credit if you decide to use it. Why you choose to create a problem where there isn't one will always be beyond me. Tebuddy 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If you don't think that, by virtue of the fact that we are a WIKI, we should be pasting a "by the community" sticker on everything that gets posted here, I honestly think you belong at a private site. I would much rather have worse content and everybody being part of a community than random people only wishing to receive credit for their edits posting here. And as for the stuff you said before--I tried to post a reply, but apparently it didn't submit. I never said anything about what you wear for animations. That's a different discussion that I've played no part in. I don't particularly mind that a lot of the animations are of the same user (I like the special attack ones being consistent), but I don't mind variety either. I'm also not saying people shouldn't be proud of their work. If they want to link to their contributions, that's fine--in the context of their user space. I don't like putting a big stamp on contributions saying "I DID THIS," which is essentially what using a category, or adding your name to the comments, is doing. Endasil (Talk) @ 

My two cents... Does Tarikochi, Tebuddy, or any user at all, have a right to limit how their images are used or what is done with them? No. It says right there on the Special:Upload page: Please note that you have no exclusive rights over images you upload here. The way I see it, if you are uploading an image here, you are essentially releasing it to the public domain (of course, it's not really public domain because all images here are technically copyrighted by Jagex... I'm just giving an example that nobody here has any right to govern how their images are used once uploaded). However... Do these users have a right to get credited or do they deserve notation for playing/recording/editing/uploading the animations that are used here? Absolutely. I agree that a wiki should be a community effort, but the fact is, these are individual people with individual names, and there's nothing wrong with users getting a little pat on the back and some notoriety for the work they do (as long as it doesn't scream it out right there on a main article)... But such small recognitions can offer as a motivator for people to do a good job and make good edits, because like it or not, for better or worse, if there's no motivation most people just won't bother. Even if you're just helping out of the goodness of your heart, it's still because there's an individual drive there that's motivating you. I think that's why the whole featured user of the month thing is in place, it's not to divide the community into ranks, it's actually the opposite... It's just a way to offer as a motivation to people, as well as a way to say "Hey, you're a great help and the community appreciates what you contribute". It doesn't harm the community, if you ask me it helps to make things less robotic. So yeah, basically: If a user wants to sign their name to the description of an image they upload, I'd say that's their right. If they wanna make a list of all images they've uploaded, they should be able to do that (on their userpage... I do think a main category for one user is over the top). They just don't have a right to then dictate how their image can/can't be displayed from then on... Once it's uploaded, it's out there. Dark cavalier.png Regabuh (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I would have said if I had actually had the willingness to write all of that. No to categories and and ownership, but yes to a right to being credited. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if someone creates a category for their images, or puts their name in the contribution box, but I do care if they try to assume control or violate RuneScape:All_editors_are_equal just because of what they have done. Tebuddy 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
[[:Category:Tarikochi Animations]] is just a place to organize any images Tarikoci uploaded, IMO. Is that owning any of the images? No, just a specific category. RS:UOTM? Keep. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. It is just recognition for a useer that deserves it. Tebuddy, I 100% agree with you. Derilith 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason Tarikochi keeps her image policy or whatever is because her animations are used across the internet. But then again, when users upload images, they are warned about the image entering public domain. Nobody owns these images. The wiki is a community effort to build (and perfect) an encyclopedia of all things RuneScape. That includes images. If people assume ownership of these images just because they took and uploaded them, that goes against the entire point of our project. We should be less about assuming credit and more about helping the project.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Tarikochi's category may be an easy way to categorize images, but those images should be put into the category they are relevant to content-wise, not by who uploaded them. In addition, there really is no need to sign on the image page or say "I uploaded this" since it shows who uploaded it in the file history. As for UotM, there is currently a VfD going on for that, and I think opinions about it would fit best there. Like Ilyas said, wikis aren't about giving credit to users, but rather about striving to make a thorough and helpful encyclopedia. We know who the helpful users are in the community, and we don't need categories and UotM to recognize them. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 23:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for a change if there is no problem. None of the image creators have fought with each other or had a competition for who could spread their name the fastest. None of the creators have tried to assume control of content or violate RuneScape:All_editors_are_equal. We have already established that the editors understand that when they upload something it is no longer theirs, and we have already established there is nothing wrong with someone being recognized for a large amount of effort they put into an image or an edit. Someone having an image policy or a request for credit is completely legitimate, the fact that someone may argue about it proves they don't understand that they have no obligation to fulfill such a request and can use the images that user provides under no terms with the creator. The way I see it is that its just a common courtesy. So again, I dont believe any change is necessary and that the users who are offended/angry should just get over it. Tebuddy 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I do infact believe that users should be given credit for what they do, but like Sacre said, instead of signing your name on an image page or even going as far as to watermark your name onto an image (although I don't think anyone has done that), people can just look at the upload history. Signing your name on the description of an image is basically the same as signing your name on an article. People can just look on the page history if they want to know who edited it and when.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The watermarking thing was an example as to when it would be appropriate to make changes. Since no one has broken any rules, ignored any policies, or caused any disruption there should not be any changes. Simple as that. People putting their names in the image name/description does not hurt anything as long as it still fits the criteria. Tarikochi putting "made by tarikochi" in an image description of a player performing the dance emote is perfectly legitmate as long as she also says "this image is of a player performing the dance emote" as she and every other image creator have done. Do I take the time to write my name on everything? No, because I dont care. Criticism of one users actions should be taken to their talk page, but trying to institute sweeping changes because you dont like how something is represented is as I have said again and again, pointless.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there have already been problems (like you mentioned, violating RS:AEAE) because, if it actually did, then the UOTM page wouldn't be up for deletion. This just goes against the spirit of the wiki, and although I hate to bring UOTM up here, UOTM is different. It's congratulating editors for their work and it motivates users to do the same great work. Signing an image description is different because nobody is motivated to do anything. Plus, if an animation Tarikochi (just an example, no offense) uploaded became out-of-date and someone else uploaded a new version of the animation, would Tarikochi's signature stay? No, it wouldn't, but her name would still be on the file history. Everyone deserves to be recognized for what they do, and they already are regardless of whether they sign their name on an image or not, because their name will always be on the file history or the page history (per articles).Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 01:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
For me, it still comes down to changing something that is not in need of changing. There are so many other articles in dire need of attention, and were stuck on 2 (I havent seen more than two) editors putting their names in the image credits. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
So you think because there is a war in Iraq the Supreme Court will reject all cases? Believe what you want, perhaps you're right, maybe it doesn't need changing, but it goes against the spirit of the wiki, and signing image descriptions is like signing an article after every edit, or having a "sign here if you edited" section at the bottom of articles.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't exactly get your analogy, but anyway. Runescape:Nothing_Against_The_Spirit_Of_Wiki does not exist. Putting your name in a description does not hurt anything, does not cripple morale, does not violate any rules or policies, does not fight the definition of a contribution, and does not cause any problems. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Except when someone hovers their mouse over the pic your name comes up. And if you want people to see your name, go somewhere else. Because all the editors who took who knows how long to write the actual article aren't getting their names shown when the mouse is hovered over the article. Its no harm, but it is awful conceited to think your special.--Degenret01 03:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the image has been uploaded and correctly placed on a page using the frame option the description is of the frames description, not of the image. So to find out the real description you would need to view the images page. As I said above, even someone browsing with accessibility options would need to make an extra click to find out who actually made an image. And please dont confuse me with someone who places their name on everything as I do not. As seen by this picture:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4236/seesq8.jpg. An image will also only use hover text if assigned it, so that means if you name an image lolImadehtisandyoudidnthahahaha.gif, it would not actually say that, but instead it would list the name in the properties bar in Firefox and IE7/8. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Nice quoting to bring this stuff up , Endasil. But I need to clarify that my emphasis of that sentence falls on the latter part.
Going back, I agree that categories of that kind (with username) should be broken and recategorised by the nature. For example, all spells animations and pictures should be put inside a catergory like "Category:Magic graphics".
Whether the animation maker's name should be put in the description of image page, it really doesnt matter to sign since everyone can see the name of the maker at the bottommost of the history list of the image page.
Contributing here would be difficult to be credited for each single article. There are too many updates, too many grammatical mistakes, too many not-so-correct information, too many opague information, too many users blah blah blah. Everyone would be able to contribute just simply changing a few words. Would having a long list of contributors a bit meaningless? How about if the Varrock page, for example, its contributors list would exactly be the active user list? The worse of all is that there are countless articles that may have their contributors list look like the active user list!
Contributing here would also be similar to a move of charity and kindness, just like helping those in need. You see the imperfection and misleading spot in the articles in Wikia, and you help contribute based on the heart of making it better. I would not expect all of us are having the attitude like the said one, but I believe most of us are having this. Under this stand, the need to be credited would not be necessary.

XDRAGONAITE +Saradomin's Book of Wisdom.png 04:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


None of the editors should own anything, period. This is Wiki, an encyclopedia geared towards RuneScape. No one owns images, categories, articles, etc. That's it! It's as simple as that. If users want credit for their work they put in, they could see the edit history and upload history for the names of those who have contributed. So.. what is the point of discussing this trivial issue? (The discussion is so long my 5-year-old browser is struggling to download it.) This issue is not related to RSWiki per se, and should be stopped immediately. It involves a minority of users, and NOT the RSWiki as a whole.
I would like to point out something. Take a real encyclopedia for example. I'm sure lots of people contribute to making it. But, "strangely", I don't see any names in it: "Mr. XYZ took this picture", "Ms. ABC adjusted the colours.", "Mr. PQR removed the transparency.", "Ms. FGH editted this sentence here." It's just there for people for read, see, and appreciate the article. (Unless it's a copyright image..) But here in Wiki, we actually show the persons who did these contributions through the upload history and edit history. That, in itself, should be enough.
Regarding UOTM, I think it is not glorifying anyone. It acknowledges the effort of the person put in to develop RSWiki. Take the Nobel prize for example. It is the highest honour anyone can receive, and it acknowleges the person who contribute to the development of the field they're involved in (Peace, Physics, Mathematics, etc.) It may seem like glory to some people who are oblivious to work they've done, but to others, they have done a lot for the society. Simply, it's recognition of work. "You've a good job, buddy." *pats on the shoulder*
My point is Wiki is like community service, and no one should take credit for the work they put in. PERIOD. However, one could be acknowledged by others if their work is tremendously helpful to RSWiki in general.
  az talk   05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, change is not necessary, it addresses 2 editors who may or may not be even active anymore, it would make sweeping changes that could give undue weight to some users, and it should be stopped this instant. Credit where credit is due, and leave it at that. No rules or policies are violated by putting image credits in your userpage, or within the image name or description. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick Note - to "I didn't exactly get your analogy", it means "There are so many other articles in dire need of attention, and were stuck on 2 (I havent seen more than two) editors putting their names in the image credits.". Get it?Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Tebuddy, you honestly have the most circular reasoning possible. I come here, saying it's a problem and something should be done about it. All you say again and again is "there's no problem, so it shouldn't be changed." Obviously, if there was no problem, nothing should be changed. BUT WE'RE SAYING THERE IS A PROBLEM. I mean, look at some of the bull**** stuff you've said. You've said that stuff that is against the spirit of the Wiki is ok, as long as it doesn't break a policy. You've said that it shouldn't be changed if it's a minor issue. You've said that it shouldn't be changed if it would be a lot of work to change. And in all this, you keep saying that no rules or policies are being broken. Well effing duh! If rules or policies were being broken, I wouldn't have brought this to the YG, I would have made the freaking changes myself--I'm an admin. The whole point of this discussion (and most YG discussions) is to see if policy needs changing. Endasil (Talk) @  17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the whole idea of the spirit of the wiki being more important than its rules is encapsulated in RS:IAR. While that guideline suggests ignoring rules that make sense, I think it also insists more generally that the rules are not the final source on what is good for the community. Endasil (Talk) @ 
It hurts me deeply that you would address me in such a manner, this certainly is not what I expect of an admin. You still have not proven to me that a change is required. Im surprised you quote RS:IAR. But as I brought up in my first post dear admin, this wiki does not become a less reliable source because I decide to name a helpful animation FLDFYGDFGNDGDGDJGDPIGIUGHDIUHG.Gif, or Tebuddydidthis.gif, or whatevertheheckIfeellike.gif. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The wiki does not become less reliable, however the image itself becomes less reliable, as you might could imagine a well named animated image (example here) is much more helpful to any user of the wiki that decides the image is worth downloading for quick reference. If i were looking through a list of filenames and saw FLDFYGDFGNDGDGDJGDPIGIUGHDIUHG.Gif as opposed to how to dodge bullets.gif (or what have you) I would quickly know which image i would want to view only in the later case. Furthermore if i name an image well there is no need to even add a descriptor to the image tag in the article. ~kytti khat 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats a pretty circumstantial example. Not to mention it has not happened yet. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And you can prove that it has not happened? Please enlighten me. ~kytti khat 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking about the sdsakhdkhgdhadh.gif image title, especially on animations. I have yet to see a gibberish name while browsing any categories or random pages. This is not very accurate, but can you prove it is a problem? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Proper naming is never a problem. To me you are definitely circular in your arguments, especially when you are being intentionally vague in your responses. Such ambiguity does not lead this conversation forward. I am of the belief that you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing. As such i will not address you any further unless you have made yourself 100% clear. ~kytti khat 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It is really starting to get annoying being targeted like this. I have not swore or insulted anyone, yet so far in your own reply you managed to call me circular and an instigator and said you would be ignoring me. Its funny to me the only source you could find of me being troublesome was a template page where I was confused about someone's change. Also, with my revert I left a post on the templates talk page here, Template_talk:NPOV. Way to manipulate the situation to make it seem like I was being immature. You even posted in my reply, whats up with that? In my previous response that you called vague and circular, my point was to show that there is not a widespread problem of animators intentionally making the filenames unreasonably long, and until you can prove that it is a problem your example for support holds no weight here. 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents; I have seen at least one case of watermarking in an image and it simply doesn't feel right in a wiki in my opinion. It would be nice if all editors/contributors were simply selfless but it seems that human nature leans away from that in some cases. ~kytti khat 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some things. Saying "Taken by so-and-so" in the image summary ≠ violation of RS:AEAE (If they want to say who's in the screenshot/who took the screenshot, that's that. If they don't want to, oh well.), saying that the listed person owns the image (Claiming ownership and listing name(s) are totally different things.), nor an actual problem (Give one legit reason it's bad...). Plus, just looking at the file history is not that accurate. If Tarikochi didn't list who was in each of the 99 cape emote animations, we would all assume that she had all the 99s. Not to mention that back in late '06/early '07 I uploaded several images from RuneHQ without listing any credit. By the file history you would assume that I made them, but I didn't. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 06:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Chia, I don't think you understand what this is even about. When you copy an image from another fansite, you must first take into mind the copyright on the image. If you've read through their policies and it is legal to copy their images, you must still give them credit. Adding your name to an image and crediting a copyrighted image are two different things.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarikochi is not the only one using a category to keep a list of their uploads. See Category:Buzz 9 1990's images and animations. I certainly do believe it's a bad thing. Categorise your uploads properly when you upload them, and then you don't need to keep an eye on them as if they are your babies. That's what I think, anyway. :-p Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise we've kind of been blending two arguments here, which is my fault. We've been talking about whether credit is due, and whether ownership is appropriate. I think we all agree that on this Wiki, ownership is inappropriate, and so I've been thinking about the question of credit, and honestly, I'm not that against it, as long as it doesn't imply ownership. I still think we should remove categories and stick to user-space lists of animations, but I really don't mind so much if there is a simple, standard way of giving credit on animations (without implying ownership or copyright). So I came up with this template:

{{animation|Tebuddy|techie-elite|User:Tebuddy}}

{{animation|Tebuddy|techie-elite|User:Tebuddy}} This is a non-invasive way of listing the actors and author of an image, it attributes the proper copyright, and is clean and simple. Plus, it fulfills the role that the category would in that you can link back to a list of your own images, through the simple (more) link. What do people think? Is this a clean alternative? Endasil (Talk) @  22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The template looks good. ~kytti khat 07:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)