Wikipedia talk:Public domain resources
Check a site.
- Just saw your note, The site itself is PD, see http://www.xist.org/contact.aspx. The data is derived from the statistical services of the various countries. In current US law data is not protected, but that is not necessarily the case elsewhere. I'd suggest at least a link to the orig. source, not just Geohive,. though it seems a carefuly constructed compilation. DGG 23:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed on pages in several areas that the entire article is copied from easily acccessible public domain sources (typically, US government documents). Sometimes the first half of an article is copied, and then a few additions are made at the bottom, instead of at the appropriate places. Depending on where the document comes from, the material may be the sort of govertmental language used to fill paper with text, rather than actually say anything.
Not that these articles are wrong. Rather, much better articles could be witten, and probably could be best written by starting from scratch than by trying to turn the low-grade government product into a concise and helpful article.
(I also note that the source is often omitted; it's usually been in the "talk" or the "history," not in the article itself. This is plagiarism. When the article becomes complemented by some original material, there is usually no attempt to indicate what parts have been copied. Perhaps when WP was beginning, it was important to have content, but perhaps it is now time to have information.
DGG 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
anyone interested about ethical use?
this is basically a rewording of my last post here.
I have been observing several very common practices:
Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and not indicating what part
Putting a notice that part of the article has has been copied from XXX, and copying the whole thing intact, without saying so.
Not putting a notice , but doing likewise
this is being done from Public domain sources, and is indeed legal, but it borderline in terms of ethics, non-encyclopedist in nature, and is taken outside WP as an indication of our lack of seriousness.
When was there last a discussion of this?DGG 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful to add the dates of publication or revision for some of the US government and other public domain sources. (this doesn't mean I voluteer to do them all)DGG 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
US Patent Site
Are images in expired patent drawings at the USPTO in the public domain? -- KelleyCook 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to know this too! Maury 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
US NIH's Entrez Gene web-site
Is material on NIH's Entrez Gene web-site to be regarded as in public domain? The present introduction in the article Serotonin transporter copies verbatim from this web-site . — fnielsen (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"General resources" contains a link to http://www.web-site-templates-free.com/, which seems to be some website templates inside a mass of google ads. An interesting business idea for the website owner, but is really desirable for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can some patient soul get in here and check the links - so far I am getting a return on 1 out of 5 clicks, the rest being broken or blank... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Public domain books on-line
Again: US Government copyright
I found this picture being here referred to as US Navy photo. It cannot be found presently on the Naval Historical Center homepage. Is the information that the picture is from this known US Government source sufficient to regard it as US-PD?--KuK (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible public domain resource
It is old, printed in 1909 in the edition I see, but the "Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics" edited by James Hastings and published by T & T. Clark in Edinburgh and Charles Scribner's Sons in New York looks to be a wonderfully extensive work containing a good deal of information relevant to that subject. The edition I have doesn't mention a copyright. Would this work qualify as within the public domain or not? John Carter (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since it was published in 1909, well before 1923, any US copyright is now expired and this is now in the public domain. You can quote or use text freely from the 1909 edition, although reworking is probably advisable for style and tone. DES (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Government of India policy
There was a discussion at User talk:MuffledThud#Kondapalli toys over whether works of the Govt of India are in public domain or not.
The Caveats section of this article seems to suggest that Indian Govt works are copyrighted. It also cites a source. But I think that this is misleading because the source provided only states that the Govt of Maharashtra doesnot allow work to be published without permission being taken.
I strongly believe that Govt of India works are in public domain. And suggest that an appropriate entry be made in this article. Those who oppose this, please discuss. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
-  quoted in Indian copyright law doesn't agree that "Govt of India works are in public domain". It merely indicates that a few limited kinds of such works may be freely reproduced, this seems more like an automatic free liscence than a placement into the public domain, even for those classes, and indicates that all other government works are coprighted normally. If you think otherwise, point to an explicit source please. Several sources disagree. DES (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
NIST Chemisty WebBook Not Public Domain
"© 2008 by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the United States of America. All rights reserved.
Copyright for NIST Standard Reference Data is governed by the Standard Reference Data Act."
Standard Reference Data Act states: "Standard Reference Databases are copyrighted by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of our database may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informedbanker (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a Bible researcher and noticed the ebible links are VERY hard to read. Replaced with 2 easier ones. I didn't see a better alternative for the World English Bible one though. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Come and join The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
The Wikipedia Library (talk | e)
Research tools and services
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
- Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
- Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
- Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
- Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
- Promote broader open access in publishing and research
Should there be subheadings under U.S. Federal Government that comment about state and municipal level copyright issues. Q: is the content on Californian city websites public access?--Lucas559 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)