Template talk:EssaynonCC

This may be a dumb question...

But if we're all CC 3.0, are we allowed to hive off parts of the website as non-CC? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The original template reads "Unless otherwise specified." RationalWiki:Copyrights itself says:

RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA. Unless released by the author(s), such material falls under the terms under which it was released by the original authors. Under these circumstances, the use of the material on RationalWiki is per allowance in the original license...

So, effectively, we can. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And this may be an even dumber question. Do normal "non techinical" editors need to know what you are talking about? will we break anything if we just go on about our business? GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you won't break anything. This is just about those authors (and by "those authors," I mean me) whom want to retain their copyright over an essay they post here.

Normally, an editor gives up the copyright to anything they write on RationalWiki, and it's released under Creative Commons in RationalWiki's name. This effectively means it can be freely redistributed by anyone. (Provided credit is given. To RationalWiki, not to the editor that wrote it.) That's why I made this template: my essays are mine, thank you very much. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You don't give up your copyright if you release it under a CC license. Licensing something under the CC-BY-SA isn't like giving up copyright because of the BY and SA parts - i.e. if someone takes your work, they have to credit you, and they have to give back if they decide to build on it. Nothing on RW belongs to RW, it belongs to the individual users who have written it. This is also why the edit history is important, it's how you satisfy the attribution part of CC-BY-SA. -- Nx / talk 07:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspected as much—technically, an editor maintains the copyright to everything they write. They merely forfeit the right to keep the entire planet from copy-pasting and changing it. I would also point out that technically does not mean in practicality. Say I write something here, and another editor rewords a clause in the middle of one of the sentences. Then, someone off-site cites that entire sentence. Will they credit me, or will they credit me and the other editor, making sure to track down the relevant diff link for verification? The answer is neither: they'll credit "RationalWiki," and leave it at that. Which is exactly what people do with Wikipedia—"It's from Wikipedia!" Wiki editing is such a clusterfuck that we might as well have ceded our rights to our own work. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

They merely forfeit the right to keep the entire planet from copy-pasting and changing it Well, that's the point. However, you're still getting credit, and in the case of CC-BY-SA, at least you know that they won't be able to exploit your free work by taking and not giving back.

Then, someone off-site cites that entire sentence Citing a sentence is not the same as copying an essay.

The answer is neither: they'll credit "RationalWiki," and leave it at that. Which is exactly what people do with Wikipedia—"It's from Wikipedia!" Wiki editing is such a clusterfuck that we might as well have ceded our rights to our own work. If you're pissed off because people don't give you special credit for the parts of RW that you wrote, then you're doing it wrong. Wiki editing is like that. All your hard work will probably go unnoticed except by a few of your fellow editors, and Jimbo gets to put his stupid face on top of every fucking article... wait, what was I talking about?

And besides, slapping a banner on top saying this is copyrighted and all won't prevent people from copy-pasting it anyway. -- Nx / talk 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never cared that the stuff I write in articles won't be credited to me. I've only ever contributed out of desire for validation from peers on RationalWiki, rather than a desire for general internet-fame.

And don't confuse "Creative Commons" with "writing on the internet." "You're work'll be copied happen anyway, so you might as well copyleft it" is the weakest possible argument for embracing copyleft. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for embracing copyleft. I was pointing out that this won't fix your problem, sssuming your problem is that people will copy your work. -- Nx / talk 10:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fair enough. Users have often uploaded files (e.g. photos of themselves) & retained copyright rather than relinquish it. The same can go for essays, as long as essay-space doesn't end up as a dumping ground for unfinished novels, non-mission blogs, shopping lists, etc. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, shouldn't we have excluded the essay space from that? I know it's probably a bit late since you can't revoke a CC licence. Not that I think anyone has ported off one of our essays under CC ever. ^sshole 23:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, the regularity with which pages are shoved around between main, essay, fun & user would make exempting a whole namespace from CC a little complicated. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)