Talk:United States Navy

From dKosopedia

Ohwilleke 08:03, 19 Jul 2005 (PDT) Drolf posted this query about this page in the edit line: "Is all of this text from the government (and thus un-copyrightable)? What about citing sources?)"

The factual information comes mostly from Department of Defense websites, with a smattering of additional information from public domain sites (the Wikipedia's and other public domain internet sources of the world).

Most of the analysis distills what I've read on about a dozen or so websites over the past several years, mixed in with my own thoughts on the matter.

Citation is difficult because: (1) It's time consuming. And, (2) my usual process is to base these pages on notes and summaries of facts that I'd compiled for my own reference purposes without citation before I thought of putting the information on Dkospedia.

Some of the historical information, comes from news media sources or other references of that type (often from memory). But, copyright does not protect historical facts, or for that matter, any other facts. It protects merely a particular description of those facts usually embodied in the written or spoken word. To use a more recent example, no media source can copyright the fact that there were London Bombings or what damage that did. But, a complete quote of an article stating what happened would be improper.

There is no cut and paste here. I have extracted data from other sources, but the expression is original.

DRolfe 23:59, 19 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Thanks, that's mostly what I was asking. I'm quite well versed in what is copyrightable and what isn't. I've read the relevant USC.

That said, just because citation is difficult or time consuming that doesn't make it unnecessary. Writing up research without sources is teetering on the edge of plagiarism. I am not making that allegation, as you obviously show no intent to deceive, I only stress that it be kept in mind. I write on Wikipedia a little, and very much on Everything2 and we are very serious there about 'copy and paste' and plagiarism. Just because something is available on the Internet doesn't make it fair-game unless it is published with a license that makes it so. When information is gleaned from a site or a book (or anywhere really) it really should be cited, regardless of its re-publishable status. See also dKosopedia:Copyrights and Copyright@Everything2.com. Specifically, the Wikipedia license (GFDL) commands, in the terms provided for re-publication, that the source be attributed [1]. If you are using Wikipedia as a source you must cite it (per the license); Information from Wikipedia IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. Anything licensed by the GNU copyleft or the Creative Commons is, by definition, excluded from the public domain. I only bring this up because you say that you've done research on Wikipedia in the same breath that you mention using public domain sources.

Anyhow, bottom line, cite your sources. It's plagiarism if you don't. Besides, it's so easy to do with a wiki: you just put the URL you got the info from in brackets and it makes a numbered citation for you!

DRolfe 00:19, 20 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Oh, and as a professor to boot!