5 ms·

Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be resp

Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.

ben_w 8y ago
> It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Why not? Copyright is an unnatural right created in the name of encouraging creative output; if the person who owns the rights to control copying a work don’t enforce it, why should the rest of us do it for them?
- fnord123 8y ago
  Don't you have a bloom filter for all content ever created with which you can compare the content?
vkou 8y ago
How can I verify that your post is not a violation of copyright? Did you crib it from somewhere? Maybe we should shift the burden of proof on you? Can you prove that you are not violating copyright with your post? If you can't do it, how on earth can Wikipedia do it? In the Soviet Union, this was called "Prove that you are not a camel."
hnbroseph 8y ago
surely then, all forums should "verify the copyright" of posts before they are accepted. all email providers should screen all the mails users send.
jotm 8y ago
People who think like this should really chill the fuck out. Ownership of thoughts and ideas is pathetic at best, if you don't want it shared, keep it to yourself. But nooo, "I want everyone to hear me and I want them to know it was me who said it. Me me me. I'm important, I want to feel like it". Get the fuck over it. And if you want to make money off of it, there are plenty of much better ways besides braindead ads. GDPR seems to pander a bit too much to carebears.
- blackbrokkoli 8y ago
  You realise GDPR is basically the right of keeping things you don't want to be shared to yourself? And sources are not for the carebears. I mean, too, but they wouldn't be enforced if that would be the only point. It is so that you and I can know where to go to verify or falsify a claim. What would be your alternative proposal? Ok, let's just give every piece of published source a numeric code or something so we can sort and search and refer too it. Ok, nobody cares. Let's use the name of the author instead so he has interest that what he says is true and get's used truthfully. Boom, there you have the idea of copyright (in an idealised form)
  - ben_w 8y ago
    In the UK, what you’re describing — The right to be identified as the creator of work — would be called a “moral right” rather than a “copyright”. I literally only know this because my first job contract, my university industrial year, signed that right away for the work I did there.
raverbashing 8y ago
> Wikipedia should verify the copyright LOL

ben_w 8y ago

> It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Why not? Copyright is an unnatural right created in the name of encouraging creative output; if the person who owns the rights to control copying a work don’t enforce it, why should the rest of us do it for them?

fnord123 8y ago
Don't you have a bloom filter for all content ever created with which you can compare the content?

vkou 8y ago

How can I verify that your post is not a violation of copyright? Did you crib it from somewhere? Maybe we should shift the burden of proof on you? Can you prove that you are not violating copyright with your post? If you can't do it, how on earth can Wikipedia do it? In the Soviet Union, this was called "Prove that you are not a camel."

hnbroseph 8y ago

surely then, all forums should "verify the copyright" of posts before they are accepted. all email providers should screen all the mails users send.

jotm 8y ago

People who think like this should really chill the fuck out. Ownership of thoughts and ideas is pathetic at best, if you don't want it shared, keep it to yourself. But nooo, "I want everyone to hear me and I want them to know it was me who said it. Me me me. I'm important, I want to feel like it". Get the fuck over it. And if you want to make money off of it, there are plenty of much better ways besides braindead ads. GDPR seems to pander a bit too much to carebears.

blackbrokkoli 8y ago
You realise GDPR is basically the right of keeping things you don't want to be shared to yourself? And sources are not for the carebears. I mean, too, but they wouldn't be enforced if that would be the only point. It is so that you and I can know where to go to verify or falsify a claim. What would be your alternative proposal? Ok, let's just give every piece of published source a numeric code or something so we can sort and search and refer too it. Ok, nobody cares. Let's use the name of the author instead so he has interest that what he says is true and get's used truthfully. Boom, there you have the idea of copyright (in an idealised form)
- ben_w 8y ago
  In the UK, what you’re describing — The right to be identified as the creator of work — would be called a “moral right” rather than a “copyright”. I literally only know this because my first job contract, my university industrial year, signed that right away for the work I did there.

raverbashing 8y ago