Talk:The Gathering

Description

The description do not match truely the story of the issue. I don't want to spoil it yet but what to do? Remove or not? --N'Nanz (talk) 09:56, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; that description was utter nonsense, and most likely spoils the story of the next comic. I have updated the description accordingly and should now match the story.AMBER^(RΘCK) 10:29, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the previous description is the one officially released by Blizzard or Wildstorm. You can see it here --N'Nanz (talk) 11:03, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Official description is official description, dammit. Don't remove it.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:10, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

No. Why should we? First of all, we shouldn't copy descriptions from Wildstorm in the first place (copyright issues), but most importantly: it is incorrect. Isn't it our duty to try and provide information that is as accurate as possible? Clearly, this is wrong. Also, the sentence "Further explore the world of the best-selling MMORPG in this hit comic series!" is as horrible as any marketing line could get. That also has to go.AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:07, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Official is official. If you don't like it, add a summary. Commercially, that is the official description, and as that, it should be included. Also, it's not just at the Wildstorm page, it's at other previews, too. Quit this stupidity and avoid me calling mods to warn you. By that argument, we should remove everything that is outdated, nope? If you don't like WoWWiki's policies, go open a thread at Forum:WoWWiki_policy and quit removing content.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:06, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? First of all: we're having a disagreement here, right? To the best of my knowledge, it's just that. I'm not being rude whatsoever. I have explained what and why I amanded the article. There's really no need to patronize me. I've been here for over three years, I know what I'm doing and seeing as I'm not breaking any rules, the fact that you threaten to report me is sincerely uncalled for. It is my right to disagree with you, just as it is yours to disagree with me. So we'll talk. That's what we're here for on this talk page in the first place, right? To try and reach consensus. This is not Arathi Basin or trenches in the fields of France, so for the sake of a smooth editing process: let's not be rude. And you're not any better or higher up any ladder than me. Thanks for understanding.

Secondly, it doesn't really matter by whom the introduction was written, whether that'd be Blizzard, Wildstorm or my grandmother, the description has clearly not been invented by a WoWWikian. Therefore: directly copying these things from the original source is plagiarism. Simple and effective. I didn't make that policy up, that's been set in stone. Furthermore, I'd like to know why we should put at much "official" info up as possible, even when it is clearly incorrect and contains horrible marketing lines. We're not some slave company of Blizzard: we're WoWWiki and we have a mind of our own. One last thing: all outdated info should go if we have accurate and updated information. In this specific case, we do. So there's no reason to keep the trash. Please get back to me, address all of my points this time around. One last piece of advice: for the sake of sanity don't go ad hominem. It's not even in your own interest, either. AMBER^(RΘCK) 22:19, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your point of copyright is valid as it was found in the public domain, so, I don't think whoever wrote that would matter if it is displayed here or not if it's referenced (in the external link). It's like if we start deleting the covers because they are displayed in wildstorm pages... Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:01, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison. The copyright policy (more specifially the "fair use" section) has some very strict guidelines regarding the copying of text. One of the things that strikes me as most important to this question is "Quotes must be used sparingly, and be as brief as possible." In this case, the quote is easily avoided. Another point: I don't want to go too deeply in copyright law (just the WoWWiki policy will do for the purpose of maintaining the wiki), but just because the quote is widely available does not mean it's in the public domain. In fact, contemporary work is never in the open domain unless explicitly stated.AMBER^(RΘCK) 14:45, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to play rude, just defend my position. Sorry if didn't look like that. About the topic, if we remove this, we should start removing the TBC and WotLK bestiaries and all the novel descriptions, too. Anyway, it's part of the "history", and should be kept, like all the old content is.

Also, the text doesn't need to be taken from Wildstorm. We can always take it from Blizzplanet or any other site that posted it . It's pretty clear for me that the use of this text is advertising the product, so it's pretty public.

Market lines like "Feel WoW's universe" and whatever could be removed, of course, but I don't think the solicitation preview should.

If we don't reach a consensus, going to the form would be the best move, to get the attention of more people and their opinions, and discuss the policy properly.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:24, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. It's always a pleasure to have a civilized, rather than a disruptive debate. Regardless, I think going to the forum and discussing the policy in a more thorough manner would be a good idea because of the inherent flaws in it, which has lead us to this discussion. In short: I think we can agree that theory and practice have both branched off into seperate realms of reality. I'll open a thread sometime during the weekend.

It doesn't really matter where we get the content, for copyright purposes it only matters who wrote the info. It's clear Blizzplanet aren't the original authors. We can't circumvent policy nor law by taking text from a benevolent source, who however plagiarized themselves.

One last point; I've got a plan to settle this matter (at least until the topic I'll create reaches a verdict). We'll do three things:

• Begin a topic on copyright policy on the forum, and let the community decide how to handle cases like this from now on.
• Leave the original description be, though cite the source clearly. Technically, this practice still constitutes plagiarism, but it at least does not make us look like thieves. I'd rather have the description gone in favour of our own creativity, but there seems to be a belief that all "official" information should have a place on WoWWiki.
• Include a clear note that the description, albeit official, does clearly not describe the storyline of "The Gathering".

Please get back to me.AMBER^(RΘCK) 10:20, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with those 3 points. 2 and 3 should already be around, and 1 is the best final solution for ending the discussion. Please link the forum thread when you open it here .--Lon-ami (talk) 15:27, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

My idea is:

• Keep the summary
• Remove the description
• Add another section (likely called Official Description) that contains the link to the Wildstorm/Blizzard page (somethink like "read the official description at...)

This way we keep the right informations without comment upon the right/wrongness of the description. IMO the problem is not the copyright (being the description public it can be spread) but the difference between the description and the content of the issue. --N'Nanz (talk) 10:27, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and in the summary we can add the citated pages of the Issue too. --N'Nanz (talk) 10:33, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

I think this is too much problem for just a simple description that was found in a webpage of free access. And I don't think Blizzard or Wildstorm would matter if it's spread around the web, actually it could be benefical as they got their product sponsored for free. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:09, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at Forum:Copyright policy: in need of overhaul?. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:13, October 7, 2009 (UTC)