Discussion:Author requested deletions, licenses, and policies regarding.
From D&D Wiki
Should we Allow Author Requested Deletions?[edit]
Hooper talk contribs email 13:17, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
In the wake of recent events, it is pertinent that we discuss and "officialize" the D&Dwiki policy on Author Requested Deletions. Page adoption and maintenance is one thing, but should a author be recognized as the sole owner of the page after it has been submitted to a collaborative public website? If the material can be used by others, should we remove it? Obviously, if the author is requesting because no one will adopt it and they can't balance the article for game play, that is one thing. However, if the article is playable, who "owns" it? The author? D&Dwiki? The community as a whole? If the last, should there be a vote?
Personally, I feel like when we hit that save page button, we're publicizing it, thus making it a public Wiki item. We may maintain it and be the sole or main contributor, but we are not the owner. Others may feel differently, which is why it should be discussed.
TheWarforgedArtificer 13:34, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Author requested deletions have always been allowed. I worked with mods in several such cases myself. There is no reason, especially considering the recent events, to change that.
Hooper talk contribs email 13:40, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Indeed, it has been allowed, but never clearly stated. This is part of the larger issue of not having D&DWiki-specific policies, but with the recent events I thought it should be discussed.
Sepsis 14:27, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Not only should Author Requested Deletions be allowed, but I strongly feel that regardless of where an article is "published" the original author still "owns" it. If this is not the case (in this or any other form of electronic "publishing"), it should be clearly stated up front that the contributor is forfeiting the right to sole ownership and must allow thier contribution to be absorbed into a form of "public ownership". Most accept that thier contributions may be subject to minor edits or criticized (hopefully constructively) on its "Discussion" page, but I think many would keep thier contributions to themselves, or find another venue to "publish" it on, if they felt they had to give up "ownership" of (ie. the right to make final decisions for) thier ideas.
On a seperate note...I'm curious as to what all the recent hullabaloo, has been about? I've been away from the Wiki more and more often over the past few months (after an unfortunate incident with another member drove me to seek greener pastures) and I guess I missed something. Anyways if anyone would care to give me the skinny please drop me a line on my User page (I at least hit that once every 2 weeks as a rule).
Hooper talk contribs email 14:37, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Some good points I had not considered Sepsis. Once again, I think it is important, regardless of which way the final decision goes on this, that it be "officialized" by parties involved with the recent events. One way, we'll lose alot of good articles but ease the minds of future contributors, another way we may keep current articles but as Sepsis said might scare away future contributions.
TheWarforgedArtificer 14:40, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
One point that I know someone is going to bring up eventually, Hooper; the "good articles" are not being "lost", they are just being removed from this site. All requested deletions recently have already been moved to the new wiki that has been formed. They aren't leaving from the internet, they are just trying to get removed from this site specifically (and for very good reason, in my opinion).
A good summary of events is here. A dark day, it was. Many people (half the admin staff included) have left this wiki permanently because of this major incident. --TheWarforgedArtificer 14:34, 21 August 2009 (MDT)
Hooper talk contribs email 14:44, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
A good point, but I'm just trying to look at it from a "one wiki's policy" standpoint. The reason behind this one event should be discussed in another discussion with alot of repercussions, that is true. I just wonder how the average wiki surfer who doesn't read up on the happenings and just checks articles is going to be affected by this.
TheWarforgedArtificer 14:52, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Small-time surfers will probably miss the articles, then (especially if they are blind enough not to see the giant "delete: author wishes" templates on all of them and investigate the situation themselves). I doubt that this is even a priority for the people who are requesting their deletions in the first place. Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant, though; if an author wants their own work deleted, then absolutely regardless of the circumstances or reasons, the wish must be granted.
Adding; it is, and should continue to be, handled in the same way of locking pages. If an author requests their page to be locked, then regardless of reason or circumstance (or even quality of the article in question), the page must be locked. I know, I've dealt with this situation with mods before as well. Of course, if the quality of the article is poor, and it is never fixed, then it may be deleted anyway even if it is locked. Point is, locking is never undone without the author's consent, and it something that is always complied with if requested. What this means is that authors do have control over their own works. Deletion requests are fully within that measure of control. --TheWarforgedArtificer 15:01, 21 August 2009 (MDT)
Dragon Child 15:12, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
The articles currently up for deletion should be deleted. There is no way to say otherwise without being selfish and mean, and overall petty. Now, if the rule is changed afterward, that's fine - but you can't change the rules just to spite someone and punish them for something they did before the rule change. Doing so is wrong.
Jay Freedman 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Author requested deletions should be allowed. If you liked what the author was doing then create a similar page afterwords so the material remains onsite. If the author is deleting the page because he wants to piss you off, then delete it anyway and create a similar page with your name on it. Then amuse yourself in your victory by saying "Haha, I am so good! Yes, me me me! I am Da'Bomb! The real Fo'Snizzle!"
Green Dragon 16:30, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Author deletion requests will not be fulfilled. If needed I myself will adopt them (and sorry, Hooper, I was going to get back to you about this sooner. It took me a while.).
Also, given time, I will restore the deleted TK-Squared pages.
Jota 20:08, 21 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
My argument against that, obviously superfluous given the Franco-esque nature of your recent edicts, is that you are not adopting the page. Maybe you are serving as caretaker or whatever, but if you put yourself down as an adopter and then make no changes, that's just stealing credit for something that's not your own work.
- GaaaaaH 08:35, 24 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
I also think tha there should be a clearly stated policy somewhere here, for clarity.
Green Dragon 16:22, 24 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
It's called the GNU FDL, Category:Candidates for Deletion, and (about the articles) actually I just wanted to adopt them, remove Template:Author from them, and make them into articles without Template:Author present. --Green Dragon 16:22, 24 August 2009 (MDT)
Jota 20:45, 24 August 2009 (MDT)[edit]
So let me get this straight... not only are you going to ignore the authors' wishes, but you're going to prevent them from receiving any credit for their work, too?
Green Dragon 22:57, 3 November 2009 (MST)[edit]
It's called history and usercontributions. Ever heard of them? That's the credit and who cares about the authors wishes. We follow the rules — we're not your little dog.
Jay Freedman 03:22, 4 November 2009 (MST)[edit]
August, September, October, November. Wow, almost four months between Jota and GD's post here. Haha. I thought that was awesome. Personally, I have never understood the need for an authors box anyway. This is a wiki. We submit an idea and the entire world takes turns changing it. Being the "Author" really only means you made the first edit. It grants no privileges at all.
Sure you can change the editing parameters to "Not without permission". But that really doesn't count. Anybody can, and probably will, still edit the article. As described above you cannot request your article to be deleted either. Because its not your article remember. Its wiki's article.
Luckily for you, the history page remembers any save. So if you got your article to absolute "Perfection". Its still saved somewhere. Even thousands of edits later when your article "Holy Avenger" was changed to "White Creampuff". Somewhere, somehow, your article is still in one piece.
Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions
