Talk:Palmdale, California/Archive 1

message: An anonymous user added considerable material to the Rambot article.  Much of the addition was plagiarized from the copyrighted website of the Palmdale Main Library (for example, the History section at http://www.palmdalelibrary.org/history/part2.shtml).  Some other things were just silly, like the statement that Palmdale, with a current population of 135,515, "is expected to become the second largest city (Los Angeles-1st) in California and 3rd largest in the United States within the next couple decades."  There may be a little bit of wheat in with all this chaff, but I can't sort it out and so have reverted the whole thing. JamesMLane 16:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Right now I don't have time to go over your comments and changes in detail.  I'll mention just a few points:
# Wikipedia has its own policies, established procedures, etc.  Some of them are different from what you're probably used to.  That's why I didn't simply revert all your edits, but took the time to explain what I was doing.
# The Palmdale Library website page from which you lifted big chunks of copy verbatim has this notice at the bottom: "Copyright © 2002 by the Palmdale City Library, Palmdale, California. All rights reserved."  Therefore, you err when you imply that this text is not subject to copyright.  Furthermore, your understanding of copyright law is completely wrong.  As an oversimplification: You can copyright words and pictures.  You cannot copyright facts or ideas.  Therefore, while you're correct that facts aren't copyrighted, a particular text that presents those facts is.  Or do you think a newspaper would be allowed to take an AP news story and run it in the paper without paying AP?  Although I admit I'm not a journalist, my basis for commenting is that I'm a lawyer.  In fact, I used to represent AP, which is why I use that example.  If some newspaper were to follow your view of copyright law with regard to an AP story, my former colleagues would soon set them straight.
# If you know people in city government, and you think they want their promotional material circulated (as is certainly plausible), get the city or the library or whatever entity has the copyright to release it for this purpose.  Note that it's not enough for the owner to release it for a one-shot Wikipedia use; it must be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.  If you want to contact them to request the license, you'll find helpful suggested language at Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission.  
# You write, "please allow me to be the one to edit information on my hometown."  In a word, No.  Wikipedia is a completely open project.  Anyone may edit any article, regardless of who lives where or who has what professional degree or who first wrote the text.  It's probably nothing like any other writing environment you've worked in.  Once you post something here, you no longer "own" it.  You have to be prepared to see your copy edited mercilessly.  Look at the Page History for any popular article, such as City of New York or Los Angeles, California, and you'll see how many different people get involved in editing.
# You didn't improve your general credibility as a contributor when, for example, you edited the article on Jacksonville, Florida to say that the Panthers are based there.  I'm not a hockey fan, and even I knew that was wrong.  JamesMLane 08:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response