User talk:TheTechnician27: Difference between revisions

:Hi, Ngng. I actually was about to speak for myself, but fobes beat me to the punch. There are a couple things I'd like to clarify: the first is that I did write those game descriptions myself, attempting to be concise but still useful. The other concerns copyright. To address the box art first, that's a bit different. Although their usage exists within [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_minimal_usage_criterion a legal grey area], what constitutes "minimal usage" in terms of image resolution is vague, we use them solely in an educational capacity, we use them only on the article where they're relevant, they are not used for profit, there is no adequate substitute, and in general, Wikipedia airs on the extremely safe side when it comes to copyright. I think they're perfectly fine. On the other hand, the game descriptions unequivocally do not fall under fair use or any other legal justification. 1) The length of time the material has been here for does not make a difference. 2) You did provide proper credit, and you were clearly trying to do the right thing, but attribution is not a magic wand that resolves copyright infringement. 3) In November 2015 when these descriptions were ripped, verbatim and in their entirety, from GameFAQs, the website was owned by CBS Interactive, and the website clearly displayed "Copyright CBS Interactive. All rights reserved." This unambiguously means that we did not have legal permission to use them. 4) Since that time, this material has never been released under a compatible license, and the intellectual property is currently owned by the same company who owns Fandom, again all rights reserved. 5) An adequate substitute does exist, namely writing one's own description. 6) At the bottom of the wiki, we advise: "Content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted." However, we fail to note that distinction either for the box art or for the game descriptions, neither of which are compatible with said license. 7) A perceived drop in quality (highly debatable) does not justify the unlicensed use of copyrighted content. 8) I find it a touch ironic that my actual, original writing is "AI generated 3 sentences from Wikipedia" when it seems, to my untrained eye, that at at least one point you directly, without attribution, and verbatim plagiarized Wikipedia for a game description. Compare [https://wiki.pcsx2.net/index.php?title=Ratchet_%26_Clank:_Going_Commando&diff=prev&oldid=19949 the relevant PCSX2 wiki revision] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ratchet_%26_Clank:_Going_Commando&action=history the corresponding Wikipedia article a few weeks prior.] I respect how much work you've put into the wiki over the years, and like you, I'm just trying to make it better.