Talk:Wikiquote FR/Closure of French Wikiquote

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
noted that german wikiquote and japanese wikiquote are also sometimes in troubles. ant

This sounds like a tough one... looks like you'll need to try to purge the ones that can be verified that came from their database... it may go to court too. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am one of oldest sysop on Japanese Wikiquote. I would like to clearify Japanese Wikiquote hasn't been in troubles or faced legal troubles. I admit we are in complicated situations due to differences of multiple jurisdictions (particularly Japanese and US ones). But Japanese Wikiquote editors accept willingly the basic guideline "Follow the narrow restriction, if there are two possibility" - that is, 1) editors admit the diffreneces between "fair quote" in Japanese jurisdiction and in the sense of Wikiquote 2) it thefore enjoys only quoting PD materials in the meaning of Japanese jurisdiction (after 50 years the copyright holder died) and avoid any copyrighted materialsn even if it is within US fair use. Honestly that guideline isn't so much different from other Japanese projects, so I can hardly thing it as "problems". --Aphaia++ 15:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for your ease, I would like to add, as far as I know, Japanese Wikiquote editors haven't received any legal complaints either wikija-l. Just for your information. --Aphaia++ 15:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name[edit]

Now that I think about it, "Closure of French Wikiquote" makes it sound like it already happened... what about naming it "Possible closure of French Wikiquote" or "French Wikiquote legal issues"? Not anything serious of course :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, this is a serious issue, and if the title makes people raise an eyebrow, so much the better :-) ant

OK, but I think I'll leave this one to Angela, as she's got the moving power :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So, the company is claiming IP infringement, without giving any scope or sample to sustain their claim ? They do know Wikis are a community effort, and should have indicated where those infrigements are.

There can't be any infringement whatsoever on original sentences. The rub can only lie on translations. Nothing that can't be cured with a good scrubbing.

I think their claims are without any merit, unless they prove it.Johan Buret

I've removed my comments above since I don't understand what this is about anymore. I thought the issue discussed before was that collecting quotes in themselves was illegal in France (the same has been suggested for de and ja). However, now it seems this may not be the issue at all and that the only reason for closing Wikiquote is that there might be some copyright violations in there. If that were the case, why can't those pages just be removed? I don't see any reason right now to even consider a permanent closure of the project, especially not through fear generated by one complaint. Angela 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. Is the French Chapter in contact with this company? Is this about the structure of presentation, translations or some other thing? I do not believe we should close a project because of something so trivial. The lack of reaction on the part of the project's community is somewhat worring, but what could they do if we don't even have a list of possibly infringing articles? We... Um, that is... you ;) should try to obtain such a list, verify the problem and then resolve it. Not the other way around. Cheers, TOR 15:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with Angela and TOR. If some pages violate copyright, so remove them, including translations. Some classical authors like Descartes or Rousseau, they seem totally to be safe for those issues. As for potential infringement, it could happen elsewhere. So what the French community (and also the global one) should do now is to verify the problem and find the way to resolve it in a way as much as benefical for all interested parties. Bonne Chance. --Aphaia++ 15:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is both about copyright infringement and database infringement. It's forbidden to use translations of quotations without authorization of their authors (as long as these translations imply some originality), and it's forbidden to copy a database - for exemple a database of quotations (even if the content of the database is PD or Free)--soufron 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under different IPs, I've been contributing french wikiquote hundreds of times ; both adding new quotes and editing old ones ; on other wikis, I'm very keen in smelling copyvio ; therefore, I felt most surprised to hear for the first time today about this matter ; a solution could be to hide the full wikiquote web site one month to avoid any legal affair and let french officials manage this problem ; being french myself, let me emphatize that the month of August is taboo in France and very few decisions are ever taken then ;-))) 21:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still the company seemed pretty active in August. And on the other side, the contributors reacted quite quickly when we begun blanking their cafe page. As for myself, any other solution than closing fr.wikiquote would be great. --soufron 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community opinion[edit]

I'm one of the two active sysop on fr.wikiquote (despite I'm no more very active now). The fact is that the project was set up without any legal notification, the lack of information surely lead to this situation.

Today I think, we have to set fr.wikiquote offline in order to protect the contributors and clarify the legal situation. I don't speak about totally closing fr.wikiquote, just set the site offline. fr.wikiquote should not be reopened with material that could be illegal. The incriminated pages can be removed offline I think.

I've contacted the other sysop to know his opinion. I'm waiting for his answer.

Weft 18:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That could be a good solution, especially if it's only temporary.--soufron 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

closure of[edit]

BTW temporary closure of French wikinews could be another step because the lack of both users and sysops gives a bad image of other wikinews if kept in this state. Just one example: the New-Orleans disaster had over 800 occurences in French Google News but not a single word in French wikinews. 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everybody ! This guy was just excluded for repeated vandalism (creating unnecessary categories, changing what I wrote, creating silly candidatures etc.). Just delete this crap please... and let us time to get everybody working after summer. Faager 09:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I would recommand against deleting the above anonymous comment. Meta is a place where we welcome discussion and banning in other project does not necessarily imply banning here, in particular when the banning has been pronounced by a sysop rather than by community or arbcom decision. Besides, his comments are mostly factual and not insulting to anyone. Anthere 11:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to remove this section for preventing topics on this page spreading too widely and for keeping our threads focusing on Wikiquote's own clear and present issues. Not deletion but move to Meta:Babel. --Aphaia++ 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry Aphaia ; this is my very last post on this subject since Faager banned me (banni) from French wikinews I don't feel any more involved in this dying project. Let me hope that User:notafish, the only other sysop, will explain Faager that my so-called creating new categories was actually creating just one: the hoax (canular) category which deserved fully his usefulness since Faager and his sock puppet both voted in deletion pages to keep an obvious hoax which was previously removed very quickly from the English wikinews. 19:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I excluded him for one day (I replaced the word "banni" as soon as I saw it was to be misunderstood, just look at the next modification, one minute later). I never wanted to ban him (see his talk page : exclu pour une journée) He can work there now... Let me explain the "hoax" situation. He created a category hoax, for articles that were about hoaxes (eg. SMS Helios crash)... He insults me again as I never had a sock poppet (verify the IP databases if you have a doubt !) Anyway I'm tired of his stupid comments and his personal attacks against me. Faager 10:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J'ai un mot à dire, et je le dirai en français, puisque cette langue n'est pas interdite sur meta :o). Les griefs de 0vion/Alencon/QuoiNonne à l'égard de Faager ne justifient pas une fermeture, même temporaire, du Wikinews francophone. En outre, ce n'est pas parce que le nombre des contributeurs y est faible, que cette situation sera permanente. Ce n'est par exemple pas comparable avec le cas de quelques Wikipedias à très faible audience, qui sont périodiquement la cible d'attaques de spammeurs, qui y déposent périodiquement quantité de liens vers des sites « de charme », ce qui oblige soit à une surveillance ardue et assidue en l'absence de contributeurs « locaux », soit à une fermeture du sous-domaine. Rien de tel avec le Wikinews francophone. Pour terminer, je pense que, figurant parmi les trois plus gros contributeurs dudit projet, j'ai moralement le droit de m'exprimer sur le sujet. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 21:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben moi, moralement ou pas, je suis l'un des plus petits contributeurs sur wikinews mais dans le top five des IP sur le wikipedia principal en français ; cela ne me donne aucun droit je le reconnais ; c'est pourquoi je me contente de faire passer l'info à propos de User_talk:Anthere/archive7#Usage_r.C3.A9troactif_abusif_d.27une_licence_.22Domaine_public.22_sur_Wikinews. 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure (mediocre translation of what I posted on the fr index discussion page)[edit]

I didn't follow the debate, and I don't know if my views are best expressed here, but I'll still tell some of my ideas about the question (I'm not an expert about legislation and my opinions only base on common sense [which is often different from law btw])

  • What proofs are there of the copyright infrigment ? Given these are quotes, it should be hard to trace their source [translations ? ah ok]
  • The Wikimedia Foundation should not be considered as responsible because, as sole host for the content, it only has to delete any data violatings laws when their location has been submitted. In any case, I feel that the act of copying the quotes, if there was copy, should only engage the one who did it and not the Foundation as long as it didn't get an injunction to remove the content being given enough information to identify it, and for me, legal action towards the Foundation for the sole arguments expressed would be as attacking a provider who hosts webpages because some of the content it hosts is illegal. Its sole obligation would be in fact to remove the content properly located, and maybe to give to comptent authorities an access log, for a procedure that should only target the one they believe to be responsible, ann not Wikimedia.
  • By the way, if it is etablished that a list of the content said to be illigeal is required by the Foundation to delete it, I stress that the responsibles of the database could have done it themselves, even if law allow them to engage legal action so we may do it by ourselves. By the way, we could well put back the incriminated content saying we got it from another source [not for the translations, of course].
  • In any case, we must ensure that the Foundation is ready to assist us in a lawsuit [if there is one], even if those who attack are wrong. If not, it would stress our weakness towards FUD.

To conclude, I'd say that those who threaten us should attack the responsibles for the infraction, but I doubt that content may be proved to come from them [not for original translations, again], if it does. -- 16:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (user Ant.amarilli on [french] Wikipedia)Reply[reply]

Well you can count on my support, but believe me if I say it's a serious threat. Whatever the difficulty to prove is, it's only up to judges to decide if what they have is enough or not. We cannot really be sure of anything here and I would say that I can myself think of several to prove any copy of this kind. --soufron 12:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not doubt that the perspective of a long lawsuit may be really bad for Wikimedia in itself, and the question seems to be : is Wikiquote Fr worth it ? (and also : what are our chances ?) It is clear that it needs some reflexion, but in any case it requires legal advice which I'm sadly not able to offer. -- 15:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question (en Français)[edit]

N'étant pas au fait des usages sur meta, j'ignore s'il est acceptable de ne pas s'y exprimer en Anglais, mais je ne suis pas en mesure de faire autrement (même si je suis capable de comprendre dans les grandes lignes). N'hésitez donc pas à supprimer mon intervention si elle n'a pas sa place ici.

Je vais peut-être poser une question stupide, mais je me suis souvent laissé dire que, dans la mesure où les projets de la Fondation Wikimedia sont hébergés sur des serveurs américains, on ne peut leur appliquer la loi française. En supposant que cela soit vrai (?), existe-t-il dans la législation américaine un équivalent de la loi française sur les bases de données ? Si ce n'est pas le cas, Wikiquote n'a rien à craindre, non ? 20:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be a silly question, but I often heard that, because Wikimedia projects are hosted on US-servers, french law is inapplicable to them. Supposing this is true (?), do the US have a pendant to the french loi sur les bases de données ? If it isn't the case, isn't Wikiquote irreprochable ? 20:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry for the low-level translation... by Faager 10:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation. – Merci pour la traduction. 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The location of the servers has no impact on the law you apply. It's french law if you want to sue in France, US law if you want to sue in the US. --soufron 12:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW let me say I'm glad you'll follow my early POV ; I know it's probably not such a drastic matter ; anyway, we must comply the seldom case where it could be. 19:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, so basically every law applies to the project (as the site is accessed by all over the world) ? That doesn't really make sense... Faager 17:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
French law applies becuase it uses french content, while US law applies for the servers since they are located in the US Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No French may applies because French contributers are involved, not because there is French content. Yann 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Whose copyright and intellectual property laws can be applied in a case where you are quoting someone else? If the original quote has no copyright or is in the public domain, then logically, it can -- and will -- be duplicated by someone.

Does keeping a database grant any particular right to the database owner? Can the owner sue someone who allegedly copied the database because some (or all) quotes are the same, even if the quotes are public domain? And if so, his database certainly isn't the first compendium of quotes, ergo he should be sued for the exact same reasons, citing the same laws (if they apply at all).

IANAL, but I felt like throwing in a few ideas. These accusations seem completely senseless... Also, if it has not been done yet, maybe posting on Slashdot, Groklaw and other geek sites may help getting some more support.

Do NOT be afraid[edit]

No, Wikiquote doesn't have to close unless the site shoes precisely where the quote are frome their database. I think we must add a warning before each contribution. Il est interdit de recopier une citation provenant d'une base de données sous copyright (It is forbidden to copy a quote from a copyrighted database). I think the site is the source of our problems, but I studied a few examples and wikiquote database is different (organization, data, methods...) A lot of quotes are exclusive to wikiquotes. Tell me why wikiquoters couldn't have the same source than that site ? So, please, do not close, support us. 10:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stated that way, the policy is utterly silly and un-enforceable. How can you tell whence a quote came? The quote itself is, well, a quote: a verbatim reproduction of a small part of a published text or speech. A more intelligent guidance would be: Trouvez, si possible, le texte original en ligne et citez-le; sinon, empruntez l'ouvrage à la bibliothèque et trouvez-y la citation. De nombreuses citations contenues dans divers recueils et banques de données sont tout simplement erronées et ne devraient pas apparaître dans Wikiquote sans vérification. (Find, if you can, the original text on-line and provide a link to it; otherwise, borrow the publication from your local library and find the quote therein. A large proportion of quotes given in collections or within data bases are just plain incorrect, and should not be added to Wikiquote before being first checked out.) Urhixidur 13:18, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
I think we should not accept :
  • quotes that are quoted in 1 site only
  • quotes with no references (citation attribuées...)

So, to avoid problems, we should erase non-linked quotes and add the warning Vous devez vérifier chaque citation. Les citations contenues dans les recueils ou dans les bases de données peuvent être erronées ou sous droit d'auteur. Merci de ne pas les utiliser. (You must verify each quote. Quotes from collections or databases can be incorrect and/or copyrighted. Do not use them!).

I think it is absurd to close wikiquotes, it wouldn't be a good message for the future. 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please sign your interventions, this is a bit strange talking to "IP's". This said, I believe the suggestions made here are pretty interesting. I think this whole thing could be avoided if we write a clear policy of what can be done and what cannot, as well as enforce it. notafish }<';> 08:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The burden of proof is upon them. Ask them to provide a list of quotes which have been taken from their database and remove the ones which appear to have no independant referrences. It is not up to you to either (1) assume that anything on their database was taken from there or (2) discover for yourself which quotes are shared between them. It is up for them to prove that such quotes were obtained in a nefarious fashion and provide a list of the problem cases. Be polite, helpful but don't just crumple before these chaps have even made a case.

Je propose de leur répondre, I propose the following answer[edit]

Désolé c'est en Français. Sorry it's in French.

Madame, Monsieur,

Vous accusez fr.wikiquote, un site web de citation recueilli par libre contribution de ses visiteurs, d'avoir copier une partie de vos bases de données. L'ensemble des sites associés à wikipédia est respectueux du droit d'auteur. Malheureusement, vous ne précisez pas quelles citations sont concernées, vous l'auriez fait, ces citations auraient été retirées.

Je tiens à vous rappeler que l'utilisation frauduleuse de données est sanctionnée en l'absence de réaction (pour réagir il faudrait savoir de quoi fr.wikiquote est accusé) mais aussi qu'une accusation non fondée l'est tout autant.

Il m'apparaît légitime que vous défendiez votre travail. Cependant, vous devriez changer de conseil car la forme de votre défense risque de vous porter plus de préjudices que de gains. Par exemple, les contributeurs de fr.wikiquote se sentent visés par votre accusation et la diffamation est un déli qui doit être puni.

Mais rien ne vaut une solution à l'amiable, dans l'attente je vous prie d'agréer mes sentiments respectueux.

Puisque c'est l'association Wikimédia France qui a reçu le courrier, c'est à elle de répondre :)
Ryo 18:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Je n'avais que c'était wikimédia France qui avait reçu cette lettre, c'est pour cela que j'ai proposé une réponse.
Dans ce cas, pourquoi la discussion est en shakespearien ici et pas en primo-françois sur fr.wikiquote ?
Meszigues 21:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ce serait plus logique en effet...
--[SIMON] 03:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quote copies with spelling errors[edit]

My impression is that the database provider has found quotes with the exact same spelling errors as in their database. If so, they would have evidence that these quotes have been extracted from their database.

Francois Carette

They have to say which one, then Wikimedia will find the authors and erase all their contributions.
Qu'ils disent lesquelles comme cela wikimédia pourra trouver les auteurs et effacer toutes leurs contributions.
Meszigues 21:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's not a proof, but that would at least give credit to their story. They indeed need some.-- 14:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)(wp-fr:ant.amarilli)Reply[reply]

Message in french[edit]

Je m'excuse d'abors à nos confreres anglophones, je ne maitrise pas du tout l'anglais.

Je m'oppose à la fermeture de WikiQuote en francais, c'est une atteinte au patrimoine humain. Puis de toute facon, même si les accusations sont fondés, depuis qand les citations de personnes celebres ( dont certains sont mort avant l'existance du droit d'auteur ) sont sous copyright ?
C'est comme si moi j'allais deposer un brevet sur le couteau ou la fourchette... C'est du grand n'importe quoi !
Sur ce je vous laisse,
-- 03:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[mediocre translation]
At first I apologise towards my anglophone colleagues. I'm completely unable to express myself in English
I'm oposed to the closure of French Wikiquote, it's an attack to the cultural heritage of mankind [NdT : not exact translation - I lack ability to translate]. In any case, even if accusations are based on evidence [NdT : idem], who said [NdT : idem] that quotations of famous people (who died for some of them before the invention of copyright) are under copyright ?
It's as if I would patent knives or forks... It's really nonsense.
Goodbye [NdT : idem]
-- 14:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) wp-fr:ant.amarilliReply[reply]
Thanks for translation|Merci pour la traduction
-- 03:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Au moins on parle de WikiQuote ! At least we speak about WikiQuote ![edit]

C'est un wikiquotien frustré qui a envoyé cette lettre pour faire parler de wikiquote ??! Allez, on arrête maintenant !

Is it a frustrated wikiquotian who sent this letter so people may speak about Wikiquote ??! Let's stop here, that's enough.-- 14:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) wp-fr:ant.amarilliReply[reply]

What's going on ?[edit]

I'm guessing everbody is asking this question, but... Have we got any mail, or sent anything since the original threat (with the three weeks deadline) ? Maybe we should ensure that they're still with us instead of arguing... Have we got some evidence to ensure that's not a joke ? The guy before already said it ironically, but that may also be something to keep in mind... -- 14:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) wp-fr:ant.amarilliReply[reply]

Yes and besides, who is this company ? which database ? What they want exactly ? It's very fuzzy in my head about that ! 20:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source ?[edit]

I'm wondering how the community could react without the exact information? Could it be possible to post the received mail online, so we can have the exact and original information and judge by ourselves?

Je me demande comment une communauté pourrait réagir sans l'information exacte. Serait-il possible de poster le courrier reçu en ligne, afin que nous puissions avoir accès à l'information exacte et originale et juger par nous-même?

Raphink, 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, I agree. First of all, CAN ANYONE NAME MY THIS COMPANY ? lol. No one knows.

And now?[edit]

After more than 1 month of discussion... it would be great to have answers and, if wikiquote is not closed, we should erase the warning message on the Main Page of Wikiquote... 13:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another opinion[edit]

I know I'm late, but... ... I just cannot understand how a quote can be copyrighted. OK, their database is, but it sounds logic that some quotes on the French Wikiquote and this society database are identical. ... I wonder if they don't see the French Wikiquote project as a serious concurent to their business, like the Wikipédia can be for... Encarta for example. So maybe they just want to scare us in order to kill the project. Did they say which quotes exactly we are supposed to have stolen? 22:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Droit d'auteur[edit]


Je ne comprends pas bien leur demande, en effet ces citations sont toutes extraites de livres, de formules faites par de célèbres personnes, je ne vois pas en quoi il serait illégal de les indexer sous pretexte que cela est déjà fait. Il me semble que cette société pratique du détournement de droit d'auteur puisqu'au font elle voudrait interdire d'utiliser des citations qui ne lui appartiennent pas. Est-il interdit au documentaliste d'indexer les livres avec lesquelles elles travaillent ? Se font-elles des procès entre elles?

Où en sommes-nous ? / How are things going ?[edit]


Je suis un nouveau venu dans la disscution, je constate que :

  • Ca fait près de deux semaines qu'il n'y a eu aucun nouveau post
  • Ca fait largement plus d'un mois que l'ultimatum de notre charmante "company maintaining a quote database" est expiré

Je voulais donc avoir un petit topo de la situation... Où en sommes nous ? Est-ce que est fini ?

Merci d'avance.--Sixsous 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm a newcommer in this debate, and I would like to point that :

  • It's been almost two weeks since the last post
  • It's been over a moth since our charming "company maintaining a quote database"'s ultimatum expired

I therefore wanted to have a little report on the whole case... How are things going? Is the french Wikiquote over?

Thanks in advance for your kind reply.--Sixsous 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just forget about it. The company apparently wasn't to be taken seriously, either way. —Nightstallion (?) 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Fr-Wikiquote Closed.png
Closure note on Fr-Wikiquote.png

For historical purposes, I made two screenshots related to the closure of fr:Wikiquote 555 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]