Talk:wintard

Urban dictionary definition
It has been claimed that taking the Urban Dictionary material would be a copyvio. I disagree, and this is not just because of the oft overused fair use argument. Dictionary definitions are rarely copyvios because of the merger principle. For a dictionary the word is the idea, and straying too far from the other dictionary's definition would result in our defining a completely different concept. There is also the matter of Urban Dictionary's own Terms of Service at http://www.urbandictionary.com/tos.php. In particular I would refer to IV-3 and the second sentence of VII. As long as what we take from other dictionaries is independently chosen and properly credited material from different specific dictionary entries there should be no question of copyvios. What would be infringement would be a systematic effort to include a range of such entries from the other publication, or a consistent attempt toreproduce the look and feel of that publication. Eclecticology 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We always reject quotations that merely mention or otherwise just define the term. So, the Urban Dictionary definition should be removed.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with using material from other dictionaries. Noah Webster, among others, did not hesitate to borrow from Samuel Johnson, and he didn't even give credit.  When you can't use historic traditions the result is idiosyncratic drivel.  Eclecticology 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are you? Yes, copyright law has changed dramatically in the last 100 years.  Of course different rules apply now.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I wasn't certain if it was a copyvio or not, but primarily the motivation for removing the urban dictionary definitions was that it wasn't very useful to have as a quotation. DAVilla 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure that Urban Dictionary has any rights under copyright law — I'm not a lawyer, but I believe its terms of service constitute what's called "copyright abuse", a common-law concept the upshot of which is that as long as we're bound by its terms of service, we're not bound by copyright law with respect to its intellectual property — but we are bound by its terms of service, which forbid (among other things) copying any of their content. (They can't legally prevent us from copying their content, but they can legally prevent us from using their service to copy their content. Since there's no other way to do so, &hellip;) We might want the input of an actual lawyer on this, though; does anyone know if this falls into BD2412's area of expertise? —Ruakh TALK 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reference to "copyright abuse" makes no sense at all; if it exists there at all it's a matter between them and their contributors. It has nothing to do with us.  Your presumption that the Terms of Service and copyright law are somehow mutually exclusive has no basis in fact.  In regards to your final point, if the Terms of Service appear to say two things that are mutually contradictory, we are perfectly within our rights to choose the one that appears more favorable. Eclecticology 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, but not really critical since it counts as mention anyway. I see you've removed it again, and to compromise with Eclecticology I've added it back as a reference. It could potentially go to print, in which case Dictionary notes may be more appropriate. Honestly, though, I don't find Urban Dictionary to be very reliable as a dictionary. DAVilla 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DAVilla says it best - Urban Dictionary is a pile of crap, no point in going there for anything. But I wouldn't copy a UD definition word for word either - fair use is premised in part on the purpose of the copying. If our purpose was to criticize or parody UD, we'd have a much easier time - but our purpose is to create a dictionary. Hence, it is problematic at the very least. bd2412 T 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The issues of Urban Dictionary's copyrights and its reliability are distinct from each other. Its usage there is at least proof that they used it, and their definition is consistent with the other appearance of the word in numerous other places.  By itself, it would not be sufficiently reliable, and even I would have dropped one of the two derivatives in their definition on the grounds that it does not appear anywhere at all.  The purpose factor in fair use is at least covered by Article VII of their POS.  The proportion of material used would also be very important here since we are only using a part of one entry among very many in their entire website.  Fair use, however, is not my principal argument, rather, when it comes to dictionaries it is the applicability of the merger principle. Eclecticology 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't rest on the merger doctrine for anything more complex than "I think, therefore I am". It looks great on paper, but we would have to be able to argue that there is effectively no way for us to define the word without copying the exact text used by the original author. bd2412 T 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you both make good points, and establish the boundaries quite solidly. If this were a quotation that mattered, then I would join in the discussion. Fortunately, it doesn't, and a reference is sufficient for our needs. DAVilla 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotation whose linked page no longer contains the term
The first quotation links to http://wizbangblog.com/2005/01/14/weekend-caption-contest-winners.php. That page does not contain the term "wintard", so it should be removed. Rod (A. Smith) 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Now that page does contain that text.  Strange.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Two quotations from a single source
The quotation "2005, bpick_z, in ZDNet TalkBack" links to http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-1009-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=15765&messageID=314150&start=94. That page contains the exact text of the last quotation ("Anybody with a *LIFE* at all will plonk this wintard, and get on with it."). So, one of those two quotations should be removed. Rod (A. Smith) 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The link in the last quotation now takes me to a page that says, "It appears that you've exceeded the maximum number of posts you can view".  So, I can no longer confirm that the quotations are from a single source.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion threads like this typically don't last very long anyway. Blogs are perennial in comparison. I've searched the ZDNet site itself for any use of “wintard”, but there were no matches. If there were it would be worth quoting, but even they probably wouldn't be considered durably archived. DAVilla 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your rule that something must be "durably archived" does not exist. Eclecticology 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You yourself (unless you are an impostor subverting a b'crat's account) were instrumental in writing WT:CFI. --Connel MacKenzie 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At one point in the long long ago, the attestation section didn't say "durably archived". Perhaps (assuming this is the same person -- I wouldn't know) Ec hasn't looked since then. I did however dig this up: "Internet sources are often unreliable, and should be used with caution" ...  (context: Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to persist over time) ... "Blogs ... do not [meet this requirement]". Shortly after this Ec and Dmh had a little revert war over "permanently recorded media" versus "Internet sources are often unreliable". CFI stayed at Dmh's "permanently recorded media". Ec made some minor edits in other sections then stopped editing the page. &lt;/archaeology&gt; So why are Internet sources suddenly reliable? "In 200 years, if Wiktionary is still around, " these blogs will have become as dust. I don't think Wiktionary should document the passing fads of a bygone era the existence of which no one can verify. Cynewulf 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second definition?
The second quote says, "Its called a WINTARD, or a Windows Transistor AM Radio Device." That's a different definition, so the quote should either be removed or split off for a second definition. Rod (A. Smith) 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a joke premised on an understanding of what "Wintard" means. I think we should leave the quote where it is, but not count it toward the three we need. —Ruakh TALK 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see any lexicographic value in that quotation at all, but since there seem to be some raw feelings around this entry, I'll be leaving it alone. -- Visviva 08:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)