I was under the assumption that wikipedia was open source and could be quoted at length without copyright problems?
The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.
It was inexplicably moved from ATMB. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that the OP also inexplicably left out a link to a particular thread or post.
It is doubtful that board regulations allow us to meet the requirements of the FDL. For example, the last clause of the standard copyright notice makes an incompatible claim. Without the FDL on our side we can quote as much or as little of Wikipedia articles as of any other copyrighted content.
Sure, it’s unlikely that Wikipedia takes us to court but the same could be said about many more conventional copyright holders.
Wikipedia allows itself to be copied, but you have to remember just because it’s on Wikipedia doesn’t mean it’s not copyrighted by someone else.
I write something, it’s mine.
Someone copies my work word for word and puts it on Wikipedia
It’s not free to copy 'cause it’s mine.
As for copying yes you could post it on a board without legal issues. The problem is most likely the mods don’t want to have to read everything at length. Many books are in public domain, such as a Christmas Carol. But if you quote the entire book the mod would most likely cut it short.
There are reasons for this, one too long of an article makes for inefficient use of a board.
Second it will lead to people thinking they can just quote the whole of an article without realizing most of the time you can’t do this.
Therefore it’s easy to “require” that all quotes from place take the same form more of less.
[rant]My biggest issue with Google is the huge number of scraper sites that quote Wikipedia in totality. Sometimes 5 of the top ten will be the same Wikipedia source in different articles. So much for Google filtering similar content [/rant]
But gotta remember the “proper attribution” catch. I think the OP thought that Wikipedia could be quoted carte blanche, even without any catches at all.
A link would be preferable to re-posting an entire page, no? Others have commented on the copyright issues, but what’s the purpose of copying and pasting an entire page (or huge chunk of text) rather than just linking to it?
Regardless of copyright issues, it is bad form to quote such large blocks of text under any circumstances. It is much better to quote the most relevant part of the text, and then link to the rest. That way you don’t force the reader to wade through the entire text to get to the part that is of interest.
I’ve noticed you doing this in other posts - quoting entire abstracts or other large blocks of texts. I would encourage you not to. Be more selective in what you quote, rather than quoting big chunks of material.
On the bottom of every edit page on Wikipedia, there’s a notice that says “Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*.” Bolding mine. Doesn’t that imply that you automatically grant permission to redistribute any time you post?
Edit: Whoops, I misunderstood. If somebody ELSE takes YOUR work and posts it on Wikipedia without permission… yeah, that’s a different case. I wonder if you’d be able to sue the copier, subsequent users, or both?
That’s just it. While I am no expert on copyright, Wikipedia cannot guarantee that its contributors have not copied their articles from other, copyrighted sources. Therefore, as a precaution, it is better to treat Wikipedia as you would any other source, and not quote any more than is necessary.
And, as I said, we would rather you not quote large blocks of text, regardless of copyright status. Better to quote sparingly and link to the source.