Talk:Belitung shipwreck

Note for editors on Copyvio

Hi all

Note for anyone looking at possible copyvio

The Tilman Walterfang website [1] has taken the Wiki article and cloned a large section of it onto their website (and without CC attribution). Please be aware that this was them copying it, not us copying it.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chaosdruid,

In actual fact, where do you suppose the material that you are referring to comes from? It doesn't come from wikipedia. The artifacts, the data, and all the information surrounding the artifacts comes as the direct result of who, exactly? Not wikipedia. Who is the SOURCE of the article itself? Who is the source of anything to do with this article? The specific material that you are referring to was written, not by you, nor by your "staff"... was it? Who wrote it? The actual fact of the matter is that wikipedia is using material that was originally written by others... and they have kindly added the facts to wikipedia... and allow wikipedia viewers, therefore to benefit from the knowledge.

You should seriously reconsider your assertions... none of the material that you refer to comes from wikipedia, as wikipedia is not the true and original source. Who is the SOURCE of the material... who WROTE it? So many inaccuracies have been corrected within wikipedia, inaccuracies concerning this article, and they have been corrected by those who know the truth about the events surrounding the find. So many inaccuracies have been corrected in related ..linked.. articles as well...

The material was not "cloned" FROM wikipedia... it was cloned TO wikipedia by the person who wrote it in its original state. This is to say that it has been "contributed", with compliments and best wishes to wikipedia by the original author.

Hopefully this will dispel any misunderstandings regarding the text under discussion. It has been freely contributed and should be freely redistributed.

PS... Chaosdruid... overall you have done an excellent job of fleshing-out the articles from all the preliminary info that was originally provided; and you are one of the more reasonable and sensible editors that one might encounter when attempting to "seed" a new article of significance. Kudos. You have earned the respect of a few of us who have the "bird's eye view"; it can't be easy, what you do there at wikipedia. Best regards to all the dedicated folks who work tirelessly at and with wikipedia. Keep the faith! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessedThistle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow!

First of all, thanks for the compliments. The note was only there because we have to ensure that no material is plagiarised onto Wikipedia and it is a simple reminder that this was the original to ensure that there are no ensuing problems.

As for your other points, no. The Tilman website has cloned the material from Wikipedia. The article uses a lot of text that I have written, as well as lots of other small parts from other editors, though freely given I am sure that all those who contributed would not like to see their hard work being claimed to have been done by someone else.

Wikipedia is copyrighted and its only requirement is that, when used, a CC credit is given. At present the Tilman Walterfang site says (at the bottom) "© 1998-2011 Copyright Tilman Walterfang - All rights reserved". This creates the impression that the material was written by the website, and they own the copyright. They do not, Wikipedia does. It is that simple.

Whether or not a credit is given to all the people at Wikipedia who helped create that material is secondary to the fact that someone is claiming it is "their work".

I am aware, though, that some of the sentences are your work, such as "Thanks to Tilman Walterfangs ethical ..." and that the other two articles have been gradually growing and are in need of another copy-edit, something we will probably be discussing soon. Have you declared your COI yet? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Chaosdruid,

My compliments are sincere, and you're welcome.

Regarding the material that appears on both wikipedia and on Tilman's site is quoted here for clarity...

BEGIN QUOTE Thanks to Tilman Walterfang’s ethical philosophy, the cargo was not sold off piece by piece to collectors. Walterfang kept the precious cargo intact as one complete collection so that it could be studied in its original context. It was housed in private storage for six years, where the items have been painstakingly conserved (including desalination), studied, and carefully preserved by Walterfang's company, Seabed Explorations Ltd. of New Zealand. The cargo was purchased for around 32 million USD by a private company, the Sentosa Leisure Group, and the Singaporean government in 1995, and loaned to the Singapore Tourism Board.

The debut exhibit of the treasure is scheduled from 19 February 2011 to 31 July 2011 at the ArtScience Museum in Singapore. The display is being put on with the collaboration of the Smithsonian Institution, The Freer Gallery of Art, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, the Singapore Tourism Board and the National Heritage Board of Singapore. The Sackler Gallery will host the US premiere in the spring of 2012, a date set to coincide with the Smithsonian museum's 25th anniversary celebration. The exhibition is then scheduled to travel the world for approximately five years to venues which include museums of major importance throughout Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. END QUOTE

The above quote are my words incorporated into facts which are the subject matter of press releases, which are distributed for the very purpose that they are to be quoted and propagated as news material. Therefore in this regard, wikipedia enjoys the use of my words combined with excerpts from press releases. All of which come from Tilman Walterfang's discoveries, recoveries and conservation work. All IPRs were/are his to use as he sees fit within the limitations of his legal agreements with the new owners in Singapore. The words that I have written have been released to wikipedia with my compliments. I never signed over any of my rights to wikipedia, but wikipedia is free to use the words. All of these articles have, as their root, the very existence of the recovery itself. It's as if you're telling the OAK tree that an acorn fell in your garden, and that the new tree therefore belongs to you. All these silly little arguments that are born of the egos of men are but dust in the eyes of eternity. Why not focus on the majesty and the eternal nature of the DNA that gives life to all of us? Rather than argue over who owns what? One hundred years from now... who will remember us with kind thoughts? Will we be remembered as compassionate members of a community; as leaves on the limbs and twigs of the mighty OAK? or as petty legalists, who care little for the greater good? We only live for a few seasons... so should we not consume ourselves with nurturing the forest and our children, rather than arguing over who owns this or that land-mass. After all, haven't the American Indians wisely made ever effort to teach the world that this notion of "ownership" is but a flight of fancy? We are all stewards of the land, the forests and the mountain streams. The mighty rivers and the Ocean Herself... we don't own these things anymore than we "own" words. Our very breath is a gift. Our ability to even speak or write a sentence is a gift from One who is so much wiser and that we are. In truth we own nothing... but we can share Her gifts with one another, lovingly and in reverence of the Scared.

"There is nothing new under the sun.." "all else is vanity" and as a -CHaos-Druid, perhaps these notions ring true in your heart of hearts, yes?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlessedThistle (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)