Talk:World Press Freedom Index
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Press Freedom Index article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright problem
Since they use their own criteria as to how to arrive at the rankings, the resulting list is copyright. For this type of list we usually only show the top ten, or perhaps for a list of this type we might show the top ten for each year or even a few from the top ten and bottom ten for each year. I will list this at WP:CP so interested editors will have a little time to modify the article if there's anyone prepared to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, the data content of tables is not copyrightable, unless it's presented in a particular style, in which case presenting the data in that particular style, if it's arbitrary rather than necessary, is copyrightable. I recommend that you revert your edit. I think that despite the warning in the tag, anyone who wishes should feel free to revert the tag, because you've given no evidence at all of any copyright violation. The fact that RSF calculated the numbers doesn't give them copyright over the numbers that they've published. Boud (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Duplication detector gives Matching phrases found: 0
- Earwig's detector gives Violation Unlikely 0.0% similarity
- As I expected, not even a hint of any copyright violation. Given the long backlog, I think that anyone should feel free to revert the edit, despite the warning. This is obviously not a copyright violation. Boud (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Earwig's tool and the Duplication Detector are not useful for this particular type of article. Please don't remove the copyvio core template; an administrator needs to assess. I have commented at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 February 18. — Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Administrators implement community decisions and have no more right in making editorial decisions than ordinary Wikipedians; there is no special reason for an administrator to assess this - all we need is community consensus. The two detectors above fail because there is no copyright violation. Wikidata has been accepted as a WMF project and the project is not a copyright violation. Please remove the copyright notice since there is no evidence of any copyright violation. Boud (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 February 18, not here. I see you've already commented there, so that's good. Please don't conduct a parallel discussion here. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- No copyright violation; keeping material in place pending further investigation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 February 18, not here. I see you've already commented there, so that's good. Please don't conduct a parallel discussion here. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Administrators implement community decisions and have no more right in making editorial decisions than ordinary Wikipedians; there is no special reason for an administrator to assess this - all we need is community consensus. The two detectors above fail because there is no copyright violation. Wikidata has been accepted as a WMF project and the project is not a copyright violation. Please remove the copyright notice since there is no evidence of any copyright violation. Boud (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Earwig's tool and the Duplication Detector are not useful for this particular type of article. Please don't remove the copyvio core template; an administrator needs to assess. I have commented at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 February 18. — Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Color coding discrepancy
The colour coding in the side infobox, and the color coding in the main table do not match. What's worse, the breakdown of sections do not match either. The infobox has 70 points as a break point for 'Satifactory' but the main table has 65 to 75 in the same color... ???
Good: 85–100 points Satisfactory: 70–85 points Problematic: 55–70 points Difficult: 40–55 points Very serious <40 points
123.205.19.162 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Israel
Why does Israel ranked so low?
I don’t understand. דולב חולב (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Legend
I’m changing the colors. It should go- yellow green blue, not yellow blue green. 48JCL (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- List-Class Freedom of speech articles
- High-importance Freedom of speech articles
- List-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- List-Class Journalism articles
- High-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- List-Class Globalization articles
- Mid-importance Globalization articles