Talk:Medical cybernetics

Permisssion

I see this article has been taken with permission from an external site, does this permission grant full ability to redistribute the article under the GFDL? It must be redistributable under the GFDL, or be public domain, otherwise it can be removed. Please clarify, and include if possible any correspondence with the copyright owner of the text in question. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 09:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I, as the copyright owner, herewith release the paragraph in question in public domain. --Jwdietrich2 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Could there be sent an email to Wikipedia:OTRS to verify this ? Some of the article text is released here under cc by 2.0, see also imprint. ----Erkan Yilmaz 05:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor User:Jwdietrich2, real name Dr. Johannes W. Dietrich, M.D., started this article himself, see here. Hereby he added the sense:

Taken from (with permission): Dietrich, J. W. (1999-2004). Medical Cybernetics - A Definition. Medizinische Kybernetik | Medical Cybernetics. http://www.medizinische-kybernetik.de/definition.html (13 Jun. 2004).

But given the fact he is the author of both text, the message "Taken from (with permission)" is redundant. When he signed in and released the text here, he already agreed to release it under GFDL. In this case there seems to be no need to confirm this even more. That will mean a third conformation, because the intial text was also released under a creative commons 2.0 attribution licence. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I do think the current one reference to the text is insufficient. I added four more reference tags and updated the description. This should do.

There are at least 3 aspects to consider here:

1. identifying: is the Wikipedia user really the person who has created the text on the external website ?

e.g. someone could register a nick here which has similarity with the real life identity of someone else

or: the text on the external website may be from another party

2. if answer to 2 is proven as yes: is there a permission available to use the external text also under Wikipedia's licence ?

because cc and gfdl don't harmonize, but:

the cc copyright owner may additionally publish and distribute the material under any terms she chooses.

3. is the text accurate info given knowledge at this point of time ? ----Erkan Yilmaz 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you just misjudged the situation. I can't think of a single reason to mistrust the situation. The discussion you initially responded to seem to be settled about five years ago. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to mention, I already did check the licencing information on the source, see here and in English see here. It states you are free:

1. to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
2. to Remix — to adapt the work
3. (with) Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

That CC template gives no restriction concerning the work "not beeing allowed to be used commercially". Now this is similar to several templates I have seen when I moved pictures from flick to Wikicommons. I am pretty sure the CC template is compatable with the GDFL licence. But if you insist, we could ask the copyright helpdesk here in Wikipedia. I am pretty sure in a matter settled five years ago there is no need to verify the id of an user. But again, if you insist...!?

We continued further by email and here is a very short info how I perceive things (keep in mind: I am no lawyer to really judge it):

See other people's comments if cc-by can be used as gfdl text: CC-BY compatability issue, remove from FAQ?, [1]

In any case: it would be great if the copyright owner proves that the WP-account is used by him really (which the person using the WP-account actually stated already; so, it would just take a mail to OTRS, perhaps with just making a link from the external website to a diff here on WP would be sufficient?). ----Erkan Yilmaz 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, what that discussion is about. I only experienced pictures from Flickr being moved to wikicommons in similar situations, which was no problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Cybernetics and Systems Science.

P.S. An example is this image of the History of Cybernetics and Systems Science, what originally came from Flicr

Thanks for the example, but in short it is like this: licences of files are on the files page and that licence can be different than the one used for the text in a wiki (see Wikipedia:Copyrights: "Images may have other licensing terms; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked.") -> see e.g. cc files (cc-by-sa, ...) on commons: commons:Category:CC license tags.

The footer on Wikipedia's pages tells: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." <- that considers text. One can think of further scenarios for licence on text, e.g. html code in wiki articles, original mediawiki texts, or what happens if someone makes a screenshot of text, ... ----Erkan Yilmaz 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As far a I know images on Wikipedia and Wikicommons fall under the GFDL licences. and can have other licences as well. To be frankly I don't exactly know. I guess there is a difference between:

1. the image and using the image outside wikipedia
2. the image used in a wikipedia article used outside wikipedia

In the first situation one should be aware of the specific licensing terms. But when one uses a Wikipedia article with some images, one should follow the GFDL licensing conditions. One should not add all particular licencing information which is with every individual image. So I always guessed in this second situation the image falls under the GFDL licensing one way or an other. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has changed a lot over the last five years. In the current version, the text has only minimal similarity to my original definition on [2]. Furthermore, the similarities are on a trivial level only. I therefore think, this discussion is now superfluous. --Jwdietrich2 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will illustrate more one point:

the current page uses at 5 places same text/copies (e.g. without quotation) as on the external website (see picture: at Connectionism; Medical Decision Theory; the intro (with: working program ... questions); for Medical Systems Theory from: is ... perturbations; for Medical Information and Communication Theory from: Motivated ... processes).

That text (which makes about half of the WP sentences) is provided on the external website as cc-by and here - though referenced - becomes now gfdl text. See the links above about opinions if using cc-by as gfdl is ok or not.

The easiest way - in my opinion - is: the copyright owner sends a mail with diff to WP:OTRS (that could tell: licence change is ok because the WP-account belongs to the correct real life identity). A "quick hack" that someone just rearranges the current version (so it does not look like an obvious copy + paste) or the changes from the past which are based on cc-by-text (derived work) seem not ok. Perhaps one alternative is to reset and start from begin from sources which can be used better regarding WP's licence. Perhaps I am just too formalistic or have a different view what actually Wikipedia should be, but I consider licence issues to be safe, so reusage can be without problems (e.g. citing WP articles by external sources or reusing inside WP itself). ----Erkan Yilmaz 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have given my opinion. I guess if you still don't trust the situation, you can ask for a second opinion on Wikipedia:Copyright assistance. Or you could propose to delete this article. This is a solid way to get the attention of the Wikipedia community. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. One other opinion is to just expand thet article some more. Explain some more about these topic and subtopics. An other alternative is to add quotation marks. It is up to you... there are all kinds of alternatives here. You seem to be thinking about just one solution, the WP:OTRS. User:Jwdietrich2 thinks this is superfluous. I also think it is over the top. I think doing business (in Wikipedia) is always about trust. You contacted J.W. Dietrich by email and phone, as I understand. So he is aware of the situation. In these kind of copyright situations it is his also his responsibility. So if states it is superfluos, he apparently doesn't have a problem with the situation.

status: the user contacted me yesterday asking for the email of OTRS, which I provided him, ----Erkan Yilmaz 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Relation to biomedical cybernetics

Should this be merged with the biomedical cybernetics article? Don't think it warrants two separate articles, but which is the better title?--Hinterlander1 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)