What do you do when there's a potential unknown Citogenesis situation due to the point of reference being excluded from archive.org? The org's official website is excluded from archive.org

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=693335104&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Foutsidein.org%2Fabout-us%2Fhistory%2F

The source includes the article subject's official website, but some of the matching part was not sourced to the company website. The first paragraph in the organization's current website is pretty much the same as the Wikipedia's version 9 years ago. Looking through the edit history, the organization was heavily involved in messing with the article in the past, so they're quite aware of the page's existence.

This can make it look like Wikipedia ripped it from them, but it might be that their most recent page was in-part written from Wikipedia. Who knows. Since that part of Wikipedia was initially written by an establish user rather than company PR, it looks like part of Wikipedia page might have been used by the organization to write their current page. What should we do in cases like this? I reworded that part of the sentence, but maybe that was unnecessary. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be tricky. I have seen a case where a website seems to have copied from WP very shortly after the content first appeared on WP (fooled me for a while), a case where various changes to a web site and a WP article appear to have been copied back and forth, and a case where content on an academic website was apparently not created until a couple of years after the same content appeared in WP, but the website creator insisted that they had originated the content and owned the copyright. Even if you are very sure that someone has copied from WP, if they are insistent that they do own the copyright, it may not be worth fighting. After all, WP contents are not set in concrete. Donald Albury 16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, nobody challenged anything on copyright ground, but I can see something like this triggering a copyvio detector. Graywalls (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 'be insistent' is a strategy to obfuscate ownership on every website ever. When WP legal calls to nudge them about our earliest version being older than theirs, they can insistently claim seniority, and say that their last CTO disallowed ia_archiver ever since the company was founded, and when the new CTO took over, he allowed it for the first time. And when did that happen? Oh, uh, um, just a couple of months after Wikipedia's first version of it in the history. Just coincidence; truly. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls: I think you are describing a {{Backwards copy}}. In 15+ years it only has 1,900 usages, but it probably should have a million. -- GreenC 06:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Use more helpful CC image license tags. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 09:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fix per MOS:DOUBLEBOLD.

Also, the third shortcut should be removed per WP:2SC. It's not even a shortcut: typing the full page name (WP:Copyrights) is actually faster than typing the supposed "shortcut" WP:COPYRIGHT, because it doesn't even require the use of CAPS-LOCK or holding the Shift key.

FaviFake (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done FaviFake (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please append to the "Copyright violations" section an additional paragraph:

If you believe an external site or publication has abused the copyright of content you have contributed to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1262#Dr. Emily Lazarou (Forensic Psychiatrist) has a statement about Large language models being a violation of licensing since, if for example ChatGPT learned what to write, and that was used, the authors are unknown. I don't think this particular violation is included in the guidelines. I'm sure the concept is in guidelines somewhere but not this particular violation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link "fair use" in each section where it occurs:

§ Linking to copyrighted works

§ Non-free materials and special requirements

— W.andrea (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this video near the top of the page; flush right in the big white space adjacent to the TOC would be a natural spot for it, imho.

The Wikipedia-produced YouTube video entitled, "Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation" has just been uploaded to Commons (see background). This 3 1/2 minute video is an ideal accompaniment to this project page. The still image that appears on it was apparently chosen by the upload software, and I am looking into how to pick a possibly better still, but I think it's worth making the video available as soon as possible as it does a really good job of explaining it.

[[File:Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation.webm|right|325px]]

Regarding image size: I think 300 or 325px would be ideal on this page because of the big white space by the ToC (and on mobile it will just be screen width so doesn't matter). You can see how it looks at 280px at WP:Plagiarism, where on that page, a slightly narrower image works better (and if consistency with banners above and below are desired, it will have to be reduced further anyway). However on this page, there is plenty of room, and at 300 or 325px the words become legible without too much strain, and the overall effect is more pleasing. The image shown here is 225px. Note that the video is currently in Commons category c:Category:License review needed as needing review, but since Wikipedia itself is the author and the video appears in the official YouTube Wikipedia channel, I am assuming this needn't hold things up. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Updated code to include a caption, and to set the still (thumbtime) image:

[[File:Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation.webm|thumb|right|325px|thumbtime=110|Wikipedia video on plagiarism and copyright violation]]

(gnerates second image above; size reduced here for Talk page display). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot  Done – robertsky (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated!  Resolved. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm writing an Olympian's Wikipedia page, and a lot of new facts that are available are verifiable via old images (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos). The athlete retired in 1990s so there's very little public record for most of her achievements. Despite that I've managed to find enough sources for significant additions (which I will include in references for editors to verify).

I am fully aware that everything I add has to be BLP safe and ChatGPT is helping me follow BLP to the T (in terms of writing tone and notability/reliability + verification of sources)!

My only obstacle that remains is verifying her awards and recognition credentials. I am not including many of these new awards as I can't find the proof to back them up. SOME OF THEM, however, do have credible IMAGES as proofs (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos from the 1980s and 1990s). ChatGPT told me to add them as sources, there is separate process where the subject has to confirm the authenticity and copyright of these images to a ticket to Wikimedia (and release the copyright to public domain). FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked this question at The Teahouse please don't ask at multiple venues and I strongly suggest you STOP using ChatGPT now, you will likely be blocked if you continue to edit using LLM. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted it here by accident.

I will be mindful of my use. I don't want to disrespect any rules of Wikipedia, but it seems you are ready to judge before seeing what I produce. Maybe you have some pre-conceived notions about what AI produces, which seems fair... but threatening me with a ban before seeing what I write is not fair...

So I'm gonna proceed on this by my own and won't ask for help. It's strange that a place for help became so threatening and toxic FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:No_Lives_Matter#Logo_Root.

The basic problem is that we currently use a scaled down version of their logo under fair use but the logo itself turns out to be just a police sketch (which should be public domain afaik) and two lines of text.

Does someone know whether that makes the work itself also public domain since it's so trivial? Laura240406 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove "WP:COPYLINKS" shortcut per WP:2SHORTCUTS guideline.

Diff:

Absolutiva 14:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The work on Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance has revealed that some people may have been using "archive" websites to get around a WP:PAYWALL.

I suggest the following change:

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought this was widely known. I've always assumed the widespread paywall bypassing was the whole reason Archive Today became popular in the first place among editors...

The issue with your proposed change lies in the wide variability of what a "reasonable reviewer" might see as the purpose of a web archive. If an article is paywalled, it cannot be properly archived in a public, rules-abiding archive like Wayback Machine without permission from the publisher. But it can be archived by sites like Archive Today, which uses crowdsourced log-ins and technical tricks to get past paywalls. I imagine there are many people who would argue that archiving a paywalled source via Archive Today is inherently justified because it archives content that cannot be reasonably archived via standard methods. I would also imagine that there are many people who would see that exact situation and read it as an attempt to just bypass paywalls and avoid paying publishers to read their content. Those are essentially irreconcilable viewpoints. (To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can see exactly where the "pain point" is going to be here, so to speak). 19h00s (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - paywalled content is unarchivable if you don't circumvent the paywall. sapphaline (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the status of a link to an archived copy of a page that is now behind a paywall, but apparently was not paywalled when it was archived? Would it make any difference if a citation to the page was added before the paywall went up? I have seen this happen, although I cannot recall any specifics offhand. Donald Albury 16:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]