Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

CKII Wiki

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69868 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
For the sake of simplicity, I would suggest having the same license for every wiki on the network. I don't think we really need a non-commercial clause, because I don't think the wiki's content is likely to be used for commercial purposes--how would anyone make money off of it, beyond hosting a mirror with ads? Besides, if anyone was making big bucks off of it, I'm sure they'd receive a cease and desist letter from Paradox sooner or later. Additionally, CC-BY-SA is the same license used by Wikipedia, so we'd easily meet Wikipedia's "share alike" requirement, should we want to copy from it.
 
Kimberly said:
For the sake of simplicity, I would suggest having the same license for every wiki on the network. I don't think we really need a non-commercial clause, because I don't think the wiki's content is likely to be used for commercial purposes--how would anyone make money off of it, beyond hosting a mirror with ads? Besides, if anyone was making big bucks off of it, I'm sure they'd receive a cease and desist letter from Paradox sooner or later. Additionally, CC-BY-SA is the same license used by Wikipedia, so we'd easily meet Wikipedia's "share alike" requirement, should we want to copy from it.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
However, the Victoria 2 Wiki has to use CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 as that is what Paradoxian uses, and it has a large amount of content taken from there. So as a result of the Share-Alike requirement I cannot change the licencing there to anything else unless a Paradoxian admin gives me permission. So far I've been unsuccessful in actually contacting the owner of Paradoxian.

The other wikis don't have this issue though, as all content there are from Paradox game/forum material, or written by the community, or imported from the forums with the creator's permission.
 
Meneth said:
Indeed.
However, the Victoria 2 Wiki has to use CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 as that is what Paradoxian uses, and it has a large amount of content taken from there. So as a result of the Share-Alike requirement I cannot change the licencing there to anything else unless a Paradoxian admin gives me permission. So far I've been unsuccessful in actually contacting the owner of Paradoxian.

The other wikis don't have this issue though, as all content there are from Paradox game/forum material, or written by the community, or imported from the forums with the creator's permission.
Click to expand...

We have imported every page from VickyWiki, right? How many pages was that? I don't know whether it's too bold a plan, but we could start a drive to improve all imported pages. If each article is substantially altered, so that it expresses our own creative vision (i.e. it is not a copy), and if no part of it we didn't change could on its own be said to have originality or merit (i.e. it is not a derivative work), then VickyWiki's copyright would no longer apply at all.
 
Kimberly said:
We have imported every page from VickyWiki, right? How many pages was that? I don't know whether it's too bold a plan, but we could start a drive to improve all imported pages. If each article is substantially altered, so that it expresses our own creative vision (i.e. it is not a copy), and if no part of it we didn't change could on its own be said to have originality or merit (i.e. it is not a derivative work), then VickyWiki's copyright would no longer apply at all.
Click to expand...
Approximately 200, though a lot of those were redirects, and in some cases they were overwritten by existing pages.
The full log is here.
There were also 45 files imported. See this list. Most of those aren't really something the Paradoxian wiki can claim any sort of copyright to though.
 
Copyright of game screenshots and images from the game files is held by Paradox. That leaves a few images of unknown origin, and only a handful of images where copyright would fall under the VickyWiki license. As for the articles, I don't think redirects are substantial enough to qualify for copyright. (Titles are not copyrightable, and the action of redirecting can't be copyrighted because it is purely a function of the wiki code.) That leaves a significant amount of articles which are, happily, in need of quite a bit of improvement.

If you're on board with this, we could sort every applicable article into a category, substantially alter all of the content, then remove the category. Once all the articles have been altered to our satisfaction, we can switch the license. As for the files, we need to sort out who owns the copyright on all of our images, anyway. (It'd help if we had templates; I've already added relevant categories.)
 
Kimberly said:
Copyright of game screenshots and images from the game files is held by Paradox. That leaves a few images of unknown origin, and only a handful of images where copyright would fall under the VickyWiki license. As for the articles, I don't think redirects are substantial enough to qualify for copyright. (Titles are not copyrightable, and the action of redirecting can't be copyrighted because it is purely a function of the wiki code.) That leaves a significant amount of articles which are, happily, in need of quite a bit of improvement.

If you're on board with this, we could sort every applicable article into a category, substantially alter all of the content, then remove the category. Once all the articles have been altered to our satisfaction, we can switch the license. As for the files, we need to sort out who owns the copyright on all of our images, anyway. (It'd help if we had templates; I've already added relevant categories.)
Click to expand...
Indeed. That's why I pointed out the redirects after all ;)
Should leave about 50 pages or so that would have to be changed.
The category idea sounds decent; feel free to go ahead and implement it.

All game mechanics pages have now had a version template added to it.
This leaves us with 24 outdated pages. Any help with updating these pages to correspond with The Republic would be much appreciated.
The guide pages have not yet had version templates added to them, so any help with that would also be appreciated.

I've posted another appeal to the owner of the Wikia. Hopefully he'll reconsider.
 
Last edited:
The wiki now has a new logo. Here's a before-after image:
KR5kb0D.png
 
a minor thing.
what's with that cat captcha? my auto-editing bots are having difficulty separating feline from canine :(
 
riknap said:
a minor thing.
what's with that cat captcha? my auto-editing bots are having difficulty separating feline from canine :(
Click to expand...
Well, that's kind of the point; it is extremely good at stopping bots. Not a single one has gotten through since I implemented it.
Anyway, you're now in the Autopatrol group, and thus won't have to see any more CAPTCHAs.
 
Bots should typically have their own accounts anyway, shouldn't they? Makes it easier to grant special privileges if required, and to separate auto-edits from human ones.
 
Meneth said:
Well, that's kind of the point; it is extremely good at stopping bots. Not a single one has gotten through since I implemented it.
Anyway, you're now in the Autopatrol group, and thus won't have to see any more CAPTCHAs.
Click to expand...
I see. so I can let my imaginary robots out now to play and weak havoc? :D

still, I do see it being a bother, since I did fail a captcha or two since I didn't click all the cat photos (essentially a 66% fail rate then technically :laugh:), so thanks for the elevation.
 
Oh my, he actually likes the Wikia graphical style? I don't see how he thinks Vector is "notepad text style", whatever that means. I've always considered Vector a much more clear, professional, and easy-to-navigate skin. Perhaps he's talking about the editor? We could try implementing a fancy editor extension to make editing simpler.
 
Kimberly said:
Oh my, he actually likes the Wikia graphical style? I don't see how he thinks Vector is "notepad text style", whatever that means. I've always considered Vector a much more clear, professional, and easy-to-navigate skin. Perhaps he's talking about the editor? We could try implementing a fancy editor extension to make editing simpler.
Click to expand...
I don't know, while I do also personally prefer the Wiki's Vector over wikia, I do understand where he's coming from. I mean, kinda like the wikia graphic style to an extent as well, and it's also a large reason as to why most of the fan-stuff wiki's of games/movies/animes tend to be in Wikia rather than in Wiki :p (for a similar comparison, compare the UESP Elder Scrolls pages with the Wikia Elder Scrolls pages - the former tends to be more formal in its explanations and presentations, while the latter tends to be less so. the former is like reading from a legally-binding parchment [the brown background doesn't help], while the latter has more of a casual-community feel :laugh: )

still, whatever happens, it'll be quite... petty though if the merger of the two game wiki's is ... well, stalemated simply because of a graphics-design disagreement :rofl:
 
Kimberly said:
Oh my, he actually likes the Wikia graphical style? I don't see how he thinks Vector is "notepad text style", whatever that means. I've always considered Vector a much more clear, professional, and easy-to-navigate skin. Perhaps he's talking about the editor? We could try implementing a fancy editor extension to make editing simpler.
Click to expand...
Implementing a WYSIWYG editor would be doable, yeah.
I can't really understand liking Wikia's graphical style either.
riknap said:
I don't know, while I do also personally prefer the Wiki's Vector over wikia, I do understand where he's coming from. I mean, kinda like the wikia graphic style to an extent as well, and it's also a large reason as to why most of the fan-stuff wiki's of games/movies/animes tend to be in Wikia rather than in Wiki :p (for a similar comparison, compare the UESP Elder Scrolls pages with the Wikia Elder Scrolls pages - the former tends to be more formal in its explanations and presentations, while the latter tends to be less so. the former is like reading from a legally-binding parchment [the brown background doesn't help], while the latter has more of a casual-community feel :laugh: )

still, whatever happens, it'll be quite... petty though if the merger of the two game wiki's is ... well, stalemated simply because of a graphics-design disagreement :rofl:
Click to expand...
Luckily Vector isn't brown :p
 
riknap said:
I don't know, while I do also personally prefer the Wiki's Vector over wikia, I do understand where he's coming from. I mean, kinda like the wikia graphic style to an extent as well, and it's also a large reason as to why most of the fan-stuff wiki's of games/movies/animes tend to be in Wikia rather than in Wiki :p (for a similar comparison, compare the UESP Elder Scrolls pages with the Wikia Elder Scrolls pages - the former tends to be more formal in its explanations and presentations, while the latter tends to be less so. the former is like reading from a legally-binding parchment [the brown background doesn't help], while the latter has more of a casual-community feel :laugh: )

still, whatever happens, it'll be quite... petty though if the merger of the two game wiki's is ... well, stalemated simply because of a graphics-design disagreement :rofl:
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right. I can understand liking a "casual-community feel", but when it comes to being provided factual information, as in most reference articles, it seems to be that a professional presentation lends it some authority.
 
Paradox has now given us written permission to use game assets on the wiki. All Paradox assets (primarily images) are copyrighted by Paradox and licensed to the wiki for use; using those assets in other places than the wiki is thus not necessarily legal, but something one would have to ask Paradox about. The following applies to all such assets: Copyright © 2013 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxplaza.com
Anything created purely by editors (primarily text, but also some images) is owned by the wiki but can be used on other websites under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. So if you want to use any assets owned by the wiki on other websites or for any other purpose you can do so without requesting permission as long as you give attribution and license it under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Tl;dr: Anything owned by Paradox, including game screenshots, is owned by Paradox and you'll have to deal with them when it comes to licensing. Anything owned by the wiki can be used for any purpose assuming you attribute it to the wiki and distribute it under the same license. Anything else on the wiki may be public domain or licensed under other agreements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back