Talk:List of Dewey Decimal classes: Difference between revisions

 

Line 70: Line 70:

::::There is not a problem using these items as sources. The problem comes into play if someone copies the list in full into a Wikipedia article. Remember, copyright is assumed unless stated otherwise. Just because OCLC (an nonprofit corporation) releases content on the Internet, does mean they have waived copyright. I would have to go back and look, but I believe OCLC has given ”libraries” the right to copy and share the classes and subclasses. Since Wikipedia is not a library, that exception would not apply.

::::There is not a problem using these items as sources. The problem comes into play if someone copies the list in full into a Wikipedia article. Remember, copyright is assumed unless stated otherwise. Just because OCLC (an nonprofit corporation) releases content on the Internet, does mean they have waived copyright. I would have to go back and look, but I believe OCLC has given ”libraries” the right to copy and share the classes and subclasses. Since Wikipedia is not a library, that exception would not apply.

::::I think there could be a benefit to an historical overview to changes in DDC over time, as it would show societal, technological, historical, and scientific changes over time, as well as changes in the field of library science. While I don’t advocate comparing all editions, a selection of editions could have use. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 05:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

::::I think there could be a benefit to an historical overview to changes in DDC over time, as it would show societal, technological, historical, and scientific changes over time, as well as changes in the field of library science. While I don’t advocate comparing all editions, a selection of editions could have use. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 05:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you mean “Just because OCLC (an nonprofit corporation) releases content on the Internet, does ”’not”’ [own emphasis] mean they have waived copyright.”? And do you mean making comparison articles? [[User:Logoshimpo|Logoshimpo]] ([[User talk:Logoshimpo|talk]]) 05:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Is this list a copyvio? Is this a trademark violation? Is Wikipedia at risk? See:

Since the article includes live links, Wikipedia is actually using the Dewey as a classification system, something which the copyright owner requires websites to purchase a license for:

I’m just pointing these things out because I noticed them, and I’m interested in learning what others know about this issue. The Transhumanist 11:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System. —Quiddity 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the main Dewey article’s talk page:

Is the list in the article (which might be better on a seperate list page) a possible violation of a database copyright (as the article itself says copyright is claimed on the system)? I think it could be fair use as it is difficult to talk about DDC in an encyclopedia without including a copy of the system.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC has a PDF on its web site that gives the DDC numbers for the first 3 digits of DDC. In their contract, they say that libraries can display the first 3 digits to the public, but no more. So I think this is the allowed portion and therefore there isn’t a problem. LaMona 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding “OCLC has a PDF on its web site.” What the URL of the PDF and of the contract? Is the OCLC the copyright owner and able to release some of all of the data under a less restrictive license?

At some point the OCLC people implemented http://dewey.info which allows for a drill-down past the first three digits and is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0. Again it’s not clear if the OCLC is the copyright holder and is allowed to do this. It’s still not a full public domain release meaning we can’t use that data on Wikipedia. —Marc Kupper|talk 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, as of 1/3/2017, “http://dewey.info” no longer has any machinery associated with it — it’s just an empty page, so I guess the OCLC in their wisdom has take down whatever resource used to be there. Has anyone given any thought to the idea that the DDC should be a public world resource, freely available to all? (One radical’s opinion.)Geodejerry (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Late to respond: DDC was the work of an individual. As is the right on any author, Dewey copyrighted his intellectual property. The rights to the system were acquired by OCLC, a nonprofit org (not a government agency). Although early editions are now out of copyright, the later editions were copyrighted with their publication. Thus, this is a work under copyright. I don’t have a problem with the host of DDC recouping the cost of maintaining the system. After all, it is not like this is a for-profit corporation. Even the Library of Congress keeps LCC under copyright. Rublamb (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is an [online version] of DDC that can be browsed, does it really make sense to have this list hard-coded in Wikipedia? Note that it is using DDC ed. 22, when DDC is now at ed. 23. I understand that work has been done to link from this list (or outline) to the Wikipedia pages, but to me that is a different function than a list of the classes. If one wants to “classify” Wikipedia it should be clear that it is a classification of Wikipedia, not a DDC outline page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaMona (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general idea is that lists like this acts partially as a navigation page, similar to lists of lists. A few of the similar pages are Library of Congress Classification, Bliss bibliographic classification, Universal Decimal Classification, etc (see Category:Classification systems and Category:Library cataloging and classification for example), plus Wikipedia:Outline of Roget’s Thesaurus (which for-reasons-i-forget was relegated to the project-namespace). There are various pros and cons to following the [idealistic vs rigorous vs pragmatic] options available. I’m not sure what the ‘best’ direction to move in, is.. :/ –Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Dewey I have to hand is Abridged 13. It clearly uses ampersands in the three summaries. I notice that six years ago this was raised, but no changes were made until Ryubyss unilaterally changed then all to the word “and”. This of course messed up the links in Dewey Decimal Classification which Skoskav~enwiki has had to fix. Should we use the headings that the source uses, or those preferred by Ryubyss? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We follow MOS which says no ampersands except when part of a formal name. Rublamb (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@173.230.105.14: I’m a little concerned over this edit. There are two points to consider:

1. The list reflects the last printed edition (DDC23 of 2011). Changing the basis of this ought to get consensus, particularly since it requires the use of WebDewey which makes in inaccessible except to specialists.
2. The major issue though is that the paper you cite is a proposal, not established fact: “helpful in guiding this proposal” (p2¶2 my highlighting).

Rather than revert, I’ve added “(proposed)” to the line pending citations to show that it is now substantive. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I botched my edit summary, I just wanted to explain my edit here. The description for 308 linked to Polygraphy, but the use of that word here surely referred to Polygraphy in the sense of writings on multiple topics, rather than lie detecting. I’ve seen 308 defined as “Polygraphy, Collected Works, Extracts, etc” (see [1]). Zagalejo (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent closure of this article for deletion, I’m wondering if List of 1st edition Dewey Decimal classes [source], List of 2nd edition Dewey Decimal classes etc. and List of 1st abridged edition Dewey Decimal classes, List of 2nd abridged edition Dewey Decimal classes etc. would be viable. The name can be changed around: for example: List of 1st edition Dewey Decimal classes could be List of Dewey Decimal 1st edition classes. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the solution. Rublamb (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Lamona: I’m interested in your thoughts here. You mentioned here that editions are no longer being published since changes are done online. The last AfD said that this is a WP:GOODFORK. What about the copyright concerns? What do you think? Logoshimpo (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of early edition classes are useless – they aren’t being used today or even recently. Listing all of them would be rather ridiculous. They would only have a historical interest that is not tenable in WP, and I don’t think you’ll find non-primary sources for them. I don’t know why anyone wants to add those to WP.

OCLC has a clear copyright notice and terms on the pages relating to DDC. However, their “DDC23 summaries” document does not itself have a copyright notice, so I am unclear on the legality of using this. Note that if you display the DDC classes to 3 digits you have ~1,000 entries, which as a WP list is way long. The second level (XX0 level) is about 100 items, which is more reasonable. But, as I said, the copyright status of that is unclear to me. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the links you provided WebDewey is available “to WebDewey subscribers”. On Rublamb’s talk page, you mentioned that someone has to maintain the wikipedia pages through constant updating. Wouldn’t this be considered an obstacle since this is behind a paywall? Logoshimpo (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a problem using these items as sources. The problem comes into play if someone copies the list in full into a Wikipedia article. Remember, copyright is assumed unless stated otherwise. Just because OCLC (an nonprofit corporation) releases content on the Internet, does mean they have waived copyright. I would have to go back and look, but I believe OCLC has given libraries the right to copy and share the classes and subclasses. Since Wikipedia is not a library, that exception would not apply.

I think there could be a benefit to an historical overview to changes in DDC over time, as it would show societal, technological, historical, and scientific changes over time, as well as changes in the field of library science. While I don’t advocate comparing all editions, a selection of editions could have use. Rublamb (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean “Just because OCLC (an nonprofit corporation) releases content on the Internet, does not [own emphasis] mean they have waived copyright.”? And do you mean making comparison articles? Logoshimpo (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]