This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 105

←

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

→

Archive 115

Hi all,

as part of a discussion at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies we're having a reliable sources question (and we probably want high value sources because we're also discussing an FA nomination).

Central question is - are the proceedings of a peer-reviewed conference article (computer science conference) a reliable source? and there's a broader supplemental question which would be - in the field of computer science is there an unusual number of prestigious conferences compared to other fields, and does this affect the relative weight of conferences and journals. The added text specific to the discussion is

Thank you in advance,

Failedwizard (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, having done a search - it turns out this question comes up a lot and I've taken some links back to the talk page... thank you all! Failedwizard (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tucker454 is unable to see that what he has written on the page under the section "Police scandal" are his opinions and not FACTS that he can attribute to reliable (or any) sources. The comments are libelous.

I have deleted the section three times now. I have asked him to provide attributions. He does not understand what an attribution is.

Perhaps someone else is willing to take a shot at it.

The section refers to use some mainstream news sources. It needs rewriting to ensure that only information in those news sources is presented. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are Wrestleview.com or LordsofPain.net reliable sources regarding wrestlers? Could they be used for WP:BLP information about them? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

According to style guide at WP:PW Lordsofpain is not reliable and that wrestleview is marginally reliable and should only be used for television and Pay Per view results. Based on that the only BLP info I can see being added with these sources would be something like Rey Mysterio won the World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania 22 in a triple threat match against Randy Orton and Kurt Angle.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Does anyone else have any supporting (or opposing) views on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is a guideline regarding the use of fan sites to source information in articles. I am currently reviewing an article (Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1#Reference details) for good status that uses information from fan sites. One source is an interview conducted by the fan site of the writer of a TV series, while another is a FAQ detailing among other things the locations used during filming. I feel that the interview may be alright and the locations not. There is another reference to Suvudu, which I feel could be used, but am not completely sure of. Thanks in advance. AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is no real doubt that the fansite interview is legit, it should be usable under WP:PRIMARY. (see previous fansite interview discussions: ) The FAQ would only be reliable if the fansite shows that they got their information from a reliable source (or possibly if several reliable sources have used that site as a source.) Suvudu seems like it should be alright, but also WP:PRIMARY since it's from the publisher. Siawase (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Should the interview be attributed in text to the fan site (i.e. "In an interview with Game of Thrones fan site westerios.org Bryan Cogman said ....") or can it just be displayed within the reference at the end of the page? AIRcorn (talk)

Just cite it directly to Cogman, since in this case he is the primary source. In-line attributions are mostly given to establish to the reader the source of an opinion/point of view. If in-line attribution needs to be given as a sort of disclaimer because it cannot be reasonably established that the fansite actually interviewed the subject, then it should just be excluded, for WP:BLP concerns if nothing else. Siawase (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fansites are a funny business (disclaimer: I'm the GA nominator for these issues)--We have sites like The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 that have themselves become notable sources, to the trivial and ephemeral. The bottom line question, as far as I can see it is this: if we have an uncontested fact reported only by non-RSes, can that continue to exist in a GA, or must it be excised in order to achieve that status? Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought the more relevant question is does anything that only appears in a fansite satisfy WP:DUE weight for inclusion? They include the most trivial of trivia. Dmcq (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's important to separate a fansite being notable from it being reliable. There is a difference between reliable sourcing writing about a fansite and them using it as a source. The former might make it notable, while the latter might make it reliable.

Re: "reported only by non-RSes" if the fansites are indeed not possible to identify as reliable sources per WP:RS they should not be used at all, and information only found there should not be included in Wikipedia. Most often fansites function as any other self published source and should not be used at all.

But if an author on the fansite is an established expert on the subject, ie has had articles and/or books published on the subject (by reputable publishers, not self-published.) In that case a fansite could possibly be used with WP:SPS concerns.

One problem with fansites is that they are often very close to the subject. Wikipedia articles should primarily use WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and fansites are almost always too close to be considered entirely independent. They often come close to essentially promoting the subject, rather than taking a more objective outsider view on it. And this is where WP:NPOV/WP:DUE concerns come in, as well as at least in spirit concerns regarding WP:PROMOTION and WP:SOAPBOX. And source vice, minute trivial details only found in long winding FAQs on fansites (even if otherwise established as reliable) also raise some WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:FRINGE concerns.

tl;dr: Basically, some information found on fansites might be usable in some very limited circumstances, but there are a myriad of concerns and they should only be used very sparingly. At the very least, other more independent sources should dominate the article. Siawase (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the book written by this 19th century gentleman considered primary or secondary source in the field of history? Do you consider it reliable by itself in that field?Kazemita1 (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

19th century books of lyrical poetry are never reliable sources for history on wikipedia. History articles should never use primary sources to substantiate facts. See WP:HISTRS for details on what sources are reliable for history: scholarly books published by academic or professional historians should comprise the core of a history article's sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Would that include articles like book burning?--69.232.73.16 (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. How is Goethe's book relevant to that page? Andrew Dalby 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Goethe claims in that book -where he talks about Persian poetry- that Arabs destroyed/burned a lot of Persian books during their conquest of Persia. I wonder if I could use his quote in the book burning article.--69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not as a reliable source. It could go into a "cultural references" section or something, but Goethe, while a brilliant mind, is simply 200 years from current scholarship. Moreover, the West-östlicher Diwan is a collection of poetry, not a scientific or historical source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever read West-östlicher Diwan or you just say it by reading the Wikipedia's article? I assume from your user page that you can read German. Here is the text (of course its Persian translation in the Persian Wikipedia) which the above IP wants to delete from the article of book burning:

"Die Araber stürmten sogleich auf alle Bücher los, nach ihrer Ansicht nur überflüssige oder schädliche Schreibereien; sie zerstörten alle Denkmale der Literatur, so dass kaum die geringsten Bruchstücke zu uns gelangen konnten. Die sogleich eingeführte arabische Sprache verhinderte jede Wiederherstellung dessen, was nationell heißen konnte."

- Noten und Abhandlungen zu besserem Verständnis des West-östlichen Divans - Kalifen - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You see, it is not only a collection of poetry. It has a quite magnificent "Notes and Clarifications" section which is the fruit of years of studying Persian history and literature by Goethe. --94.182.109.155 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it is still 200 years old scholarship. For this kind of thing it would be best to apply modern academical sources. Since Goethe is a notable figure it could perhaps be used as a primary source to source his view on things in a historiographical section, but it can't be used as a general source for the facts of the matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:69.232.73.16 wants to abuse this discussion to delete all historical sources which show the burning of books by Arabs in the respected article of Persian Wikipedia. Of course Goethe is notable enough to be cited in any matter regarding the history of literature and specially the Persian literature. He has done a lot of research in the fields of Islamic, Arabian and Persian literature and history. There is no doubt that he can be quoted in any article about these subjects. It is also interesting to mention that the very same IP has added revisionist texts to the "Book Burning" article of Persian Wikipedia to show that Arabs didn't burn or destroy any books and his sources are Islamic fundamentalists and Mullahs! One is his RELIABLE sources is Morteza Motahhari!--Raptor2002 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And whatever User:69.232.73.16's intent, Goethe is still 200 years out of date. You cannot counter problematic behavior (if any - I've not looked at the exchange) by using unsuitable sources just because they support the right side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, whether this particular piece of text stems from essay or poetry by Goethe in neither case it is an acceptable source for historic statements. Even if Goethe were an eminent historic scholar of his time (which he was not), his 200 year old claim would not be considered a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I concurr with Kmhkmh and Stephan Schulz that the source is not reliable for book burning:

• Goethe was not working as a historian, or publishing as a historian, for a community of historians
• To the extent that he conducted valid scholarship outside of the poetry, scholarship from Goethe's time is not considered acceptable by the current community of historians for demonstrating history
• Seek modern histories of the book and book burning. Martyn Lyons is a historian of the book, you might like to check the footnotes and bibliography in his works on literary culture. Consider, for example, this chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: 5. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the article about Ellie Nesler. There are some factual errors I would like to correct. I have in my personal/professional archives a rather complete set of the actual Court documents. I testified in the matter as an expert. Most of these materials became public during the trial. They are not published anywhere (this was before the www). Is it ok to cite a personal collection or professional archive as a source? There are news accounts, but many are themselves inaccurate ... it was complicated. The primary correction I want to make has to do with the trial outcome and the decision on appeal. Pgm8693 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say not. Else everyone will start publishing items in their basement/garage in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but would add if you have good interesting material, you may be able to get it published in a reliable source--then we could use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

With the consent of other editors through talkpage discussions, I think these materials could potentially be used to facilitate the removal of information in the article if it is clearly and demonstrably wrong. But they should not be used to add new material. This is because they are primary sources. The materials would need to be verifiable (i.e. other editors need to be able to check them). I would say that uploading to Docstoc or something would be okay in order to satisfy this requirement, but other editors might disagree, so that could be a hurdle.--FormerIP (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that will open the door to WP:OR on those documents, the need to verify them, etc. Big time publications have been fooled that way... We have enough complaints about junk floating in Wikipedia, no need to add to them by someone finding Jimmy Hoffas diary in their basement, 3 Wikipedians verifying it and making news... etc. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of this site. The majority of the editors here cannot verify personally collected unpublished court documents, so they would not even be acceptable as a primary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That is right. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between presenting a source for the inclusion of material in an article in an article (which I don't think can be done here) and merely presenting it for the purposes of discussion on a talk page. In that case, the core policies of OR and V are not applicable. I'll accept that it's not at all a straightforward matter. Pgm is nowhere if the veracity of the documents is contested by other editors, and there may well be a WP:COI issue as well.

To give a hypothetical example. Our article currently says - and this is completely unsourced - that Nesler "fired five shots into Driver's head". Let's say that Pgm is able to provide documents showing that the number of shots was four and only two of those were to the head. Documents showing this beyond any reasonable query and showing that it is something factually accepted by the court, the prosecution and the defence. Surely we should at least consider removing the incorrect information from the article? --FormerIP (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be a way to deal with this within our rules. Taking your hypothesis. If the current statement is unsourced, and the talk page shows it is controversial, it should be tagged "citation needed". Then: (a) If the only available "reliable" source confirms it (though we think from the documents that it is false) we could (a.1) still remove it -- we don't have to repeat every word that reliable sources say -- or (a.2) retain it, but add an attribution to the source in the text. Which is the normal signal that we don't stand by the assertion. Or (b) if no reliable source confirms our current statement, then of course we remove the detail altogether until we do have such a source.

Between choices (a.1) and (a.2) I would go for (a.2) in cases where there is significant current interest, because, if the detail is simply removed, someone else is pretty sure to re-insert it. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to attribute incorrect information. We can just delete it. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nesler "fired five shots into Driver's head", that's sourceable to the MSNBC article, but if it weren't sourceable, the simple solution would be to remove it, since anything not sourced is fair game for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's sourceable, Nuujinn. That's because my scenario in which it is false was totally made up. The point is that information which editors are reasonably able conclude is false should be removed from Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter what process is gone through in order to reach that conclusion. It could very easily be based on looking at court documents that contradict news reports. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We may use primary sources to correct simple errors, e.g., a direct quote, the spelling of a name, the length of a sentence, but cannot interpret those sources, even if the secondary source's interpretation is wrong. The correct approach then is to approach the publisher of the secondary source. Also, we may provide links to court documents. TFD (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia discourages links to primary sources such as court documents. WP:BLP states that they should not be used in any biography of a living person specifying in clear language: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Cheers - find secondary sources for sure. Collect (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The applicable section is WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event. The article should be re-named and links to court documents for articles that are about crime stories are appropriate. (Read the article.) It is of course inappropriate to link to court documents for a person whose claim to notability is not their involvement in a legal proceeding. TFD (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Thanks! to everybody who discussed this. It was useful and interesting, and I think History2007 nailed the answer in the first response: If you let me cite some old Court documents, I'm going to want to reference the letter J. Edgar Hoover sent me about the Occupy Wall Street movement's connection to Occupy Sesame Street agitators. What I realized is that I should just raise the issues on the talk page and see if someone wants to source it. Or I can wait until I have time myself. --Pgm8693 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Senra (Talk) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Letters, Samantha (2010) Online Gazetteer of Markets in England and Wales to 1516 a reliable source (as I suspect it is)? This Centre for Metropolitan History web site is linked to by the National Archives in the Markets and Fairs section --Senra (Talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean reliable for a statement such as "Ely has had a market since at least 1224 and fairs were granted from as early as 1189" --Senra (Talk) 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it meets the guidelines. It discusses the underlying sources used, it accepts corrections, it's been cited by other academic historians, NA seem to think it's a good source, ...bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have purchased software that I'm trying to re download to a new computer. My code key won't register. I lost all software with the exception of email confirmation. --74.175.98.99 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't the place for software advice - you may consider contacting the company directly. We're not them. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions:

• 1. Is Dan Barker's book, "Godless", considered a reliable source at Wikipedia? Some editors are pointing to his lack of an advanced degree, but not addressing the work itself or the publisher as outlined in WP:RS. Dan Barker, (2008) Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, Berkeley: Ulysses Press. ISBN:978-1-56975-677-5.
• 2. If this is arguable, can his book be used to report direct quotations by reliable sources? For example, is a direct quote in Barker's book from a professor of Theology at Oxford University, a collective statement by the Bible scholars at the Westar Institute, etc. allowable on Wikipedia if it is related to the article? There is some question about whether the "source" in that case is Barker or the person he is quoting.

Hopefully I explained sufficiently. If not, the discussion thread is here, and the diff in question is here. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-expert writer published by non-academic press = citable as his own opinion only, and only to the extent that his opinion is notable. Certainly not usable for more than a sentence I suspect. Amazon "rave reviews" (Loftus et al.) are from people who are generally associated with atheism <g> making them not very strong in showing notability of the book. Unless some outside source shows the book to be notable, I fear my psotiion is that it could be used for a single sentence of opinion only. Dan Barker, AFAICT, is specifically "not notable" by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That addresses my first question, but not necessarily the second, which is a broader question that I'm sure has been asked here before. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

First, Dan Barker seems to be notable enough. Google News seems to agree. The book is not self-published, either. Thus it meets our general requirement for WP:RS. I'm all in favor of treating popular books with caution, but there is no obvious red flag here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He self-identifiea as a fundamentalist Quaker associate pastor. If you were familiar with Quakers <g> I think a "red flag" would show. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've eaten their oats, and it seems fine, if a bit overpriced.... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he was an evangelical pastor for 19 years before he "converted" to atheism. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And you know of how many Quaker fundamentalist evangelical Christians who have a pastor in their church? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Barker's book would be a reliable source for his own opinion, or for some elements of his biography. It would not be a reliable source for "Christians believe..." or "atheists believe..." or "Jesus rose from the dead" or "Jesus did not rise from the dead" or "historians conclude..." As far as the quotations from the professor of Theology and the Bible scholars, if these are otherwise published then that other source should be used, if it's reliable itself and otherwise suitable. If they aren't otherwise published, for instance if they come from non-published correspondence or an interview, I don't think we should rely on them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tom Harrison above. The book would be a reliable source for information about the subject himself, the book itself, if it is sufficiently notable for a separate article, and, if the material is noncontroversial, maybe for noncontroversial material about his church, individual churches he might have served at, perhaps other people in the book about whom noncontroversial material is presented, etc. And I suppose if there is an article out there which has material like "some atheists believe", maybe it could be used there as well. But the author does not seem to have the qualifications necessary for him to be presented as any sort of generally reliable source regarding either Christian or atheistic thought. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why if someone interviews a reliable source, their report on what that reliable source said isn't generally reliable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because they could be lying. Or sloppy. If their work appears in a magazine where a fact-checker will have called up the subject to ask "just checking, did you say such-and-such?" (as good magazines do), then it's pretty reliable. If it's a good newspaper where the reporter is expected to get things rights and his notes are subject to review at need, it's somewhat reliable. Otherwise, not. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion in Talk about linking to RSN in citations, for sources which have been challenged and passed by RSN. Discuss there, please. --Lexein (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Under dispute is this sentence:

"Although accepted by the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, a minority does not endorse this doctrine. ref: Lee Elder, The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, "Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy", Journal of Medical Ethics, 2000, Vol 26, pages 375-380./ref"

At the article's talk page, one side claims that "The source is a peer-reviewed medical journal, which meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source." The other says that "it was simply an article written by one such person with no proof this minority is in any way significant." Does that article meet WP:RS for that statement? StandFirm (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A medical ethics journal would certainly seem to be reliable for sourcing on issues of medical ethics, such as blood transfusions practices of certain religions. Yobol (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol. I can't think of a better source, in fact. A peer-reviewed medical ethics journal is a very reliable source when it comes to medicine-related religious beliefs. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My point (stated on the talk page) was that in a religion of seven million, it is not an incredible or outrageous claim that a minority of members would disagree with what is probably the most controversial of the religion's beliefs. There is therefore nothing to suggest that the author of the article in the medical ethics journal had his facts wrong. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fundamental misconception here is that what makes the (apparently undisputed?) fact worth mentioning is the percentage of dissenting Witnesses. That's not how Wikipedia works. What makes the fact worth mentioning is the emphasis that the sources give to this. Even if only one single member out of the millions disagreed, if the reliable sources talked a lot about that one person, then including that fact that one person dissented would actually be WP:DUE.

There are, BTW, other sources that talk about dissension and diversity of interpretations on this point, so the factual claim here can hardly be dismissed as merely one person's opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed journal like this one is one of the best kinds of reference. My question is that the reference is written by a member of this minority. Even if it is worth keeping mention of the minority, is it worth keeping a specific reference to the specific organization AJWRB since the only reference for it is written by the main person of that organization? StandFirm (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to echo what other editors have said above about the source being both reliable and relevant while also stating that if the journal's editorial staff was unable to adequately review a specific part of an article they would almost certainly find an expert(from their college/association/etc or another) to review that part. As for your question, it is an original analysis of the source, unless another source has commented on the authorship of the source such considerations should be deferred to the publisher who has clearly felt that the source deserves weight by publishing it.AerobicFox (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This book: Dempsey, Daniel V, A Tradition of Excellence - Canada's Airshow Team Heritage, High Flight Enterprises, Victoria, BC, 2007, ISBN 978-0-9687817-1-5 is used as an extensive ref in a number of Wikipedia articles, including:

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_109
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---