Talk:State Library of South Australia

Buildings

Buildings - Spence Wing, Institute Building, Mortlock Wing

I removed this. If anyone wants properly write it up, feel free to do it, but as of now I felt it made the article messy. Yodaat 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

History

Some background history would be interesting, when started etc.

OK, Leutha (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: copyvio

Per my talk page, this is being followed up by Bahudhara with the SA History Hub people about the licence. However when I look at the copyvio report, nearly all of the words copied are names of places and people, or dates, or things like "library", "art gallery", etc. which cannot be easily avoided. I'll come back to it once we have word from the History Trust people. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree, most of the alleged copyvios consist of proper names. The editor who launched the copyright investigation seems to be overly reliant on some sort of AI bot. Coincidentally, this story appeared on the ABC News website today: University wrongly accuses students of using artificial intelligence to cheat, in which the website of an anti-plagiarism software vendor is quoted as cautioning that "AI reports 'may not always be accurate'", and that it "recommends 'further scrutiny and human judgement' to determine whether misconduct has occurred". Bahudhara (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You can view the overlapping content using Earwig's tool. In addition to some identical passages, there's some too-close paraphrasing that needs to be cleaned up. Proper names do make the overall percentage look high. proper names do not need alteration, nor do lists that have no creative aspect. Examples of sections that need work:

• "library, art gallery, museum, society meeting place and offices, place of adult education, administration headquarters and information centre": this is list content but contains enough creative expression to be a violation of our copyright policy when copied unaltered
• "Extensive expansion took place on the north side under the direction of Superintendent of Public Buildings Charles Edward Owen Smyth, with the new addition opened on 12 June 1907 by Governor Sir George Le Hunte. The new building included a separate two-storey caretaker's residence facing Kintore Avenue, and the North Terrace entrance stairway was relocated to the new extension": some of it is directly copied and some is too closely paraphrased
• "When first opened, the central entrance hallway feature a grand staircase. The ground floor housed the circulating library, a large reading room which also accommodated lectures, with a stage at one end, a coffee room, offices, and a board room": some of it is directly copied and some is too closely paraphrased

These are only examples; the whole flagged section needs to be carefully checked and re-worked where appropriate. Getting the licensed changed on the source document is also a good alternative to rewriting, if you can make that happen. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Depending on how soon we hear back, I'll have another look later. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Things are happening - yesterday I had a very positive response from Emma Haddy (Acting Senior Curator at the History Trust of South Australia, HTSA) indicating that although their History Hub website hasn't been updated recently, they do have plans to revitalise it eventually; and that she has specifically asked their digital team to alter their article on the Institute Building to upgrade it to the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, which she expects to happen in the next week or so.

There's also been a response from BindiS at Wikimedia Australia (who helped facilitate Laterthanyouthink's position as Wikipedian-in-residence at the SA Museum, SAM), with an "offer [of] some advice or problem-solving from our WMAU President Elliott Bledsoe, a copyright and Creative Commons expert, having worked in this area for over 20 years".

Emma also wrote that they would "love to have a similar initiative here at HTSA some time down the track", i.e. a Wikipedia GLAM collaboration, which to me is very welcome news, as this is something that I have been personally advocating for, since 2011. Hopefully SLSA and AGSA will take note - these institutions and the SAM are closely co-located on Adelaide's "cultural boulevard" on North Terrace. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the update. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bahudhara it seems that even though the link and image has been changed, the actual statement still reads 'This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Australia License'. Any chance you could prompt them again to perhaps remove the 'NonCommercial' text as it is now out of sync with the other licensing elements they've put? – Isochrone (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just checked the History Trust's website - the page now shows : "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Australia License.. "

A mouse-over shows the link points to : "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/au/"

but clicking the link goes to : "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en"

and on this page is : "Canonical URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"

I've just checked a few other random History Trust articles, and they all now have the same wording of the licence, indicating a bulk change was made on the website's CMS.

I'm not sure what to make of this - I don't know if this is just sloppy editing (someone at the History Trust just changing "3" to "4" in the text and URL), or whether the links above are all expressions of one licence, or real and legally meaningful different variations thereof. Perhaps BindiS could ask Elliott Bledsoe for his opinion? I'll also email Emma Haddy at the History Trust, but going by what's happened so far, it may take more time to resolve this. Bahudhara (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bahudhara; it's been about 10 days; did you receive any further updates on this? Sennecaster (Chat) 06:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had a response last Friday from Emma Haddy saying that it was indeed just a mistake, and that the change will be made this week. Bahudhara (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Isochrone, Bahudhara; I'm going to accept the licensing at this point. It's not ideal; still saying By-NC.40 but linking to By 4.0, but it's clear they are intending to license as By 4.0. It's been a full business week, so another prod might be necessary, but nothing here is something that I personally would either hold up a listing for or fault someone over at VRT permissions.Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems sensible, thanks. – Isochrone (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)