Thread:Project Predacon/@comment-26497550-20170325005615/@comment-4820209-20170326001743

Yeah, no, that isn't how it works. You technically have a form of copyright to your edit/contribution, but any contribution you make is automatically and obviously licensed as this: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

You have basically given blanket permission to the world at large to reuse, remix, and transform your work as long as you are attributed as the author. However, this would mainly pertain to an outside source using your information. An external site copying what you write word for word without citing you would be in violation of this, unless of course they put "by Wikia user X" for a source/citation. You're attributed as the author ON WIKIA via edit history.

With that, you have a copyright to your edit for citation under this license essentially, but no, the content doesn't belong to you, me, or them past that regard. It doesn't belong to the authors in any sense other than the aforementioned citation. And that list of authors can be altered provided their contributions are very small/irrelevant.

For example, I don't own the content of the Shin Godzilla soundtrack pages, just because I'm an author of it. I own the copyright to the edit for citation. If someone took excerpts of what I wrote for it before the lyrics, put it in their article, and cited me, that's basically the extent of what I "own" in heavy quotes. But I in no way own that article/content past that.

However, to the latter point. I didn't misinterpret you. You said that it wasn't vandalism because they own the content, a point which was based on a certain license. They were separate points, but by proxy, you're saying that they owned the content (under this license), thus it wasn't really vandalism which is again, no matter which way you twist it as "misinterpretation" despite it obviously not being such, wrong. You didn't need to explicitly link the two points for them to so.