Editing Text liberation

'''Text liberation''' is the [[free circulation of fiction]] subject only to one's own self-chosen [[repute]] and [[trust]] constraints.  It cannot ever be reconciled with [[sysop vandalism]] or some [[priestly hierarchy]] that uses its [[technological escalation|control of technology and domain names to also control information]].  [[AlterNIC]] and [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] are or were two attempts to achieve text liberation, of [[TLD]] and [[GFDL corpus]] respectively.  It continues via various [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s.

Some of these defy [[Wikimedia corruption]] and refuse to submit to [[GFDL violation|demands for link-backs that are unwarranted under the actual license of contributions]].   These [[link-back]]s would not be required to satisfy [[attribution]] requirements if [[Wikipedia]] actually exported the names of five primary authors as the [[GFDL]] itself requires.  So a refusal to meet GFDL's actual terms, which would require export of those five names in '''''any''''' printed or exported version, is used as a shallow excuse to demand concessions from others that makes [[Wikipedia]] the central [[GFDL corpus access provider]].  It is actually hard to imagine a better example of corruption.  It is no coincidence that [[Daniel Mayer]] writes those demanding letters, either.

:I see this requirement for link back to [[wikipedia]] to be within the meaning of the letter of [[GFDL]] license, it may not be proper in [[w:de jure|de jure]] sense, but as a [[w:de facto|de facto]] practice I personally have no problem with this and I do side on Daniel Mayer's side simply because when we get [[Consumerium]] running I have no problem with people forking off Consumerium if they just acknowldge that the text originated from Consumerium. Fair enough? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 16:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EEST)

::That is what the [[CC-by-sa]] would require.  It is not what the [[GFDL]] requires.  You would be right if all of [[Wikipedia]] and indeed the whole [[GFDL corpus]] was in fact [[CC-by-sa]].  But it isn't.  And "not proper in the [[w:de jure|de jure]] sense" means the [[trolls]] will win in court when they push the point.  Which they will, given all the [[libel]] they've endured from [[Sysop Vandal point of view|Mayer and his ilk]].  Face it, the behavior of [[Wikimedia]] is absolutely preventing any serious use of the [[GFDL corpus]] and preventing serious scholars from taking an interest in it.  They are making up their own version of the law, and [[CGO]] must ''not'' do that.

''See [[troll-sysop struggle]] for the usual rhetoric of this liberation stuff and what [[trolls]] propose to do about this corruption to end it forever.''

'''Troll text''' is text that has been specifically useful in [[troll-sysop struggle]] to justify continued resistance to [[sysop power structure]].  In other words, anyone ("[[troll-friendlies]]") who actually repeats or restores any of it automatically will be regarded "as a [[troll]]" with whatever [[stigma]] or [[honour]] that implies.  This text is heavily scrutinized and tends to be very well vetted - because so many people who spend all their time editing tend to focus on it and try to find fault with it.  It is thus usually the most reliable text in any [[large public wiki]] and has gone through more evolution under more pressure.