GFDL corpus access provider and Talk:Recyclopedia: Difference between pages

Latest revision as of 17:05, 4 August 2004

Given that there is persistent censorship of socially responsible and green concepts at Wikipedia, and it seems to be getting worse not better, at least according to Abe Sokolov, perhaps it is time to designate Recyclopedia as our source for general concept articles? They will not be censoring critical concepts because they don't get 1000 google hits when a fascist goes to look, at least.

And, they could use the traffic. At the very least we should recommend it, not Wikipedia, on the front page

Actually, they can't use the traffic, given that their bandwidth seems to have been exceeded for several weeks now.

Is the Recyclopedia content mirrored anywhere? Could someone ask them for MySQL dumps?

Not to my knowledge. All I know that the Sysop, Bureaucrat of Recyclopedia is called Bobo and he may be contacted on w:Talk:Recyclopedia or Wikinfo. If someone could get a hold of him, we'd be glad to have a copy of Recyclopedia materials --Juxo 18:10, 25 Apr 2004 (EEST)

"Formed as a reaction to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is controlled by an elite of SysOps and their cronies who heavily moderate the kind of things that Recyclopedia is interested in. Recyclopedia is being much more careful to avoid this systematic bias.

The creator of this project, bobo (at) enzyme dot org dot nz, whilst having started this project has been busy with other activities and it seems to have taken a life of its own, particularly due to several individuals in particular who are driving it in their own direction."

Ahhh. We have an email address to ask for mysqldumps... But who'd want to set it up again is a different question. And with fresh MediaWiki, not some crap GetWiki that violates GPL in many people's view.

GetWiki doesn't violate GPL any worse than Wikipedia violates GFDL. And, the GetWiki facility to fix damaged articles was and is excellent, and was and is the best thing for the GFDL Corpus in general. There is no chance that MediaWiki, controlled by Wikimedia, will make it easier to fix up articles damaged by their cabal. Their XML import facility is inferior to the GetWiki "leech" facility. So if anything a GPL version of that facility is required.

And, why would someone bring up Recyclopedia again just to see it hacked off the net illegally by people who consider themselves above the law, again? This is even EASIER for them to do if MediaWiki is the wiki code in use, since they are experts at MediaWiki bots, since they use them all the time, and control both sides of the equation (the wiki code and the bot code).

It would make more sense to build leeching wiki code based on MoinMoin or tikiwiki, with a parser for the wikitext standard, which would be immune to MediaWiki bot attacks, away from Wikimedia's influence, and able to actually be run without interference democratically. Oh, and by operators who will complain to authorities of cyberterror when they are hit by denial of service attack, and get the perpetrators arrested.

Here's a bet worth taking: take any dozen non-policy articles from Recyclopedia, and have actual academics working on the state of the art in the field compare them to their English Wikipedia equivalents if any. Do you think the Wikipedia version, or the Recyclopedia version, would be more representative of actual current state of the field, in the opinion of people who have nothing to do with Wikimedia, and don't know which is "official"?

Trolls bet that the Recyclopedia scores at least 9/12, and that the Wikipedia versions will be known to contain several obvious fatal errors and omissions that make them unsuitable for distribution to ordinary people, as they are misleading.

It's not a violation to require a password. It's a violation to require a password AND not provide a .ZIP file of all the GFDL material that was contributed at that URL. If any of that is extended, it must be released under GFDL as well, in the same .ZIP. Per-file release would be technically required under the GFDL too, but, let's face it, Wikipedia doesn't do that either to all IP addresses, so with their bad example Recyclopedia will likely cheat too.

Apparently there is actually no operative web service there now. However, you can't trust anything written about Recyclopedia by Wikimedia people. If you look at the page history you see all the usual suspects:

(cur) (last) . . m 23:20, 10 May 2004 . . Angela (delink) (cur) (last) . . 23:34, 8 May 2004 . . Sam Spade (wikilink) (cur) (last) . . 23:47, 12 Apr 2004 . . Guaka (Bandwidth Limit Exceeded) (cur) (last) . . m 21:20, 12 Apr 2004 . . Hephaestos (rm vfd notice) (cur) (last) . . m 03:10, 3 Apr 2004 . . Guaka (Home page -> * recyclopedia.info) (cur) (last) . . 02:31, 3 Apr 2004 . . Camembert (remove a sentence which doesn't seem very significant (several things are on the main page, these don't stand out particularly), rewrite a little bit) (cur) (last) . . 02:02, 3 Apr 2004 . . Btag (delete!) (cur) (last) . . 01:58, 3 Apr 2004 . . Camembert (make link live again (see talk), format) (cur) (last) . . 22:58, 2 Apr 2004 . . Jamesday (I suggest that you look at the contributions of 142.177.*.* (known as EntmootsOfTrolls here)at their recent changes - it's a regular contributor there, from Halifax, CA, who chooses not to log in.) (cur) (last) . . 12:26, 2 Apr 2004 . . Guaka (made link live again (an anonymous users' talk page at Rec. cannot be a reason to make the link dead!)) (cur) (last) . . 12:05, 2 Apr 2004 . . Jamesday (Made link non-live. Seems little reason to raise the google rank of a site which plans to send trolls our way. See http://recyclopedia.info/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:210.87.254.41 .) (cur) (last) . . 03:46, 2 Apr 2004 . . Atag (looks like Oosterman has visited occasionally, interesting ext. link) (cur) (last) . . m 03:27, 2 Apr 2004 . . Angela (delink deleted page) (cur) (last) . . 03:22, 2 Apr 2004 . . Atag (added description of project leadership, removed excessively long statement of goals copied from main page, removed quote about sysops -- unknown attribution) (cur) (last) . . m 16:04, 29 Mar 2004 . . Vespristiano (Wording change in the first sentence) (cur) (last) . . 14:57, 29 Mar 2004 . . Hephaestos (if they are indeed affiliated, please revert me) (cur) (last) . . 14:49, 29 Mar 2004 . . Tim Starling (runs on GetWiki, which is MediaWiki with a different code formatting style and one extra file) (cur) (last) . . m 14:29, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka (+nl) (cur) (last) . . 14:21, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka (Disinfopedia and Consumerium are related Mediawiki projects.) (cur) (last) . . m 14:18, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka (cur) (last) . . 14:14, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka (start)

There are so many liars on that list who were involved directly in the attacks that it's fairly obvious why the article exists: to justify denial of service attack with irrelevant arguments and claims about who was involved. As if that justifies anything. Notice User:Atag makes a showing again, and "added description of project leadership" which are the standard names of standard people they hate and blame everything on. Notice also the "removed quote about sysops"! Obvious why they'd remove that. This is more evidence that this "Atag" was the one doing the attacks (release his IP number, please, s/he deserves no more protection than trolls claim when they comment here).

If Recyclopedia was actually anarchist, wouldn't it have NO "leadership"? Someone is lying about being an anarchist!

We knew that when "Bobo" claimed that how to start an anarchist group was not what the site was for! All that stuff he complained about what actually all important links from that one page, which was about real anarchism and real cooperation among real revolutionaries. This is probably what scared him, and made him bow in to the sysop power structure that attacked him with its vandalbot and propaganda.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A '''GFDL corpus access provider''' or '''GFDLcap''' is a [[web service]] or other [[net media]], or potentially even [[email]] or [[CD-ROM]] distributor, that provides access to a large portion of the [[GFDL corpus]] [[open content]].
+Given that there is persistent censorship of socially responsible and green concepts at [[Wikipedia]], and it seems to be getting worse not better, at least according to Abe Sokolov, perhaps it is time to designate Recyclopedia as our source for general concept articles?  They will not be censoring critical concepts because they don't get 1000 google hits when a fascist goes to look, at least.
-== current options ==
+And, they could use the traffic.  At the very least we should recommend it, not Wikipedia, on the [[front page]]
-The best known of these is [[Wikipedia]].  There is often some confusion between that project and the corpus, and this is often facilitated by[[Wikimedia]] which finds this confusion to be [[conflict of interest|in its own interest]].  ''This leads to some [[GFDL]] issues:  notably the technical barriers to retrieval of text from some [[IP address]]es, and failure to clearly publish, or even [[XML export]], the complete list of contributors.  Also, Wikimedia makes spurious demands for links even of other GFDLcap - these are not required by the GFDL and are effectively ads for [[Wikimedia itself]].''
+''Actually, they can't use the traffic, given that their bandwidth seems to have been exceeded for several weeks now.''
-[[Wikinfo]] and [[Recyclopedia]] are lesser known '''access provider'''s, in stricter compliance with the GFDL, to the degree that is possible given that it relies on [[XML export]] by [[Wikipedia]] for most content, and this export itself is not in compliance.  ''Unfortunately, [[Wikimedia]] sysops choose to deal with this by engaging in [[vandalbot]] activity and [[denial of service attack]]s against [[Recyclopedia]], and threatening legal action against [[Wikinfo]] or [[GetWiki]].  This is likely due to commercial [[conflict of interest]] that is threatened by the evolution of these more democratic projects.''
+Is the Recyclopedia content mirrored anywhere? Could someone ask them for MySQL dumps?
-[[Wikinfo]] takes a [[sympathetic point of view]], refusing to mix critical and sympathetic views in an article.  ''This is a direct challenge to the [[neutral point of view]] [[wiki ideology]] that is promoted by Wikimedia [[usurper]]s, since that view gives maximum power to those who claim to be 'neutral' but are in a position of technologically granted power.''
+:Not to my knowledge. All I know that the Sysop, Bureaucrat of Recyclopedia is called Bobo and he may be contacted on [[w:Talk:Recyclopedia]] or [[Wikinfo]]. If someone could get a hold of him, we'd be glad to have a copy of Recyclopedia materials --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:10, 25 Apr 2004 (EEST)
-Other corpus access providers focus on particular subsets of the material, and do not have facilities to automatically import via the Wikipedia interface:
+:"Formed as a reaction to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is controlled by an elite of SysOps and their cronies who heavily moderate the kind of things that Recyclopedia is interested in. Recyclopedia is being much more careful to avoid this systematic bias.
-*[[Consumerpedia]]
-*[[Disinfopedia]]
-*[[Consumerium]]
-*[[Metaweb]]
-''Presumably, if they adopt such facilities, they too will be attacked by Wikimedia.''
+:The creator of this project, bobo (at) enzyme dot org dot nz, whilst having started this project has been busy with other activities and it seems to have taken a life of its own, particularly due to several individuals in particular who are driving it in their own direction."
-== challenges ==
+::Ahhh. We have an email address to ask for mysqldumps... But who'd want to set it up again is a different question. And with fresh MediaWiki, not some crap GetWiki that violates GPL in many people's view.
-There are several challenges common to all '''GFDL corpus access provider'''s:
+:::GetWiki doesn't violate GPL any worse than [[Wikipedia]] violates [[GFDL]].  And, the GetWiki facility to fix damaged articles was and is excellent, and was and is the best thing for the [[GFDL Corpus]] in general.  There is no chance that [[MediaWiki]], controlled by [[Wikimedia]], will make it easier to fix up articles damaged by their cabal.  Their [[XML import]] facility is inferior to the GetWiki "leech" facility.  So if anything a GPL version of that facility is required.
-*agreeing on a [[wikitext standard]] and priorities to guide [[wiki code]] changes to accomodate it; ''[[GetWiki]] and [[MediaWiki]] are so far the only options.''
-*meeting the rigid terms of the [[GFDL]] itself, especially with regard to [[attribution]] and [[source access]], i.e. to the original text written in the [[wikitext standard]], not the [[HTML]] form into which it is rendered for [[printable page|print]]s or presentation.
-::lack of [[interwiki identity standard]] makes attribution quite unreliable
-::having one [[standard wiki URI]] from which to retrieve the source, that can be easily predicted and made permanent
-::[[interwiki link standard]]s so that differently-purposed or POV'd [[large public wiki]]s can link to each other
-*resolving [[point of view]] differences, to which there are several approaches:
-::[[neutral point of view]] tries to do this always within one article, attributing disputed claims, but of course, a [[systemic bias]] then applies
-::[[multiple point of view]] tries to separate views into articles of their own, e.g. as at [[Metaweb]] or via the "faction" system proposed at some wikis
-::[[sympathetic point of view]] tries to separate positive and negative views, whatever that means
-*dealing with [[server load]], especially for [[full text search]]
-*inadequate PHP-based software like [[MediaWiki]] and [[GetWiki]] - a concern [[Metaweb]]'s supporters are paying particular attention to
-*compiling and [[collaborative filter]]ing to present adapted articles - a concern [[Consumerium]] takes very seriously
-*[[governance]] problems in deal with a very large group of editors, ''see [[rule of 150]] for one possible limit to this''
-*Tracking with change to the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole, so that the best material can be copied into those services interested in presenting it to their users.
-== future integration ==
+:::And, why would someone bring up [[Recyclopedia]] again just to see it hacked off the net illegally by people who consider themselves above the law, again?  This is even EASIER for them to do if [[MediaWiki]] is the [[wiki code]] in use, since they are experts at [[MediaWiki bot]]s, since they use them all the time, and control both sides of the equation (the wiki code and the bot code).
-There are proposals extant to track all changes to the GFDL corpus in any of the known '''access providers''', and perhaps simplify signup for [[jabber]] or other services that could serve as basis for [[interwiki identity standard]].  Such proposals are simplified by an [[interwiki link standard]] and [[standard wiki URI]], though they are not strictly required simply for tracking.
+:::It would make more sense to build leeching [[wiki code]] based on [[MoinMoin]] or [[tikiwiki]], with a parser for the [[wikitext standard]], which would be immune to [[MediaWiki bot]] attacks, away from [[Wikimedia]]'s influence, and able to actually be run without interference democratically.  Oh, and by operators who will complain to authorities of [[cyberterror]] when they are hit by [[denial of service attack]], and get the perpetrators arrested.
-There are also proposals to work with [[FSF]] and [[Creative Commons]] much more closely to ensure that abuses of the [[GFDL]]'s terms and spirit, end.
+-----------------
-The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will probably need to take some strong interest in this process, in order to make free use of freely edited texts.
+Here's a bet worth taking:  take any dozen non-policy articles from Recyclopedia, and have actual academics working on the state of the art in the field compare them to their English Wikipedia equivalents if any.  Do you think the Wikipedia version, or the Recyclopedia version, would be more representative of actual current state of the field, in the opinion of people who have nothing to do with [[Wikimedia]], and don't know which is "official"?
+[[Trolls]] bet that the Recyclopedia scores at least 9/12, and that the Wikipedia versions will be known to contain several obvious fatal errors and omissions that make them unsuitable for distribution to ordinary people, as they are misleading.
+------------------
+It's not a violation to require a password.  It's a violation to require a password AND not provide a .ZIP file of all the GFDL material that was contributed at that URL.  If any of that is extended, it must be released under GFDL as well, in the same .ZIP.  Per-file release would be technically required under the GFDL too, but, let's face it, [[Wikipedia]] doesn't do that either to all IP addresses, so with their bad example Recyclopedia will likely cheat too.
+--------------
+Apparently there is actually no operative web service there now.  However, you can't trust anything written about Recyclopedia by [[Wikimedia]] people.  If you look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Recyclopedia&action=history page history] you see all the usual suspects:
+(cur) (last)  . . m 23:20, 10 May 2004 . . Angela (delink)
+(cur) (last)  . . 23:34, 8 May 2004 . . Sam Spade (wikilink)
+(cur) (last)  . . 23:47, 12 Apr 2004 . . Guaka (Bandwidth Limit Exceeded)
+(cur) (last)  . . m 21:20, 12 Apr 2004 . . Hephaestos (rm vfd notice)
+(cur) (last)  . . m 03:10, 3 Apr 2004 . . Guaka (Home page -> * [http://recyclopedia.info recyclopedia.info])
+(cur) (last)  . . 02:31, 3 Apr 2004 . . Camembert (remove a sentence which doesn't seem very significant (several things are on the main page, these don't stand out particularly), rewrite a little bit)
+(cur) (last)  . . 02:02, 3 Apr 2004 . . Btag (delete!)
+(cur) (last)  . . 01:58, 3 Apr 2004 . . Camembert (make link live again (see talk), format)
+(cur) (last)  . . 22:58, 2 Apr 2004 . . Jamesday (I suggest that you look at the contributions of 142.177.*.* (known as EntmootsOfTrolls here)at their recent changes - it's a regular contributor there, from Halifax, CA, who chooses not to log in.)
+(cur) (last)  . . 12:26, 2 Apr 2004 . . Guaka (made link live again (an anonymous users' talk page at Rec. cannot be a reason to make the link dead!))
+(cur) (last)  . . 12:05, 2 Apr 2004 . . Jamesday (Made link non-live. Seems little reason to raise the google rank of a site which plans to send trolls our way. See http://recyclopedia.info/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:210.87.254.41 .)
+(cur) (last)  . . 03:46, 2 Apr 2004 . . Atag (looks like Oosterman has visited occasionally, interesting ext. link)
+(cur) (last)  . . m 03:27, 2 Apr 2004 . . Angela (delink deleted page)
+(cur) (last)  . . 03:22, 2 Apr 2004 . . Atag (added description of project leadership, removed excessively long statement of goals copied from main page, removed quote about sysops -- unknown attribution)
+(cur) (last)  . . m 16:04, 29 Mar 2004 . . Vespristiano (Wording change in the first sentence)
+(cur) (last)  . . 14:57, 29 Mar 2004 . . Hephaestos (if they are indeed affiliated, please revert me)
+(cur) (last)  . . 14:49, 29 Mar 2004 . . Tim Starling (runs on GetWiki, which is MediaWiki with a different code formatting style and one extra file)
+(cur) (last)  . . m 14:29, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka (+nl)
+(cur) (last)  . . 14:21, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka ([[Disinfopedia]] and [[Consumerium]] are related Mediawiki projects.)
+(cur) (last)  . . m 14:18, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka
+(cur) (last)  . . 14:14, 29 Mar 2004 . . Guaka (start)
+There are so many liars on that list who were involved directly in the attacks that it's fairly obvious why the article exists:  to justify [[denial of service attack]] with irrelevant arguments and claims about who was involved.  As if that justifies anything.  Notice [[User:Atag]] makes a showing again, and "added description of project leadership" which are the standard names of standard people they hate and blame everything on.  Notice also the "removed quote about sysops"!  Obvious why they'd remove that.  This is more evidence that this "Atag" was the one doing the attacks (release his IP number, please, s/he deserves no more protection than [[trolls]] claim when they comment here).
+If Recyclopedia was actually anarchist, wouldn't it have NO "leadership"?  Someone is lying about being an anarchist!
+:We knew that when "Bobo" claimed that [[how to start an anarchist group]] was not what the site was for!  All that stuff he complained about what actually all important links from that one page, which was about real anarchism and real cooperation among real revolutionaries.  This is probably what scared him, and made him bow in to the [[sysop power structure]] that attacked him with its [[vandalbot]] and propaganda.