Talk:Attribution: Difference between revisions
(These are issues that should be taken up with the developers of MediaWiki) |
(people who violate licenses don't automatically have the right to demand that someone "work with them" to fix problems THEY created) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::These are issues that should be taken up with the developers of [[MediaWiki]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:34, 18 Jun 2004 (EEST) | :::These are issues that should be taken up with the developers of [[MediaWiki]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:34, 18 Jun 2004 (EEST) | ||
::::Lying little criminals like [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Tim Starling]] who hand out [[vandalbot]] code like party favours any time someone tells the truth about them? Unlikely. People who violate licenses don't automatically have the right to demand that someone "work with them" to fix problems THEY created - especially when some of the people involved are part of an [[echo chamber]] and [[libel pit]]. | |||
::::Legally, all [[Wikimedia]] deserves is a cease and desist order. It is not up to someone who is disadvantaged by their [[GFDL violation]]s to go begging to their pet geeks. [[Wikipedia]] is very clearly violating the [[GFDL]] on the [[attribution]] clause, and, other clauses. | |||
Latest revision as of 22:15, 18 June 2004
Due to Wikimedia corruption and Mediawiki deficiencies (likely related) the Wikimedia usurpers do not recognize this legal requirement but instead rely on their GodKing's assertion that "everything is ok" and no legal trouble will result. That GodKing is not a lawyer, however, so this belief in his opinion is only groupthink, and probably quite dangerous.
- Wikipedia complies with the attribution to five or more authors by offering the full history of the page. IANAL, though. --Juxo 10:52, 17 Jun 2004 (EEST)
- No, they don't export that full history via the XML, so, anyone who picks it up cannot share-alike the material without being subject to attacks from Wikimedia. Also they don't show the five authors in the printable version.
- Lying little criminals like Erik Moeller and Tim Starling who hand out vandalbot code like party favours any time someone tells the truth about them? Unlikely. People who violate licenses don't automatically have the right to demand that someone "work with them" to fix problems THEY created - especially when some of the people involved are part of an echo chamber and libel pit.
- Legally, all Wikimedia deserves is a cease and desist order. It is not up to someone who is disadvantaged by their GFDL violations to go begging to their pet geeks. Wikipedia is very clearly violating the GFDL on the attribution clause, and, other clauses.