Talk:Wikipedia (142 trolls): Difference between revisions
(naming convention suggested: Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Should the title be [[Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)]] to stick to the [[attribution]] standard established by [[Creative Commons]], which uses the word "[[by]]" in all [[standard abbreviations]] to mean [[attribution]] | Question: Should the title be [[Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)]] to stick to the [[attribution]] standard established by [[Creative Commons]], which uses the word "[[by]]" in all [[standard abbreviations]] to mean [[attribution]], e.g. abbreviation for [[parametric license]] [[CC-by-nc-sa]]. | ||
:Answer: NO. There is no [[faction]] by the name "142 trolls" and it is solely a matter of [[alleged and collective identity]] that they are all the same. Also others have contributed to this commentary. Accordingly it is an [[alleged faction]], nothing more, and the "by" line is just inappropriate - actually "from 142 perspective" was probably more correct, if a bit redundant, though it too assumed this "perspective" into existence via [[God's Eye View]]. | |||
:So, this page remains [[Wikipedia (142 trolls)]] for now, while [[Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton)]] can be properly attributed because of a [[self-claim]] Chilton made as to identity. | |||
Latest revision as of 21:57, 9 September 2004
Question: Should the title be Wikipedia (by 142 trolls) to stick to the attribution standard established by Creative Commons, which uses the word "by" in all standard abbreviations to mean attribution, e.g. abbreviation for parametric license CC-by-nc-sa.
- Answer: NO. There is no faction by the name "142 trolls" and it is solely a matter of alleged and collective identity that they are all the same. Also others have contributed to this commentary. Accordingly it is an alleged faction, nothing more, and the "by" line is just inappropriate - actually "from 142 perspective" was probably more correct, if a bit redundant, though it too assumed this "perspective" into existence via God's Eye View.
- So, this page remains Wikipedia (142 trolls) for now, while Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton) can be properly attributed because of a self-claim Chilton made as to identity.