Talk:Enemy projects: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(ignoring Simple English Wikipedia for now until it's more obvious, each Wikipedia tends to have its own culture, although Wikimedia and mediawiki are the source of most problems at Wikipedias) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
It will be amusing to see if Wikipedians show up and try to refute any of these claims. | It will be amusing to see if Wikipedians show up and try to refute any of these claims. | ||
:They didn't, but, some formerly banned IP ranges can now retrieve source text, so if they've done that for banned range, they might well be in GFDL compliance for single articles, if not collections (if they do [[XML dump]]s next, they'll be probably in the clear technically, but, not true to GFDL spirit of course and probably violating some implied terms that contributors have every reason to expect, like not being lied about or outed in published material they can't edit, or actually having someone who cares about 'the encyclopedia' and not 'the community' do the edits). At least, one can retrieve from Simple. Haven't tested "saving" yet, nor any other language from the troll's fave range. Probably it was another user in that range that demanded the unblock, since they blocked 65,000 IPs just to not have to read the truth about them as written by us... lol... | |||
:Amazingly, [[Simple English Wikipedia]] was never listed as one of the [[enemy projects]] here, my mistake. Well we'll see if they realize they are creating [[unequal power relationship]]s by not defining [[social network]], [[power network]], etc., which are absolutely essential to teach non-native English speakers the lingo of dealing with the [[power structure]]... for now it's fine to consider them "neither essential nor enemy" and just basically ignore them. | |||
Revision as of 23:38, 7 January 2004
Any encouragement to hurry along the demise of enemy projects is of course not to be an action of the Consumerium Governance Organization, nor known to them, but is the sacred duty of trolls to carry out by whatever means - i.e. you don't want to ask, and you don't want to know, and don't think about it. There's already too many hints in the article that might make Wikipedians think they can "deal with the problems" and extend their worthless lifespan...
It will be amusing to see if Wikipedians show up and try to refute any of these claims.
- They didn't, but, some formerly banned IP ranges can now retrieve source text, so if they've done that for banned range, they might well be in GFDL compliance for single articles, if not collections (if they do XML dumps next, they'll be probably in the clear technically, but, not true to GFDL spirit of course and probably violating some implied terms that contributors have every reason to expect, like not being lied about or outed in published material they can't edit, or actually having someone who cares about 'the encyclopedia' and not 'the community' do the edits). At least, one can retrieve from Simple. Haven't tested "saving" yet, nor any other language from the troll's fave range. Probably it was another user in that range that demanded the unblock, since they blocked 65,000 IPs just to not have to read the truth about them as written by us... lol...
- Amazingly, Simple English Wikipedia was never listed as one of the enemy projects here, my mistake. Well we'll see if they realize they are creating unequal power relationships by not defining social network, power network, etc., which are absolutely essential to teach non-native English speakers the lingo of dealing with the power structure... for now it's fine to consider them "neither essential nor enemy" and just basically ignore them.