Talk:Recyclopedia: Difference between revisions
(1. MediaWiki is too vulnerable to Wikimedia-sanctioned sabotage 2. Recyclopedia, in any form, will just be attacked again 3. Recyclopedia was more accurate and balanced than Wikipedia) |
(the violation is not to provide a zip file) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[[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. | [[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. | |||
Revision as of 23:00, 20 May 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.