Text liberation: Difference between revisions
(actually the "link-back" requirement is essential for obtaining the "five primary editors" information through page-history function) |
(responding to bogus Wikimedia corruption claim that their failure to meet one GFDL condition can be used as an excuse to require back-links from others) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Text liberation''' is the [[free circulation of fiction]] subject only to one's own self-chosen [[repute]] and [[trust]] constraints. It cannot ever be reconciled with [[sysop vandalism]] or some [[priestly hierarchy]] that uses its [[technological escalation|control of technology and domain names to also control information]]. [[AlterNIC]] and [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] are or were two attempts to achieve text liberation, of [[TLD]] and [[GFDL corpus]] respectively. It continues via various [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s | '''Text liberation''' is the [[free circulation of fiction]] subject only to one's own self-chosen [[repute]] and [[trust]] constraints. It cannot ever be reconciled with [[sysop vandalism]] or some [[priestly hierarchy]] that uses its [[technological escalation|control of technology and domain names to also control information]]. [[AlterNIC]] and [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] are or were two attempts to achieve text liberation, of [[TLD]] and [[GFDL corpus]] respectively. It continues via various [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s. | ||
Some of these defy [[Wikimedia corruption]] and refuse to submit to [[GFDL violation|demands for [[link-back]]s that are unwarranted under the actual license of contributions]]. These [[link-back]]s would not be required to satisfy [[attribution]] requirements if [[Wikipedia]] actually exported the names of five primary authors as the [[GFDL license]] itself requires. So a refusal to meet the [[GFDL]]'s terms is used as an excuse to demand concessions from others that makes [[Wikipedia]] the central [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It is actually hard to imagine a better example of corruption. | |||
'''Troll text''' is text that has been specifically useful in [[troll-sysop struggle]] to justify continued resistance to [[sysop power structure]]. In other words, anyone who actually repeats or restores any of it automatically will be regarded "as a [[troll]]" with whatever [[stigma]] or [[honour]] that implies. This text is heavily scrutinized and tends to be very well vetted - because so many people who spend all their time editing tend to focus on it and try to find fault with it. It is thus usually the most reliable text in any [[large public wiki]] and has gone through more evolution under more pressure. | ''See [[troll-sysop struggle]] for the usual rhetoric of this liberation stuff and what [[trolls]] propose to do about this corruption to end it forever.'' | ||
'''Troll text''' is text that has been specifically useful in [[troll-sysop struggle]] to justify continued resistance to [[sysop power structure]]. In other words, anyone ("[[troll-friendlies]]") who actually repeats or restores any of it automatically will be regarded "as a [[troll]]" with whatever [[stigma]] or [[honour]] that implies. This text is heavily scrutinized and tends to be very well vetted - because so many people who spend all their time editing tend to focus on it and try to find fault with it. It is thus usually the most reliable text in any [[large public wiki]] and has gone through more evolution under more pressure. | |||
Revision as of 22:14, 31 August 2004
Text liberation is the free circulation of fiction subject only to one's own self-chosen repute and trust constraints. It cannot ever be reconciled with sysop vandalism or some priestly hierarchy that uses its control of technology and domain names to also control information. AlterNIC and Wikipedia Red Faction are or were two attempts to achieve text liberation, of TLD and GFDL corpus respectively. It continues via various GFDL corpus access providers.
Some of these defy Wikimedia corruption and refuse to submit to [[GFDL violation|demands for link-backs that are unwarranted under the actual license of contributions]]. These link-backs would not be required to satisfy attribution requirements if Wikipedia actually exported the names of five primary authors as the GFDL license itself requires. So a refusal to meet the GFDL's terms is used as an excuse to demand concessions from others that makes Wikipedia the central GFDL corpus access provider. It is actually hard to imagine a better example of corruption.
See troll-sysop struggle for the usual rhetoric of this liberation stuff and what trolls propose to do about this corruption to end it forever.
Troll text is text that has been specifically useful in troll-sysop struggle to justify continued resistance to sysop power structure. In other words, anyone ("troll-friendlies") who actually repeats or restores any of it automatically will be regarded "as a troll" with whatever stigma or honour that implies. This text is heavily scrutinized and tends to be very well vetted - because so many people who spend all their time editing tend to focus on it and try to find fault with it. It is thus usually the most reliable text in any large public wiki and has gone through more evolution under more pressure.