GFDL corpus: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

GFDL corpus (edit)

Revision as of 14:00, 12 April 2021

884 bytes removed , 12 April 2021

m

Text replacement - "Anarchopedia" to "Anarcopedia"

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,842

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *[[Consumerpedia]]
 *[[CorpKnowPedia]]
+*[[Anarcopedia]][http://www.anarchopedia.org .org]
 A [[GFDL corpus access provider]] permits retrieval of, and editing of, this material. There are numerous requirements for these due to the [[GFDL]] itself - covered in that article.
-There is some hope that a true unified '''GFDL Corpus''' with a single set of editing and forking and reintegration rules might arise.  This would require removal of obstacles (like [[Wikimedia]] and its [[usurper]] clique), perhaps bringing in more ethical players like [[FSF]] and an [[independent board]] for the corpus itself.
+There are some proponents of a true unified '''GFDL Corpus''' with a single set of editing and forking and reintegration rules.  They claim that this would require bypassing organizations like [[Wikimedia]], and perhaps bringing in more ethical players like [[FSF]] and an [[independent board]] for the corpus itself.
-:''In particular, legal harassment by [[Auntie Angela]] and [[Daniel Mayer]] and developer harassment by [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Tim Starling]] must be expected against any such independent entity or even any [[large public wiki]], e.g. [[Recyclopedia]], which is actually effective at beginning to unify the corpus.  These individuals must be considered enemies of the readership of the corpus itself, to be resisted and undermined and defeated on every level.''
+The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will probably need to take some interest in this, as it is not going to be possible to integrate input from all the above without some way of making who believes what, why.  The [[Research Wiki]] may or may not be part of the '''corpus'''.  In any case it will have to define itself as being wholly independent of any [[Wikimedia]] interference or harassment.
-:''To refer to the '''GFDL corpus''' at all in any context is considered an excuse for [[sysop vandalism]], notably by [[English Wikipedia User Hephaestos]] as evidenced[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration|here].  According to [[English Wikipedia User UninvitedCompany]] "The GFDL serves Wikipedia, not the other way around."  This is entirely contrary to the law and is a classic [[usurper]] argument, that [[sysop power structure]] can determine how to use all these users' contributions without regard to what the law says.''
+----------
+I do feel strongly that the purpose of the Wikipedia community is to build an open content encyclopedia, I don't know what it would mean for it to be the other way around. I thought that the intent of the project was to build a free and open encyclopedia, that would not be 'owned' by anyone in a restrictive sense. The fact that the license allows use by others and forks means that the total amount of free and open encyclopedia that can be built is bigger than Wikipedia itself, also, the GFDL material contributed by Internet Encyclopedia, ''WikiTravel*'', WikiQuote and Wiktionary to name but a few are part of the GFDL corpus, but not Wikipedia. I don't think that to point that out is disrespectful at all. Perhaps I was misunderstood.
-The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will probably need to take some interest in this, as it is not going to be possible to integrate input from all the above without some way of making who believes what, why.  The [[Research Wiki]] may or may not be part of the '''corpus'''.  In any case it will have to define itself as being wholly independent of any [[Wikimedia]] interference or harassment.
+:''* Note: [http://www.wikitravel.org/ Wikitravel] is not GFDL but CC-SA. - [http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/User:Huttite Huttite]''
-----------
- I do feel strongly that the purpose of the Wikipedia community is to build an open content encyclopedia, I don't know what it would mean for it to be the other way around. I thought that the intent of the project was to build a free and open encyclopedia, that would not be 'owned' by anyone in a restrictive sense. The fact that the license allows use by others and forks means that the total amount of free and open encyclopedia that can be built is bigger than Wikipedia itself, also, the GFDL material contributed by Internet Encyclopedia, WikiTravel, WikiQuote and Wiktionary to name but a few are part of the GFDL corpus, but not Wikipedia. I don't think that to point that out is disrespectful at all. Perhaps I was misunderstood.
 I don't really understand your points about the relationship between the GFDL text and the community and software. Props are due to the founders, their vision, the contributors and all involved, but the fact is that when someone presses 'submit', they maintain copyright over the material, and grant generous terms of use to anyone who wants to use them under those terms. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an effective and good way to build this corpus of open and free content, and it is a great front end to edit and view it, it is also an excellent group of people who do this, but it is not the same thing as the material licensed under the GDFL, which is not licensed exclusively to it (that's what 'free' means). I don't understand how pointing out this fact about the license is disrespectful or an afront. It's there in black and white, and it's not a bad thing. Mark Richards 02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)