Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
(adding some comment by usurpers and response to it by Mark Richards) |
m (Text replacement - "Anarchopedia" to "Anarcopedia") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*[[Consumerpedia]] | *[[Consumerpedia]] | ||
*[[CorpKnowPedia]] | *[[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. | 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 | 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. | ||
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. | |||
---------- | |||
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. | |||
:''* Note: [http://www.wikitravel.org/ Wikitravel] is not GFDL but CC-SA. - [http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/User:Huttite Huttite]'' | |||
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) | 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) | ||