GFDL violation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Other types of GFDL violations include: | Other types of GFDL violations include: | ||
*failing to credit the top five contributors when a document is exported via XML - ''this is quite | *failing to credit the top five contributors when a document is exported via XML - ''this is quite difficult to do without an [[interwiki identity standard]]'' | ||
*failing to permit retrieval of any page's source text, even to [[trolls]] | *failing to permit retrieval of any page's source text, even to [[trolls]] | ||
*failing to respect the status of [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s or respect the obligations implied by the latter | *failing to respect the status of [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s or respect the obligations implied by the latter | ||
[[Wikipedia]] has complicated matters with its policy of forcing other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s to provide links to itself if any text is similar to any other GFDL text that has been published via [[Wikipedia]] (which legally and technically is only a user interface). While it is the largest and best known source, it is deliberately NOT the authoratitive or most quotable source for any particular topic. Accordingly it is seriously detrimental to the [[GFDL corpus]] to have all links on all topics lead to Wikipedia. The license implies that the best and most authoritative version be linked to, not just the first place where the material appeared. | |||
[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations]. | [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 The Inquirer] ran an article on this which asked for [mailto:fcassia@sdf.lonestar.org email regarding violations]. | ||