56
edits
Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::This claim doesn't look incoherent to me. For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to what [[interwiki link conventions|should be]] at [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]. It is not up to the service to decide what languages to serve in, nor is it up to the service to decide how to carve up space within that language. Not only that, but the name of the service is itself expressed in a language. | ::This claim doesn't look incoherent to me. For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to what [[interwiki link conventions|should be]] at [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]. It is not up to the service to decide what languages to serve in, nor is it up to the service to decide how to carve up space within that language. Not only that, but the name of the service is itself expressed in a language. | ||
*Including self-serving claims regarding an allegedly nonexistent requirement to "link back to [[Wikipedia]]" when [[GFDL]]'d materials that have appeared there are quoted. | *Including allegedly self-serving claims regarding an allegedly nonexistent requirement to "link back to [[Wikipedia]]" when [[GFDL]]'d materials that have appeared there are quoted. | ||
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts. (possibly wikipedia-specific?) | *Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts. (possibly wikipedia-specific?) | ||
*Posing some potential threat to the open content status of Wikimedia projects, by modifying its contributor agreement to make the Wikimedia their copyright infringement agent. That would let the Wikimedia use a legal bludgeon to shut down even legitimate mirrors on the basis of even minor inconsistency with the GFDL in places where Wikimedia itself may be arguably inconsistent. At the moment it requires some degree of consensus before that could happen, since a fair number of contributors would have to sign up for any legal action. Eliminating that hurdle would significantly increase the potential for locking up the content. | |||
Generally, critics point to Wikimedia as a classic [[insider culture]], and not a good model for [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] or any other nonprofit entity that is actually trying to serve users and disadvantaged people and other living things. | Generally, critics point to Wikimedia as a classic [[insider culture]], and not a good model for [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] or any other nonprofit entity that is actually trying to serve users and disadvantaged people and other living things. | ||