Please sign and share the petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org initiated by Helen Mort to the w:Law Commission (England and Wales) to properly update UK laws against synthetic filth. Only name and email required to support, no nationality requirement. See Current and possible laws and their application @ #SSF! wiki for more info on the struggle for laws to protect humans.
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 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 itself requires. So a refusal to meet GFDL's actual terms, which would require export of those five names in any printed or exported version, is used as a shallow 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. It is no coincidence that Daniel Mayer writes those demanding letters, either.
- I see this requirement for link back to wikipedia to be within the meaning of the letter of GFDL license, it may not be proper in de jure sense, but as a de facto practice I personally have no problem with this and I do side on Daniel Mayer's side simply because when we get Consumerium running I have no problem with people forking off Consumerium if they just acknowldge that the text originated from Consumerium. Fair enough? --Juxo 16:36, 1 Sep 2004 (EEST)
- That is what the CC-by-sa would require. It is not what the GFDL requires. You would be right if all of Wikipedia and indeed the whole GFDL corpus was in fact CC-by-sa. But it isn't. And "not proper in the de jure sense" means the trolls will win in court when they push the point. Which they will, given all the libel they've endured from Mayer and his ilk. Face it, the behavior of Wikimedia is absolutely preventing any serious use of the GFDL corpus and preventing serious scholars from taking an interest in it. They are making up their own version of the law, and CGO must not do that.
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.