On 12/21/07, Mike Johnson <johnsonmxe(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
We've chosen a license. It's CC-by-sa.
(Technically, CC-by-sa version 3.0 unported.)
Our press release can be found here:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007
Too little, too late. What is the gesture where one makes circles in
the air with the index finger pointed upward, surely it has a name...
That shall be my reply to further drivel about Sangerpedia.
On 12/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares what license
About.com uses? Half their
content is taken from
Wikipedia anyway.
hah! They still have a lot of good stuff custom-written for them by
experts. And used as references in Wikipedia articles.
Having these two types of content on the same site is a recipe for
disaster, especially when most Wikipedia editors can't tell the
difference.
In one corner of Wikipedia, an admin will remove links to the
"expert-written" content, saying "about.com is an unreliable source,
largely a mirror site, and should not be linked to".
In another corner, editors will say "about.com is written by experts",
and create circular references by using mirrored content as a source
for itself.
These could be two mutually isolated phenomena. Wikipedia is vast
enough for one group of nitwits not to realize that other nitwits are
launching the opposite (and equally misinformed) attack elsewhere.
—C.W.