geni wrote:
On 11/15/05, Michael Snow <wikipedia at
earthlink.net> wrote:
If it's not GFDL, then it is by definition not a
fork of Wikipedia
content. Either that or it's a violation of the license.
As I said true forks are unlikely because the initial
bulk of material
you pick up will be beyond your rescourses to handle. What you see are
the result of "wikipedia has some coverage of subject X but we want to
do it in a different way" sometimes this means more of it, sometimes
this means original reseach and some times this means POV.
This is hairsplitting over the definition of the word "fork". It's a
fork because the guy was trying to work within Wikipedia to write
encyclopedic articles and was driven off by anti-expert bias and
assumption of bad faith on AFD.
Comixpedia is not a fork of *content* - it's a fork of the
*community*. That is why that such a thing could happen is a BIG RED
FLASHING DANGER SIGNAL.
- d.