On Jan 29, 2008 6:31 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in
userspace
and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised.
I
think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this has already survived an
MfD.
I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some
other
domain is pretty darn outrageous... at least the airline didn't
use
clever kludges to rewrite the page.
I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have
also
done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It doesn't seem to be
using
Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the domain to make a parody
page in
userspace more amusing/realistic.
Gotta say its pretty close to free web host. Anyone that buys a domain and redirects it to wikipedia is using wikipedia non-profit foundation funds for something that is completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. The userpage guidelines and the what wikipedia is not policy have been designed specifically to restrict this frivolous use of bandwidth and server resources, although the community may have enough powerful supporters to make it an exception, it would break the rule and not be consistent IMO. Recent happenings with spoofing the wikipedia UI may also come into play.
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit foundation is pretty clear.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Peter Ansell
The only thing they're using WMF funds for would be the hosting, and
it's a
userspace page like several others, and it's been kept in MfD. It's not
like
this is using the foundation as a host for something completely
irrelevant-
this is a parody Wikipedia cabal, for which the creators decided to buy
a
domain to redirect to it. I don't see what the problem is.
People keep referring to a discussion that only lasted a few hours as evidence that the community supports the idea, as opposed to a few admins who were alerted to the page, including the participants who purchased the domain to use with wikimedia hosting. Wikipedia Cabals are, perhaps surprisingly to you, totally irrelevant to the purpose of the encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to host websites for people it might as well say it instead of proclaiming the no free web hosting statement as policy (except when its an admin who gets special treatment). If this is meant to be simply ignored because its a joke then it isn't succeeding.
Peter
What I'm saying is that this is no difference from, say, [[User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal]] or any others on the list at [[WP:LOC]] (the penguin one was just the first I scrolled to), just because some domain redirects to it.