Guettarda wrote:
On 1/18/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Matt R wrote:
As per the subject, excerpts from:
https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
Larry Sanger writes,
"After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
that
are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go
ahead
and make the deletion...
I'm a bit clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia content, or that they have but they're hiding it? I mean, all the articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content? And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL? Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning to do?
Steve block
Steve - if you poke around the Citizendium forum (there's a link to it in Matt's email) a lot of your questions may be answered.
I looked at Citizendium a while back but couldn't for the life of me work out how I was supposed to become a contributor so I gave up looking at it.
Apparently their first "approved" article, Biology, was a complete re-write
- the Wikipedia article was blanked. Other people have modified existing
articles. As I understand it, the CZ Live stuff is stuff that people are working on.
Obviously they can't release work based on WP articles under a more restrictive license. New material could be - it seems to me that there's a debate between people who want the whole project to by cc-by-nc and those who want it to stay GFDL.
I can't see how you can ringfence certain articles. If information is moved from one GFDL article to another, a cc by nc, then the new article must be both GFDL and cc by nc, no? And aren't they incompatible?
Still, not really a huge amount of sense discussing citizendium here.