There are some pages on degree of compliance on en, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GFDL_Compliance. The problem with them is they are the most concentrated piece of Original Research I have ever seen on WP. Does anyone have any kind of well sourced opinion on the way that the licenses apply to Wikipedia? I have posted a request online.
Personally I agree the community should set its standards on attribution and community projects, especially logo-ed ones should be held to those standards but at present a group of well meaning individuals have worked out their own interpretations and started listing websites as "high" "medium" or "low" GFDL compliance, making significant allegations just based on a nested set of "probablies" in the license interpretation. Unless the sources and references are hidden somewhere out of sight? Otherwise all these pages should be changed to degree of compliance to community wishes and GFDL should be removed from the article names.
Andrew
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Thanks. I do support what they're doing, and don't want to be a jerk about hounding a charity, but with Wikipedia's logo prominently displayed on this one I want to make sure nobody thinks we're putting a stamp of approval on this level of GFDL compliance.
While I'm on the subject, I've just discovered that http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/site.php is also noncompliant in the same general way (every article appears to link back to [[India]] as its source, regardless of content - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikipedia_On_...). Since this site also uses the Wikipedia logo it should also be looked at by the Foundation about this.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l