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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l