Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It certainly doesn't satisfy the GFDL. But then again, none of the pages on the entire website satisfy the GFDL.
That argument has been made before and a number of lawyers have considered it to be incorrect. I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment too heavily in that regard.
The only thing that'd satisfy the GFDL would be to create a section, ==History==, and put the names there, along with the years, title, and publisher. If that's what we want to do, I'll be all for it.
Er no, as I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer) having an explicit link to the history is ok because we treat them more or less as one document.
And in any event, there's an obvious good faith difference between questionably satisfying the GFDL and definitely not satisfying it. This is clearly in the second category.
I agree, but do you believe that having the information in the history of an article which redirects to the one in question does satisfy the GFDL? And what about the part of the merge that went into a different page from the one the redirect went to? How does that questionably satisfy the GFDL? I don't see it.
That's actually a very good point. Is there anyway to merge page histories into multiple articles? Alternatively the closest thing is to copy and paste the list of difs into a dif on the article noting that in the edit summary that it has that there and then removing the list on the next dif (we've done this before and somone I don't remember who commented that this was probably ok).
Not at all. Whether you get to the information by following "What links here" and then clicking on "history" or you get it by clicking on "Talk" and then "merged page history", it seems equally (non)compliant to me.
And what about the article on Angela? Are we sure that nothing has been merged from that article anywhere? I have a copy of that one too if someone wants the list of editors.
I'm pretty sure nothing's been merged from there. Point of fact even if a tiny bit of content has been merged that's likely usable within fair use, but using almost all the material of an article, not so much.
And again, GFDL issues aren't my only concern. We should know by now that Daniel Brandt doesn't stop. Ever. He just keeps demanding more and more. And to do this after we had a very difficult compromise just makes matters worse. The pages that mention him still will still have very high google rankings. This just sends the message to trolls that they can get anything changed on Wikipedia if they harass us long enough. That's not good. Furthermore, there is no, I repeat, no interpretation of BLP that allows for this deletion since it was simply a redirect. Nor for that matter, does BLP justify deleting a page to help lower google rankings at all. If I recall, Fred Bauder a while back floated briefly the idea of having some BLPs not google indexed and the response was pretty negative.