LittleDan Writes:
We shouldn't copy public domain sources verbatim, but it's fine to copy the information. We're not just a dump site for words, only for ideas and information.
well, a few points about that. Originally the idea was to import the information as a base for an article that, with any luck, we'd expand. It's happened in some cases, not in others.
A few problems with the original idea: 1, it forks the material; 2, sometimes information goes out of date and with e.g. the CIA Factbook stuff it would be easier to let them update it year by year, and have us just link to it.
A few benefits of the idea: 1, we have no guarantee that the information will stay wherever it is originally; 2, at least we'll have *something* on big topics like e.g. Chile when it's time to have a hard copy of the 'pedia. I very much doubt we'd have anything at all on e.g. [[Bhutan]] by this point if not for the CIA stuff.
A side point: arguing that we shouldn't have the information because someone else has it is a non-starter--if that were our rationale, we wouldn't have any information that's available *anywhere* else online. I'm not saying *you* are arguing that, but people sometimes do. Ideally, the wikipedia would have information on everything under the sun, and be as complete as possible.
In effect, it is the same as copywrited sources (except that we can copy the pictures from PD) but I see nothing wrong with that.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
kq
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com