All,
We've chosen a license. It's CC-by-sa. (Technically, CC-by-sa version 3.0 unported.)
Our press release can be found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007
And Larry's essay on why CC-by-sa is here: http://www.citizendium.org/czlicense.html
It's long, but I think it's quite a solid piece of argument.
So, what does this mean? If Wikipedia does choose to (in effect) relicense under CC-by-sa, as looks likely, our projects will be able to seamlessly share content.
I think this will be good for Citizendium, good for Wikipedia, and good for individual contributors split between the two projects.
Mike Johnson
On 21/12/2007, Mike Johnson johnsonmxe@yahoo.com wrote:
We've chosen a license. It's CC-by-sa. (Technically, CC-by-sa version 3.0 unported.) Our press release can be found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007 I think this will be good for Citizendium, good for Wikipedia, and good for individual contributors split between the two projects.
*champagne*
The big news here is that it will reinforce the *public* expectation that educational materials be available under a proper free licence. Which should serve to get Google thinking hard about Knol and NYT about About.com. Imagine a CC-by-sa About.com.
- d.
Imagine a CC-by-sa About.com http://about.com/.
Who cares what license About.com uses? Half their content is taken from Wikipedia anyway.
On Dec 24, 2007 8:37 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Mike Johnson johnsonmxe@yahoo.com wrote:
We've chosen a license. It's CC-by-sa. (Technically, CC-by-sa version 3.0 unported.) Our press release can be found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007 I think this will be good for Citizendium, good for Wikipedia, and good for individual contributors split between the two projects.
*champagne*
The big news here is that it will reinforce the *public* expectation that educational materials be available under a proper free licence. Which should serve to get Google thinking hard about Knol and NYT about About.com. Imagine a CC-by-sa About.com.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine a CC-by-sa About.com http://about.com/.
Who cares what license About.com uses? Half their content is taken from Wikipedia anyway.
hah! They still have a lot of good stuff custom-written for them by experts. And used as references in Wikipedia articles.
- d.
On 12/21/07, Mike Johnson johnsonmxe@yahoo.com wrote:
We've chosen a license. It's CC-by-sa. (Technically, CC-by-sa version 3.0 unported.)
Our press release can be found here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007
Too little, too late. What is the gesture where one makes circles in the air with the index finger pointed upward, surely it has a name...
That shall be my reply to further drivel about Sangerpedia.
On 12/24/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Who cares what license About.com uses? Half their content is taken from Wikipedia anyway.
hah! They still have a lot of good stuff custom-written for them by experts. And used as references in Wikipedia articles.
Having these two types of content on the same site is a recipe for disaster, especially when most Wikipedia editors can't tell the difference.
In one corner of Wikipedia, an admin will remove links to the "expert-written" content, saying "about.com is an unreliable source, largely a mirror site, and should not be linked to".
In another corner, editors will say "about.com is written by experts", and create circular references by using mirrored content as a source for itself.
These could be two mutually isolated phenomena. Wikipedia is vast enough for one group of nitwits not to realize that other nitwits are launching the opposite (and equally misinformed) attack elsewhere.
—C.W.