The Cunctator wrote:
I would love it if those who profess to care about pure GFDL compliance would do something about restoring the lost edit histories in the 2001-2002 period of a large number of entries.
I'd be very interested in such a project, though I'm not sure that my technical skills would be much help. If it was possible to import histories it wouldn't be that hard to do a history merge, although really the whole thing would make the most sense done by scripts.
What kind of entries are you referring to here? Just glancing about for an example, I discovered that the history for [[Computer science]] on the English Wikipedia begins with the last edit shown for it on the nostalgia.wikipedia site, so obviously that's one type. Are there other sources to pull missing history from, or is this what you had in mind?
--Michael Snow
The Cunctator wrote:
Of course, section 4 (Modifications) only applies to modified versions of the Document. We interpret it that its conditions apply to the original Document as well, but such requirements are not actually required by the GFDL.
Except that the Document is presumably modified by removing the history section.
David
On 08/06/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I would love it if those who profess to care about pure GFDL compliance would do something about restoring the lost edit histories in the 2001-2002 period of a large number of entries.
I'd be very interested in such a project, though I'm not sure that my technical skills would be much help. If it was possible to import histories it wouldn't be that hard to do a history merge, although really the whole thing would make the most sense done by scripts.
What kind of entries are you referring to here? Just glancing about for an example, I discovered that the history for [[Computer science]] on the English Wikipedia begins with the last edit shown for it on the nostalgia.wikipedia site, so obviously that's one type. Are there other sources to pull missing history from, or is this what you had in mind?
--Michael Snow
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don't you guys have ANYTHING better to do than waste time on the BJAODN? - White Cat
On 6/10/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Of course, section 4 (Modifications) only applies to modified versions of the Document. We interpret it that its conditions apply to the original Document as well, but such requirements are not actually required by the GFDL.
Except that the Document is presumably modified by removing the history section.
David
On 08/06/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I would love it if those who profess to care about pure GFDL compliance would do something about restoring the lost edit histories in the 2001-2002 period of a large number of entries.
I'd be very interested in such a project, though I'm not sure that my technical skills would be much help. If it was possible to import histories it wouldn't be that hard to do a history merge, although really the whole thing would make the most sense done by scripts.
What kind of entries are you referring to here? Just glancing about for an example, I discovered that the history for [[Computer science]] on the English Wikipedia begins with the last edit shown for it on the nostalgia.wikipedia site, so obviously that's one type. Are there other sources to pull missing history from, or is this what you had in mind?
--Michael Snow
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David _______________________________________________ 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 6/10/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Don't you guys have ANYTHING better to do than waste time on the BJAODN? - White Cat
Well it *is* an integral part of Wikipedia culture, and it *is* a volunteer project, so... no. ~~~~
Deleting BJAODN is a complete waste of time, since it lead to this completely useless and unproductive chain of discussions. IMHO, Wikipedia culture is better stored in meta.
- White Cat
On 6/10/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Don't you guys have ANYTHING better to do than waste time on the BJAODN? - White Cat
Well it *is* an integral part of Wikipedia culture, and it *is* a volunteer project, so... no. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That requires a pretty twisted definition of "the Document", though, consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages
But presumably when I edit someone else's version of a page, I/Wikipedia am/is distributing a modified copy of the Document, so there needs to be a History section as part of it under section 4.I.
Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous sometimes...
Indeed...
David
On 10/06/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting BJAODN is a complete waste of time, since it lead to this completely useless and unproductive chain of discussions. IMHO, Wikipedia culture is better stored in meta.
- White CatOn 6/10/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Don't you guys have ANYTHING better to do than waste time on the
BJAODN?
- White CatWell it *is* an integral part of Wikipedia culture, and it *is* a volunteer project, so... no. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 6/10/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
That requires a pretty twisted definition of "the Document", though, consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages
But presumably when I edit someone else's version of a page, I/Wikipedia am/is distributing a modified copy of the Document, so there needs to be a History section as part of it under section 4.I.
Along with a dozen other requirements which aren't followed.
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all. Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress). Now change 2 to 50 and apply it to a typical Wikipedia article.
Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous sometimes...
Indeed...
David
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all
OK, in that case, what stops me from "independently publishing" it as an *original* Public Domain work?
Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress).
Um... no, but they (or rather anyone reproducing a modified version) would have to include a history section listing the authors (i.e. themselves).
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/10/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
That requires a pretty twisted definition of "the Document", though, consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages
But presumably when I edit someone else's version of a page, I/Wikipedia am/is distributing a modified copy of the Document, so there needs to be
a
History section as part of it under section 4.I.
Along with a dozen other requirements which aren't followed.
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an article is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all. Think of it this way: if 2 people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of them made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works in progress). Now change 2 to 50 and apply it to a typical Wikipedia article.
Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous sometimes...
Indeed...
David
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 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an
article
is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and therefore there is no need for a history section at all
OK, in that case, what stops me from "independently publishing" it as an *original* Public Domain work?
If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's work into the public domain.
Think of it this way: if 2
people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of
them
made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the works
in
progress).
Um... no, but they (or rather anyone reproducing a modified version) would have to include a history section listing the authors (i.e. themselves).
Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book called "Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and then he modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we start printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we include a history section? What would the history section look like?
I agree we should include a title page with the text "Big Cats, by Anthony DiPierro and Whoever". But I don't see the purpose of a history section.
Let's say we used a wiki to write this book. Does that change anything? Let's say we allowed the public access to the wiki. Does *that* change anything? Let's say instead of 2 of us there were 50 of us. Does *that* change anything?
If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's work into the public domain.
Or indeed under any other licence.
Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book called "Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and then he modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we start printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we include a history section? What would the history section look like?
"Title: "Big Cats", Year: 2007, Authors: Anthony DiPierro and Joe Bloggs, Publishers: Anthony DiPierro and Joe Bloggs".
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
However, there is another interpretation: that every version of an
article
is independently published as an *original* GFDL document, and
therefore
there is no need for a history section at all
OK, in that case, what stops me from "independently publishing" it as an *original* Public Domain work?
If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's work into the public domain.
Think of it this way: if 2
people worked together on a book and published it under the GFDL, they wouldn't need a history section outlining every single change each of
them
made to the work in progress (even if they happened to publish the
works
in
progress).
Um... no, but they (or rather anyone reproducing a modified version)
would
have to include a history section listing the authors (i.e. themselves).
Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book called "Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and then he modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we start printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we include a history section? What would the history section look like?
I agree we should include a title page with the text "Big Cats, by Anthony DiPierro and Whoever". But I don't see the purpose of a history section.
Let's say we used a wiki to write this book. Does that change anything? Let's say we allowed the public access to the wiki. Does *that* change anything? Let's say instead of 2 of us there were 50 of us. Does *that* change anything? _______________________________________________ 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 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's work into the public domain.
Or indeed under any other licence.
Public domain is not a license.
Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book called "Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and then he modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we start printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we include a history section? What would the history section look like?
"Title: "Big Cats", Year: 2007, Authors: Anthony DiPierro and Joe Bloggs, Publishers: Anthony DiPierro and Joe Bloggs".
I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section.
---
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
Anthony
Public domain is not a license.
Maybe not, but the point still stands - you can't licence someone else's work.
I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section.
No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written and then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
Regardless of the merits of that claim, what are its repercussions?
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
If you're not the sole author, then you can't release someone else's
work
into the public domain.
Or indeed under any other licence.
Public domain is not a license.
Why? Let me get this straight. Say my friend and I write a book
called
"Big Cats" which we intend to publish under the GFDL. I write some sections, my friend writes some sections, some sections I write and
then he
modifies, some sections he writes and then I modify, etc. Then we
start
printing copies. We attach the GFDL, print, bind, whatever. Do we
include
a history section? What would the history section look like?
"Title: "Big Cats", Year: 2007, Authors: Anthony DiPierro and Joe
Bloggs,
Publishers: Anthony DiPierro and Joe Bloggs".
I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section.
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
Anthony
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 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
Public domain is not a license.
Maybe not, but the point still stands - you can't licence someone else's work.
If you are the joint author of a work, you can license it. If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it.
I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section.
No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written and then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.
What you're missing is that the authors of a work don't have to follow the GFDL.
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
Regardless of the merits of that claim, what are its repercussions?
If there is a joint authorship agreement, then that governs the authors rights. If not, then each author owns an undivided interest in the entire work, essentially like a [[concurrent estate]].
If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it.
But you don't, do you?
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
Public domain is not a license.
Maybe not, but the point still stands - you can't licence someone else's work.
If you are the joint author of a work, you can license it. If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it.
I suppose you could do that, but the GFDL doesn't require it. Take a look at http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ AFAICT there is no history section.
No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written
and
then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.
What you're missing is that the authors of a work don't have to follow the GFDL.
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
Regardless of the merits of that claim, what are its repercussions?
If there is a joint authorship agreement, then that governs the authors rights. If not, then each author owns an undivided interest in the entire work, essentially like a [[concurrent estate]].
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 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it.
But you don't, do you?
I do what? I have permission from the authors of Wikipedia articles to license those articles under the GFDL? Yes, I do. I don't have permission to release those articles into the public domain, though.
No, you don't. They have licensed their work under the GFDL, but they haven't given you permission to re-license it on their behalf.
David
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
If you have permission from the other person, then you can license it.
But you don't, do you?
I do what? I have permission from the authors of Wikipedia articles to license those articles under the GFDL? Yes, I do. I don't have permission to release those articles into the public domain, though.
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 6/11/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
No, you don't. They have licensed their work under the GFDL, but they haven't given you permission to re-license it on their behalf.
Even if that is true, I fail to see the substantive difference between those two scenarios. Either way, the work is licensed under the GFDL. Can you present a more well defined hypothetical?
In any case, my point still stands that there *are* scenarios where someone other than a sole author can grant a non-exclusive license to a work. You suggested that there wasn't.
David Mestel schreef:
No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written and then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.
With "history section", you mean a section describing the history of the page? The GFDL does not discuss such a section.
Instead, it specifies a 'section Entitled "History"', which is defined as "a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely [History] or contains [History] in parentheses following text that translates [History] in another language." The original content of this section is irrelevant to the license; only the title matters.
An example of such a section Entitled "History" is for example [[London#History]]. If you create a derived work of [[London]], you have to include that section, and add your name to it (presumably under ===Rise of modern London===). And if you consider Wikipedia to be one document, you have to add your own name to [[History]], when republishing it.
That's what the GFDL says.
Eugene
Instead, it specifies a 'section Entitled "History"', which is defined as "a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely [History] or contains [History] in parentheses following text that translates [History] in another language." The original content of this section is irrelevant to the license; only the title matters.
Eh? From section 4.I of the GFDL: "If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document"
David
On 12/06/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Mestel schreef:
No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written
and
then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.
With "history section", you mean a section describing the history of the page? The GFDL does not discuss such a section.
Instead, it specifies a 'section Entitled "History"', which is defined as "a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely [History] or contains [History] in parentheses following text that translates [History] in another language." The original content of this section is irrelevant to the license; only the title matters.
An example of such a section Entitled "History" is for example [[London#History]]. If you create a derived work of [[London]], you have to include that section, and add your name to it (presumably under ===Rise of modern London===). And if you consider Wikipedia to be one document, you have to add your own name to [[History]], when republishing it.
That's what the GFDL says.
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel schreef:
Instead, it specifies a 'section Entitled "History"', which is defined as "a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely [History] or contains [History] in parentheses following text that translates [History] in another language." The original content of this section is irrelevant to the license; only the title matters.
Eh? From section 4.I of the GFDL: "If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document"
I was talking about "the original content", which implies that there already exists a section Entitled "History"; such as [[London#History]].
Eugene
On 6/11/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Mestel schreef:
No history section is required, technically, if a Document is written and then distributed only as a verbatim copy, but that's not the case with a Wikipedia article.
With "history section", you mean a section describing the history of the page? The GFDL does not discuss such a section.
Instead, it specifies a 'section Entitled "History"', which is defined as "a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely [History] or contains [History] in parentheses following text that translates [History] in another language." The original content of this section is irrelevant to the license; only the title matters.
An example of such a section Entitled "History" is for example [[London#History]]. If you create a derived work of [[London]], you have to include that section, and add your name to it (presumably under ===Rise of modern London===). And if you consider Wikipedia to be one document, you have to add your own name to [[History]], when republishing it.
That's a prima facie misinterpretation of the GFDL. The "section" it is referring to is obviously a Secondary Section: "a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them."
On 6/12/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
That's a prima facie misinterpretation of the GFDL. The "section" it is referring to is obviously a Secondary Section:
Why do you think so? It's not obvious to me.
Because it tells you how to create the section entitled History if a Document does not have one, and it is talking about the history of the Document's authorship.
Also because it would be absurd to author history in a chapter about the history of London.
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/12/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
That's a prima facie misinterpretation of the GFDL. The "section" it is referring to is obviously a Secondary Section:
Why do you think so? It's not obvious to me.
Because it tells you how to create the section entitled History if a Document does not have one, and it is talking about the history of the Document's authorship.
Also because it would be absurd to author history in a chapter about the history of London.
On that last point, we agree.
I do hope this has been removed in the next version of the GFDL.
Eugene
On 6/12/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
That's a prima facie misinterpretation of the GFDL. The "section" it is referring to is obviously a Secondary Section:
Why do you think so? It's not obvious to me.
Because it tells you how to create the section entitled History if a Document does not have one, and it is talking about the history of the Document's authorship.
Also because it would be absurd to author history in a chapter about the history of London.
There's not really much that's obvious about the document. Suggestions that it requires attaching the GFDL to images get met with suggestions of how to cirumvent the law (legally versus in practice, etc.). Questions between two people get variuos interpretations even when dealing with documents.
It needs fixed sooner, not later.
KP
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
It could be argued against, but only by one who does not accept [[WP:OWN]].
On 6/11/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." (USC title 17, section 101) I'd say that describes a typical Wikipedia article, though I admit one could argue against it.
It could be argued against, but only by one who does not accept [[WP:OWN]].
Well, I was thinking the best argument against it is that a contributor to a Wikipedia article doesn't know in advance who the other authors are going to be. But it's not clear whether or not that fact is determinative, and I doubt there is actually any case law on the matter. Joint authorship of major copyrighted works is relatively rare nowadays, because the vast majority of major copyrighted works are works for hire. But we *know* Wikipedia isn't a work for hire.
On 6/10/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Of course, section 4 (Modifications) only applies to modified versions of the Document. We interpret it that its conditions apply to the original Document as well, but such requirements are not actually required by the GFDL.
Except that the Document is presumably modified by removing the history section.
That requires a pretty twisted definition of "the Document", though, consisting of multiple dynamically generated pages. Might as well make the definition even more twisted and include information that's still in the database but isn't available to non-admins. Or would that trigger the DRM clause?
Trying to apply the GFDL to Wikipedia is humorous sometimes...