Platonides wrote:
Robert Horning wrote:
I will note here that when the license issue for Wikinews came up, I voted for using the GFDL on Wikinews. I do understand many of the arguments against the GFDL on Wikinews, and many of them are very valid. I just liked the GFDL better, and felt that a common license among all Wikimedia projects was a better option.
BTW, the issue of moving Wikinews content to Wikipedia has come up on Wikipedia, with some people pointing out (correctly IMHO) that the CC license used by Wikinews is completely incompatible with the GFDL on Wikipedia.
Wikinews is Cc-by which is AFAIK compatible with GFDL, so there shouldn't be any problem moving content from Wikinews to Wikipedia (there would be from wikipedia to wikinews, though). Why is it "completely incompatible"? Mike, are there any issues with incorporing Cc-by content to a GFDL one? That would need quite content revision...
Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift material verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source. Yet, some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be cited. (Eg Slashdot).
The only exception I've seen to this was when I interviewed [[w:Tony Benn]]. I was told as I'd put a recording of the interview on Commons it was a valid source. I am not aware if any of David Shankbone's interviews have been used as a source for Wikipedia, but you'll forgive me for having the impression that Wikipedia turns their nose up at our original research work.
Brian McNeil