Anthony writes:
Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new content, new Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA- only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content.
That said, I look forward to your fork. Why wait? Why don't you start now? You clearly are dissatisfied with Wikipedia's implementation of GFDL as well as Wikipedia's proposed use of CC-BY-SA. It should be easy, since you throw around the word "fork" so easily. You could probably squash us even more effectively than Citizendium and Knol have.
(BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.)
"A free encyclopedia without the plagiarism" would be a better slogan, though I'm sure a little thought could produce an even better one.
You are a marketing genius.
Depends on the traffic. Pure hard drive space is relatively cheap. More traffic would lead to more expense, but it'd also likely lead to more donations.
You obviously have this all figured out. I can't wait to see your fork.
--Mike
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
(BTW, one benefit of the licensing proposal is that it will be easier for Wikipedia and Citizendium to cross-fertilize each other.)
Nope. The "to clarify that attribution via reference to page histories is acceptable if there are more than five authors." bit will mean that it is imposable for wikipedia to take content from Citizendium without Citizendium adopting some very strange TOS specifically for the benefit of wikipedia which I would rather doubt it would do. Even that would not make it possible to copy content on Citizendium to wikipedia at the moment were the 5 names +URL proposal to be enacted.
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new content, new Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA- only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content.
I think it's obvious Anthony means "almost all new Wikipedia content" - CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Come to think of it, forking under GFDL 1.3 would probably be the most appropriate. Then, since Wikipedia intends to dual-license new content, new Wikipedia content could be incorporated into the fork, but new forked content couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia.
You haven't reviewed the FAQ. As Richard Stallman explains, CC-BY-SA- only changes, including imports from external sources, will bind Wikipedia and re-users of Wikipedia content.
I think it's obvious Anthony means "almost all new Wikipedia content"
- CC-BY-SA only edits obviously can't be used under GFDL, do you
really think Anthony's that stupid or are you just taking every opportunity you can to resort to (somewhat subtle, I'll grant you) ad hominem attacks because you know you're talking nonsense?
Thanks. By "new Wikipedia content" I meant content first contributed to Wikipedia.
To answer Mike's other comment, about why I don't fork now. 1) I never said I was the one who was going to do the fork, I only said a 10% level would likely be enough of a critical mass to pull it off; and 2) I don't think the WMF has managed yet to piss off enough people to make a fork viable. *IF* more than 10% or so of voters want direct attribution, and *IF* the WMF goes ahead and tells reusers that attribution by URL is acceptable, *THEN* I think a fork would be viable.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org