Any comments on the following exchange from #wikinews?
tsca> hi tsca> Are they any plans as to when WN switches from PD to CC? Pechorin> tsca, as soon as we lose the beta status tsca> which is when...? Pechorin> there is no set date tsca> or is this something noone knows? Pechorin> nobody knows for sure Pechorin> but, "soon, but not next week" :) tsca> see: it is nice to see WN stories used by other services. However, it would be even nicer to see them attributed to WN. Pechorin> I agree tsca> we have this section 'sources'. When an article is copied to another service, the section remains and looks like the article was produced from those sources by this service. Especially when they put their (c) on the page tsca> perhaps the beta status lingers simply because noone's made a move on the mailing list and proposed finally changing it yet? Pechorin> tsca, you can always try
--[[m:user:tsca]]
Heh, there's really no point in changing Wikinews status from beta. Like Eloquence said some time ago, when we'll have a stable amount of news stories a day, we can go away from the beta status and start Wikinews "officialy".
But as for the license, it should be changed indepandently. At least that's my opinion.
On 6/3/05, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
But as for the license, it should be changed indepandently. At least that's my opinion.
I believe the key to the delay on the license is that Creative Commons does not yet have a CC-WIKI license that does not include the "share alike" requirement. Approxiamtely a month ago, Mr. J. Wales requested of L. Lessig that Creative Commons make a version of CC-WIKI that requires only attribution. About two weeks ago, I talked to J. Wales on IRC about the license, and he said that he thought that Creative Commons was working on it. It's my impression that there is a general consensus among all parties involved that the license change is desirable; the remaining tasks are clerical (although I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that some CC folks think otherwise-- I imagine every additional license has implications for them).
Yesterday, I scanned the recent traffic on the Creative Commons mailing lists; the wiki license has been under discussion recently, but not in regard to the change we've requested. The two things we could do to help things along might be: 1. poke J. Wales again. 2. Contact someone at Creative Commons and prod them.
Anyone know the right CC person to contact?
Back to "ferreting out false postings," Brandon
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org