[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 23:47:46 UTC 2009

2009/1/8 Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org>:
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>> I guess if you leave it up to the editor to do it themselves, it could
>> work, although it would still require someone to go along after them
>> fixing the mess that would inevitably result from removing random
>> chunks from the middle of articles. There would also be disputes over
>> how much should be removed - can you remove a word because you
>> corrected the spelling of it? (probably not) can you remove an entire
>> sentence because it's an expansion of a sentence that you wrote?
>> (probably, since there isn't an alternative, but that's going to
>> really piss off the person that did all the work expanding it) And
>> then you have to deal with disputes over whether the text that is put
>> in to replace the removed chunks is sufficiently different so as not
>> to infringe on the editor's copyright. I think it would end up being a
>> lot of work for more than just the editor in question.
> I agree with you that an editor who chooses to remove some large
> number of minor edits is going to be quite disruptive, but I think it
> goes without saying that some very tiny minority of editors is quite
> willing to be disruptive and antisocial in order to score to (a)
> vindicate their perceived rights or (b) (and less charitably) to score
> an ideological point.
> I hope it is not news to anyone here that some (very tiny) fraction of
> editors values making a point over making information freely available
> to the world.

Very true. That's not a reason to support them in doing so, though. Do
you think there is a legal requirement for us to allow people to
opt-out, or are you just suggesting doing so as an act of good faith?
I'm not sure I have enough good faith to let someone mess up a large
portion of the encyclopaedia...

More information about the foundation-l mailing list