[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and Free Culture at Large

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/29/2008 4:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
snowspinner at gmail.com writes:

Again,  the larger problem here, to me, is that it's unclear Find A  
Grave is  free content.>>


------------------
But of couse that goes back to your desire that we should be promoting free  
content in a way that "quality" content is not.  Personally I think our  
readers would be more inclined to favor us, if we were to promote the highest  
standards of quality, not just the free-est ones.
 
Find-a-grave is free in the sense that a reader doesn't have to pay to use  
it, and an editor doesn't have to pay to edit it.  As to whether its free  in 
the sense that the contents can be copied and re-hosted elsewhere, or sold  for 
a profit, I'm not sure.
 
I'm a bit ambivalent about templating find-a-grave.  On the one hand,  it's 
nice to promote sites which aim to be, or have the potential to  be, 
comprehensive (even if they are not currently), and sites which allow  readers 
free-access to all the content.  I would, for example have been  against a template for 
EB except their new policy allowing deep-linking  direct-to-content for 
"bloggers" (which means any online mass linker in their  view).  I would be against 
any template for JSTOR for example or  Lexis-Nexis or Ancestry which all 
require payment.
 
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder where the line would be drawn  
toward this sort of "preferential" (if you will) approach.  Template for  
Rootsweb's World Connect? Template for Marvel Universe ? Template for Huffington  
Post Articles ?
 
I'm not sure how we'd justify some against others.  Or do we need  to?  Just 
allow the free creation of any priveledged link that can stand  scrutiny.



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)