35
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Copyright (view source)
Revision as of 15:24, April 17, 2008
, 15:24, April 17, 2008Migrating Solid Material to Wikipedia
==Self-defense?==
==Self-defense?==
This licence is simpler that the GFDL only at the expense of the vagueness inherent in the sentence "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Much of the GFDL licence document is concerned with enumerating the precise conditions you must meet in order to be ''sure'' that that your right to use the material will not be revoked. By maintaining the right to revoke the licence under the poorly-defined grounds of "self-defense" users can't be sure that they actually have the right to use the material; Nor can they be sure that a use that is permitted at one time might be disallowed at a future time. In this sense the Conservapedia license is less free than the GFDL. I suggest that this clause is replaced with a BSD-style "no endorsement" clause.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
This licence is simpler that the GFDL only at the expense of the vagueness inherent in the sentence "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Much of the GFDL licence document is concerned with enumerating the precise conditions you must meet in order to be ''sure'' that that your right to use the material will not be revoked. By maintaining the right to revoke the licence under the poorly-defined grounds of "self-defense" users can't be sure that they actually have the right to use the material; Nor can they be sure that a use that is permitted at one time might be disallowed at a future time. In this sense the Conservapedia license is less free than the GFDL. I suggest that this clause is replaced with a BSD-style "no endorsement" clause.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
== Migrating Solid Material to Wikipedia ==
As I read the above, GNU allows me to use my exact contribution elsewhere (but proving it was my contribution may be problemantic) but once others have collaborated on the article it may be "illegal" for me to cut and paste the article to Conservapedia since it includes other editors contributions. Correct?
Therefore, if one wants to work with collaborators in developing a solid article on controversial issues like abortion, for example, one should start here at Conservapedia...collaborate...then copy the entire article over to Wikipedia, since there would be no restrictions on moving an entire article to Wikipedia or WikiInfo or any other GNU governed site. Is that correct?
Mostly, I'm looking for a safer ground to collaborate with editors who won't constantly disrupt the article by deleting facts that undermine their political position.
If all that I've described above is correct, I STRONGLY recommend that Conservapedia should have an article prominently linked here that encourages developing articles here with the intent of copying them over to Wikipedia (which surely has more traffic) once they are developed. Participating Editors then should, of course, watchlist the article on their Wikipedia accounts to help protect it from "blanking" of "inconvenient" facts.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)