362
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 428:
Line 428: + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 19:24, February 11, 2009
, 19:24, February 11, 2009→Item 1
I must point out that in the gossip section, the word 'real' used in that context could be interpreted as meaning that Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia. Also, I believe the protection template on the beginning of this talk page is inaccurate, as I was just able to post this message.
I must point out that in the gossip section, the word 'real' used in that context could be interpreted as meaning that Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia. Also, I believe the protection template on the beginning of this talk page is inaccurate, as I was just able to post this message.
==Item 1==
Item one currently reads as follows:
: ''We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.''
This is confusing rights to one's own material with rights to the material of others.
You still retain complete rights to use your own material as you see fit. If someone edits it they can grant you whatever rights to their material they want.
What Wikipedia does, however, is ensure that ''anyone'' can use the combined work without further negotiation, subject to the GFDL which simply ensures that your contribution is acknowledged (the burden consists, in total, of a requirement to display that acknowledgement alongside the copied or derived material). If they don't want to be "burdened" by the GFDL they can contact you and the other authors and ask for whatever permissions they want. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 14:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)