161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + + +
→Source does not demonstrate that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist", there are right-wing editors who edit there: new section
Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that '''require''' Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text. Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that '''require''' Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text. Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
== Source does not demonstrate that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist", there are right-wing editors who edit there ==
This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm was used as a source to say that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist". Nowhere in the source does it say that Wikipedia is "left-wing" or "communist". There are right-wing editors who work on Wikipedia.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 11:28, 3 August 2012 (EDT)