Difference between revisions of "Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Note that I've reverted. Soften statement of Aschlafly's position, because he's never articulated it precisely (says he's tried and failed).) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I dont know enough to correct this one-sided problem. For now, I have copy-pasted some of the more interesting statements over from wikipedia. Its untidy to steal from the competition, I know, but the Wikipedia licence says its acceptable. We use the same one ourselves. | I dont know enough to correct this one-sided problem. For now, I have copy-pasted some of the more interesting statements over from wikipedia. Its untidy to steal from the competition, I know, but the Wikipedia licence says its acceptable. We use the same one ourselves. | ||
::You are wrong, wrong, wrong about copying from Wikipedia, for two reasons. | ::You are wrong, wrong, wrong about copying from Wikipedia, for two reasons. | ||
| − | :::First, copying from Wikipedia is | + | :::First, User:Aschlafly does not like copying from Wikipedia. There isn't any well-articulated formal policy, so there's wiggle-room, but he has said things like: |
| − | :::Second, Conservapedia does ''not'' use the same license, or any other kind of "free" license. | + | ::::*note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach" |
| + | ::::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!" | ||
| + | ::::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here." | ||
| + | :::Second, Conservapedia does ''not'' use the same GFDL license as Wikipedia, or any other kind of "free" license. | ||
:::Third, the Wikipedia license says its acceptable to copy their content under fairly strict conditions. You're remembering the "acceptable to copy part" but conveniently forgetting the "strict conditions" part. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying says you can copy an entire article but only if you make no changes, ''and only if the copy itself is licensed under the GFDL.'' Conservapedia isn't licensed under the GFDL, so reproducing Wikipedia material here violates the terms of their license. I won't get into the further complications if you want to ''modify'' the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | :::Third, the Wikipedia license says its acceptable to copy their content under fairly strict conditions. You're remembering the "acceptable to copy part" but conveniently forgetting the "strict conditions" part. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying says you can copy an entire article but only if you make no changes, ''and only if the copy itself is licensed under the GFDL.'' Conservapedia isn't licensed under the GFDL, so reproducing Wikipedia material here violates the terms of their license. I won't get into the further complications if you want to ''modify'' the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 16: | ||
- BornAgainBrit | - BornAgainBrit | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Just don't trash them too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | Just don't trash them too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
I don't think that Conservapedia is using GFDL. This will likely be rv so don't work on it too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | I don't think that Conservapedia is using GFDL. This will likely be rv so don't work on it too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *I just did revert it. I'm more than willing to discuss it, but this should be hashed out before attempting to reinsert the material. The burden of proof is on those who think it is OK to copy such large quantities of material from Wikipedia to explain why it is OK, given that Conservapedia does ''not'' license its material under the GFDL. | ||
Revision as of 18:25, March 19, 2007
This was completly one sided. It must have been written by a JW eager to show how wonderful their religion is because the whole thing is just a glowing review of their wonderous organisation - the savour of human rights, community builder, carer for the old and infirm... if it was any more sugar-coated, it would be attracting wasps.
I read it, and found not even a single negative statement about the JW - even though they are one of the most contriversial of Christian denominations.
I dont know enough to correct this one-sided problem. For now, I have copy-pasted some of the more interesting statements over from wikipedia. Its untidy to steal from the competition, I know, but the Wikipedia licence says its acceptable. We use the same one ourselves.
- You are wrong, wrong, wrong about copying from Wikipedia, for two reasons.
- First, User:Aschlafly does not like copying from Wikipedia. There isn't any well-articulated formal policy, so there's wiggle-room, but he has said things like:
- note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
- "I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
- "there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
- Second, Conservapedia does not use the same GFDL license as Wikipedia, or any other kind of "free" license.
- Third, the Wikipedia license says its acceptable to copy their content under fairly strict conditions. You're remembering the "acceptable to copy part" but conveniently forgetting the "strict conditions" part. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying says you can copy an entire article but only if you make no changes, and only if the copy itself is licensed under the GFDL. Conservapedia isn't licensed under the GFDL, so reproducing Wikipedia material here violates the terms of their license. I won't get into the further complications if you want to modify the article. Dpbsmith 14:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- First, User:Aschlafly does not like copying from Wikipedia. There isn't any well-articulated formal policy, so there's wiggle-room, but he has said things like:
- You are wrong, wrong, wrong about copying from Wikipedia, for two reasons.
It will do as a temporary solution, until we can get some of our own experts to rewrite the accusations in Conservapedia-friendly terms. Its certinly preferable to bias by ommision: The JWs are a very contriversial organisation, and conservapedia needs to reflect that.
- BornAgainBrit
Just don't trash them too much. Crackertalk 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT) I don't think that Conservapedia is using GFDL. This will likely be rv so don't work on it too much. Crackertalk 14:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- I just did revert it. I'm more than willing to discuss it, but this should be hashed out before attempting to reinsert the material. The burden of proof is on those who think it is OK to copy such large quantities of material from Wikipedia to explain why it is OK, given that Conservapedia does not license its material under the GFDL.