Talk:Main Page
From Wikireligion
(→Copyvios: where??) |
(→Copyvios: again, where?) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:We have been under GDFL since early January. --[[User:Sir James Paul|Sir James Paul]] 14:53, 4 February 2007 (EST) | :We have been under GDFL since early January. --[[User:Sir James Paul|Sir James Paul]] 14:53, 4 February 2007 (EST) | ||
::It does little good if not published and indicated on each article. Is it? --[[User:Seven of nine|Seven of nine]] 15:37, 4 February 2007 (EST) | ::It does little good if not published and indicated on each article. Is it? --[[User:Seven of nine|Seven of nine]] 15:37, 4 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | ::I ask again, where is the licensing and copyright information published? How does an average person who happens upon an article know what the license and copyright is? This is '''vital''', especially since some articles are copies of Wikipedia text. --[[User:Seven of nine|Seven of nine]] 20:43, 4 February 2007 (EST) | ||
== Why? == | == Why? == | ||
Revision as of 01:43, 5 February 2007
why isn't anyone creating articles here?
- People are. (sigh) ForestH2 11:36, 31 December 2006 (EST)
- It is new. That is why there is a lack of articles here. --Sir James Paul 13:24, 31 December 2006 (EST)
Project inactive
Is it? ForestH2 19:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- It seems to be but I do not want it to. Will you promote it for me. --Sir James Paul 07:26, 31 January 2007 (EST)
- I would be glad to promote it. I sort of think this has a better chance of becoming a wikimedia project than Wikikids right now. I'll do some editing now. ForestH2 08:17, 31 January 2007 (EST)
- It seems to be but I do not want it to. Will you promote it for me. --Sir James Paul 07:26, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Copyvios
You know, I think I'll leave. Because:
1. I am not a jerk.
2. When I was in school, I didn't copy the teacher's things in project.
3. The wiki is a complete mess.
ForestH2 12:13, 3 February 2007 (EST)
- Archer7 was talking about the logo and not articles. --Sir James Paul 12:14, 3 February 2007 (EST)
- Here.
The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.
Read this paragraph and decide if the info you copyed from Wikipedia applies to this. It most certainly does not. You need to mention a direct link back to the articlie, and you need to acknowledge the authors of the Wikipedia article used. ForestH2 12:20, 3 February 2007 (EST)
- ForestH2, please do not leave. Of course this place is a mess, but it is not a complete mess. We will test out policies and if they fail we will try new things. I am 100% open to change here if something fails. --Sir James Paul 12:55, 3 February 2007 (EST)
What is the licensing and copyright policy of this site? This needs to be established and published (probably in the footer for each article), especially if you are going to use content cut/pasted from Wikipedia. --Seven of nine 14:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)
- We have been under GDFL since early January. --Sir James Paul 14:53, 4 February 2007 (EST)
- It does little good if not published and indicated on each article. Is it? --Seven of nine 15:37, 4 February 2007 (EST)
- I ask again, where is the licensing and copyright information published? How does an average person who happens upon an article know what the license and copyright is? This is vital, especially since some articles are copies of Wikipedia text. --Seven of nine 20:43, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Why?
Why does this site exist? Aren't you aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Religion ?
- Yes I am aware that wikipedia has a religion portal. If all there is to work on is articles about religion then the articles will be better. Now they are not great because we are new but we will improve. Thanks for bringing up that concern. --Sir James Paul 08:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)
