Category talk:Wikimedia open content projects

Aren't all Wikimedia projects "open content"?

Sure, fair use exists, but I think all Wikimedia projects fall in this category in general. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just follow what is in the main page of the wiki, which distinguishes projects that are focusing content, and that that are "backstage".

Also the term "project" alone is used for various things in each wiki; they are in fact local portals for specific activities on the wiki project; sometimes coordinated across projects.

given what is already categorized in the Projects category, we have ueful distinctions between those content projects and the others

verdy_p (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Verdy p: I don't think our category needs to distinguish between backstage and content projects. Should Incubator and Wikidata be backstage? PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17: No, these two aren't backstage (but Meta-Wiki itself is backstage; like also MediaWiki-Wiki; and the Foundation wiki and the Techlabs wiki). See the home page of MetaWiki where these 12 projects are listed in the "content" category, and other projects are in the "backstage" category.

May be you are confused because I added the word "open" instead of keeping only "content".

If you don't agree with it, you should discuss about the content of the template used on the home page since long ! I did not invent this scheme... verdy_p (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean content projects that are open? If Wikispecies or Wikibooks closed (not that I would want it to happen or think it is realistic), would they still be considered an open content project? Or do you mean open content, a superset of free content? Sorry, I'm just not sure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Either: could be open (to the general public) as opposed to closed (the Foundation site for example; no open access to it to everyone)

Could be open content (superset of free content), however the term "free" is often confused in terms of price. Also we have open data (not free data)

I did not choose the term; it is already used in various places describing the wiki (even if many wikis still use the term "free"; in fact most contents do not use this term in their licences (we no longer support GFDL, but Creative Commons by default, even if Commons still accepts GNU licences for files: "public domain" is also not as free as we think, only free by price; they are also not necesarily "open"; because public domain is frequently appropriated and is not valid internationally, and it can come back to proprietary as it hapenned in Russia and USA).

Personnely I prefer the term "open", but it is not really a superset of "free" (as a beer or as in freedom/liberty). I admit this is a matter of opinion.

Anyway the category name is not alone: there's also the description text of the category. verdy_p (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree this category is odd, the name Category:Wikimedia projects was enough. Nemo 09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)