Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, Screw with the GFDL

Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia: Screw with the GFDL

Screw with the GFDL

Wikipedia was informally released under the GFDL, though without the necessary license and copyright notice, which explicitly lists the Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and Back-Cover Texts.

In October 2001 Bomis/Wales/Sanger asserted that to use Wikipedia content on another site an ugly HTML table, modelled after the DMoz table, must be included on every page which uses Wikipedia content. And this is under the title "How to Use Wikipedia Content in Compliance with the GNU FDL", which is an utter falsehood, as the requirement is totally in conflict with both the intent and the letter of the GFDL.

As SJK wrote in talk:GNU Free Documentation License:

[The GFDL] says you can require the document to be distributed with unmodifiable appendices or front-matter sections. I don't think placing a logo on EVERY page can be considered an appendix or a front-matter section. It also seems to imply that the originally released copy of the document would include these sections, but I don't see any of these tables on www.wikipedia.com. It also requires a specific notice naming those invariant sections, which is nowhere found on Wikipedia. Finally, the point remains is that when I at least submitted content to Wikipedia, there was no mention of these optional provisions of the license being used, even though they might be allowed to be by the terms of the license. So I can't see how they can legally be imposed in relation to content authored by me without my consent. The same goes for anyone else who disagrees with the table requirement.

Note from Jimbo: I disagree very very very strongly with the characterization below, and all I can do is invite The Cunctator to stop posting his accusations here, and to post them in the appropriate place -- the mailing list. This comes very close to slander, as it accuses me of a license violation or attempt thereof. That's a very serious accusation, and I don't think you should make it so lightly. O.k.? Now come to the mailing list where we can have a civilized discussion of your objections. -- Jimbo Wales

Why is the mailing list an appropriate place? Because it's not as public? --TheCunctator

When things get heated, conducting slanging matches in public is not productive and damages the image of projects. If somebody wants to argue freely, and it is believed that taking the argument private will allow a more forthright, speedier discussion and resolution of the issues, what's the great harm? You just can't discuss *everything* with the world watching. Even Debian has a debian-private mailing list. --Robert Merkel

Oh, I agree. I was just wondering if the mailing list is more private, since so many people asserted that my calling it "semi-secret" was totally inaccurate. (See Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia.) If the mailing list provides the benefits of privacy, then it also suffers from the drawbacks of privacy. --TheCunctator

It's an open mailing list. It has a page here: Wikipedia-L, and this page has a link to the archives. It's designed for discussing issues and nothing else, unlike the wiki, where the discussions can get unfocused and lost on unvisited pages. That's the advantage of the mailing list, not privacy or semi-secracy. --Stephen Gilbert

This is ridiculous. SJK is not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith; he is simply raising some concerns. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jimbo, Larry and/or Bomis are "screw[ing] with the GFDL", or that they are not acting in good faith, but you're making it sound as if "Bomis/Wales/Sanger" are pulling some dirty, covert scheme. This is simply dishonest. Why don't you discuss and debate your concerns rather than writing slanderous essays? --Stephen Gilbert

I am not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith; I am simply raising some concerns. I am discussing and debating my concerns. And I waited several days after these concerns were first raised for Jimbo, Larry Wikipedia commentaryand/or Bomis to respond to them. They have not. A demonstration of their good faith would be to remove the table requirement text until all of the concerns raised by various people have been addressed, rather than forcing people with honest concerns to be discussing a fait accompli. --TheCunctator

This is a lie. They are responding to them; they simply have a difference of opinion. Saying that someone is "screwing with the GFDL" is a direct accusation of wrong-doing, and if you did not mean it as such, you should have considered what you were trying to communicate more carefully. The message that you are putting across is that Bomis is intentionally misusing the license. For the record, I agree with Simon on this whole issue. However, I am against removing the table until we are all agreed that it should be removed and replaced; until then, it should stay. And unless Bomis et al absolutely refuses to cooperate with the Wikipedia community in no uncertain terms, you should take your concerns to the conversation on the mailing list. Your increasingly hostile essay is doing a great deal of harm to our community. --Stephen Gilbert

Gagh, this discussion isn't doing harm, it's the thin-skinned nature of some of the people involved that risks damaging the community. There appear to be some valid concerns above, and although TheCunctator may be acting in a provocative manner, there's nothing to prevent you from ignoring it and responding to the issue at hand. -D

Every line save the last in my message was responding to the issue. As for the harm, I believe that it will cause newcommers to Wikipedia to question the motivations of the Powers-That-Be, and perhaps scare them off from participating. Were it not for that concern, I wouldn't wade into the argument. My "thin-skinned nature" has nothing to do with it, as I am not a target of these essays in any way.--Stephen Gilbert

Other than bald accusations, can you point out concrete harm my "increasingly hostile" essay is doing to the community? And when I say that those in charge have not responded to the concerns, I mean in a way other than just talk. --TheCunctator

See my answer to Dacshund, above. Perhaps that isn't concrete enough, but it is my motivation for opposing your actions here. As I said on Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, it's nothing personal against you, nor am I trying to brush off your concerns. As for a response, I don't think Jimbo should take action until the matter is hashed out through debate. --Stephen Gilbert

That's why I wish they hadn't put up the new table requirement. They already have taken action before the matter is hashed out through debate. --TheCunctator

Just a quick note on why I prefer the mailing list -- it's really more of a structural thing than anything having to do with how private or public it is. A mailing list can better sustain a back and forth discussion/negotation among several parties than a Wiki page, which just gets clutted and confusing (as this one already is, at least to me!)

The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should keep meta-discussion here to a minimum -- they will be carried out more efficiently on the mailing list. Perhaps we should make the mailing list more prominent? --Jimbo Wales --Jimbo Wales

I agree. This is the first I've heard of the list; I had only heard of the internationization list. - Eean

See also : Wikipedia commentary