User talk:Shanya Almafeta

Shanya,

Users will not be able to specify which license they wish to license their contributions under. If you cannot agree to this, please let us know, and we'll deactivate your account.

Best, Larry Sanger 21:03, 24 January 2007 (CST)

As of right now, it's not clear what license, if any, submissions to this site are licensed under, as the site is currently contradicting itself. I just wanted to make it clear that my comments were not GFDL, as I am morally opposed to that license.

I just wanted to create the account as a placeholder, and I'm just hoping for the best, that the license selected will be one that doesn't go against my ethics. If this does not turn out to be true, I'll ask for my account to be deleted then. Shanya Almafeta 21:17, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Comment from mr. Mike Johnson

Shanya,

How we will license our content is an area under discussion- and we'd love work with our stakeholders on this. Feel free to post on the forums about this topic. But on the wiki itself, things become horrifically messy very quickly if we allow different users posting under their own license- trying to juggle multiple conflicting content licenses would very quickly kill the utility of a wiki. So as Larry said, our policy is that users will not be able to specify which license they wish to license their contributions under.

We'd love to have you as a contributor as you seem quite smart and motivated. But your asserted copyright on submissions conflicts with our policy (which is quite necessary). We may choose a license that's to your liking; we may not. In the meantime, would you please either remove your claim of copyright or ask us to deactivate your account?

Best wishes, --Mike Johnson 09:01, 25 January 2007 (CST)

My copyright claim is not going to be an issue, as it will not prevent my submissions from also falling under some other license -- once the site is consistenly using a single license, that is. I'm joining the discussion on the forums, so there will not be a problem.  :) Shanya Almafeta 09:51, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Shanya- that sounds great re: the forums. :) I think it'd be very helpful if you could spell out some alternatives to the GFDL and what they would mean practically. To revisit your copyright claim, though, I'm uneasy about letting two statements stand while we figure things out-- All my submissions on Citizendium are © 2007, Shanya Almafeta. and They are not released under the GFDL. For the sake of legal simplicity and following Citizendium policy, could you remove those statements? You may certainly assert a licensing preference on your user page, but not a licensing policy that differs from Citizendium's own. Thanks much- --Mike Johnson 13:36, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Fair enough.  :) Shanya Almafeta 16:29, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Help

Thanks for the offer, but, nah, not really. I'm fixing it as we speak. I still think we should refork the entire template namespace from Wikipedia, instead of doing stuff like this by hand.—Nat Krause 12:22, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Ooh, the only way I can agree with forking the template namespace is if we then proceed to delete most of the administrative templates, and many others. Many (maybe most) templates are worse than useless, clutter up articles, or are mere navel-gazing distractions. See this page, please. --Larry Sanger 12:29, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Hmmm, okay. I quite agree that templates on Wikipedia are sometimes used in ways that are distracting and counterproductive. I am certainly no fan of the userboxen, although it doesn't seem like a problem to import them, because they won't actually be in use anywhere and constables can go through and delete them at their leisure. As far as templates in articles are concerned, I have no strong feelings about how to improve the situation, so I will wait for guidance from Citizendium on how to deal with them. Off the top of my head, I have no idea what proportion of templates would have to be deleted as a result.—Nat Krause 12:35, 26 January 2007 (CST)