|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | A '''GFDL corpus access provider''' or '''GFDLcap''' is a [[web service]] or other [[net media]], or potentially even [[email]] or [[CD-ROM]] distributor, that provides access to a large portion of the [[GFDL corpus]] [[open content]].
| + | <center>[[image:Hello.jpg]] |
| | | | |
| − | == current options ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | The best known of these is [[Wikipedia]]. There is often some confusion between that project and the corpus. ''This confusion is not only tolerated but created by its [[sysop power structure]], many of whom are implicated in [[sysop vandalism]]. Wikipedia likes to pretend it is the only such access provider.''
| + | <big>'''Anarchy Rules!!!'''</big> |
| | | | |
| − | [[Wikinfo]] and [[Anarchopedia:Itself]] are lesser known '''access provider'''s, in stricter compliance with the GFDL, to the degree that is possible given that it relies on [[XML export]] by [[Wikipedia]] for most content.
| + | --[[User:Willy on Wheels|Willy on Wheels]] 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC))</center> |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Wikinfo]] takes a [[sympathetic point of view]], refusing to mix critical and sympathetic views in an article. ''This is a direct challenge to the [[neutral point of view]] [[wiki ideology]] that is promoted by Wikipedia, since that view gives maximum power to those who claim to be 'neutral' but are in a position of technologically granted power.''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Anarchopedia:Itself|Here at Anarchopedia]] [[Anarchopedia:We|we - whoever that is]] keep the critical and sympathetic views together but do not put a [[sysop power structure]] in charge of editorial decisions like [[deletion policy]] or who is a [[troll]] and what [[alleged or collective identity]] they do and do not share. ''See [[Anarchopedia:troll IP]], [[Anarchopedia:troll ID]] and [[Anarchopedia:faction]] and [[Anarchopedia:tendency]] for more on these questions and how we resolve Wikipedia's many authority and hierarchy problems in a more democratic way.''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Other corpus access providers focus on particular subsets of the material, and do not have facilities to automatically import via the Wikipedia interface:
| + | |
| − | *[[Consumerpedia]]
| + | |
| − | *[[Disinfopedia]]
| + | |
| − | *[[Consumerium]]
| + | |
| − | *[[Metaweb]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In addition, there are many [[Wikipedia mirror]]s that do not provide edit access but read-only access. These might or might not be considered to be true '''access providers''' but in any case some of them, like [[NationMaster]] have added a lot of information that may be of interest for some purposes.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == challenges ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are several challenges common to all '''GFDL corpus access provider'''s:
| + | |
| − | *agreeing on a [[wikitext standard]] and priorities to guide [[wiki code]] changes to accomodate it; ''[[GetWiki]] and [[MediaWiki]] are so far the only options.''
| + | |
| − | *meeting the rigid terms of the [[GFDL]] itself, especially with regard to [[attribution]] and [[source access]], i.e. to the original text written in the [[wikitext standard]], not the [[HTML]] form into which it is rendered for [[printable page|print]]s or presentation.
| + | |
| − | ::lack of [[interwiki identity standard]] makes attribution quite unreliable | + | |
| − | ::having one [[standard wiki URI]] from which to retrieve the source, that can be easily predicted and made permanent
| + | |
| − | ::[[interwiki link standard]]s so that differently-purposed or POV'd [[large public wiki]]s can link to each other
| + | |
| − | *resolving [[point of view]] differences, to which there are several approaches:
| + | |
| − | ::[[neutral point of view]] tries to do this always within one article, attributing disputed claims, but of course, a [[systemic bias]] then applies
| + | |
| − | ::[[multiple point of view]] tries to separate views into articles of their own, e.g. as at [[Metaweb]] or via the "faction" system proposed at some wikis
| + | |
| − | ::[[sympathetic point of view]] tries to separate positive and negative views, whatever that means
| + | |
| − | *dealing with [[server load]], especially for [[full text search]]
| + | |
| − | *inadequate PHP-based software like [[MediaWiki]] and [[GetWiki]] - a concern [[Metaweb]]'s supporters are paying particular attention to
| + | |
| − | *compiling and [[collaborative filter]]ing to present adapted articles - a concern [[Consumerium]] takes very seriously
| + | |
| − | *[[governance]] problems in deal with a very large group of editors, ''see [[rule of 150]] for one possible limit to this''
| + | |
| − | *Tracking with change to the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole, so that the best material can be copied into those services interested in presenting it to their users.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == future integration ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are proposals extant to track all changes to the GFDL corpus in any of the known '''access providers''', and perhaps simplify signup for [[jabber]] or other services that could serve as basis for [[interwiki identity standard]]. Such proposals are simplified by an [[interwiki link standard]] and [[standard wiki URI]], though they are not strictly required simply for tracking.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are also proposals to work with [[FSF]] and [[Creative Commons]] much more closely to avoid abuses of the [[GFDL]]'s terms and spirit.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == External links ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * [http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/announcement.html Richard Stallman's initial plans for the GFDL corpus]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.arena.org.ar/gnupedia-historia.html History of the first GFDLcap, GNUpedia] (Spanish - [http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arena.org.ar%2Fgnupedia-historia.html+&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools english translation])
| + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − | Probably the best reference on this question is [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/GFDL_corpus_access_provider en: CreativeCommons: GFDL corpus access provider]] since [[Creative Commons]] and their [[Common Content]] initiative and [[CC-by-sa]] license provide a clear alternative to [[GFDL]] and they have a strong motive to work closely with all such access providers to achieve [[dual license]]d GFDL and [[CC-by-sa content]].
| + | |
