I'm unfamiliar with the finer points of MediaWiki, so I was wondering if there's any RSS feeds we can add to LondonCommons.net. New articles, recent changes.. that kind of stuff.
Also.. what about dual licensing under GNU FDL and Creative Commons Attibutions-ShareAlike? They're basically the same license anyways, they just aren't compatible in the sense that we couldn't put something on here that's already on the Commons without permission from the content creator, and vice-versa because at least for now I don't know of a way to offer GNU FDL as a license option in Drupal. And I think we should be able to move stuff between both pages.
Anyways... I'm going to bed now. Great site so far.
Jeremy McNaughton June 4th 2006
- Hey Jeremy!
- You can find the RSS feeds on the left-hand side, under 'recent changes' in the 'toolbox' on the left-hand side of that. You can select RSS or Atom there.
- As for GFDL vs. Creative Commons, I have not spent too much time on the matter, but have read an article about how Richard Stallman no longer supports the Creative Commons. This is, of course, big news, and based on the idea that the Creative Commons have become confusing and some licenses are not-so-free but carry the CC name and logo. The weakness of the GFDL, of course, is really evident in a wiki format, but it is still pure.. Any thoughts on the CC vs. GNU debate?
- p.s., you can 'sign' with four tildes, it automagically turns into this:
- Tarek 05:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the directions to the RSS feeds, they're on LondonCommons.net now.
As far as the CC vs. GNU debate goes, most of what I read criticizes the CC licenses because they give the option of selecting NonCommercial, which is not completely "free according to the definition of the Free Software Foundation. Personally, I put all of my stuff under the By-ShareAlike license. But I think it's important that people get the opportunity to make the decision for themselves.
Jeremy McNaughton 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's fair enough that the Creative Commons wishes to do a particular thing, i.e., have a license forbidding commercial distribution. However, the criticism is a valid one: Equating CC with "Free" licenses (which adhere to the the four freedoms) creates confusion about what a Free license really is, and what it means. A good example of this is the very bizarre license at stock.xcng, which is both essentially useless and inhibitory to the serious adoption of the photos being licensed.
- So ultimately, I guess the question is: What does the CC SA offer that the GNU FDL 1.2 doesn't? The only thing I can think of is that 1.2 still requires that the authorship be maintained with various iterations (Section 4, part B of the FDL) of the document. However, the authors can waive this, which I think we could easily do in FreeWiki:Copyrights.
- tarek : ) Tarek 06:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note that I am a believer in all of the four freedoms. Like I said I always choose the By-ShareAlike option. I also encourage people to use that license when I talk about the CC and will inform them of the NonCommercial option, but discourage it.
- To me it's not so much about what does the CC BY-SA offer that the GNU FDL doesn't, but what the whole set of Creative Commons licenses offer compared to the GNU FDL. The major point they offer is choice, which to me is an important freedom. CC licenses give the creator the opportunity to choose NonCommercial, or even NoDerivatives. They set the terms, and are empowered to make their own decisions.
- There are also practical advantages to having the NonCommercial and NoDerivatives options. Maybe an author can convince their publisher to let them distribute with those options but not otherwise. Or perhaps a band wouldn't be allowed by their label to release under CC-BY-SA but the CC-Sampling license is ok.
- The GNU FDL in its preamble also states that it is designed to be applied to text documents of an instructional variety. This is in contrast to the CC licenses that have been designed with text, images, audio and video in mind.
- Jeremy McNaughton 10:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Links directly important enough to be highlighted more than it is?
If so, the Links section could be emphasized more somehow (a heading or something), or the handbook could be consolidated (maybe Mailman help, Speakers bureau, and Media contacts could all be moved to one sub-section). Toban 7:30, 29 June 2006 (EST)
I've added a few Categories to the wiki. To Create a new category, all you have to do is insert a category tag within an article that you wish to place in the category.
- ex: [[Category:London Commons]]
These tags alwase contain the word "Category" at the start.
- ex: [[Category:foo]]
I usually add these to the very end of the article just to keep the code nice and tidy.
To link to a category, simply add a colon (":") in front of the word "Category"
- ex: [[:Category:London Commons]]
Mike McGregor 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- My observation from the Wikipedia is that it seldom links into Categories from articles. The Categorization should be a way for people to navigate, but it runs parallel to article organization. To take the simple example of 'science', you won't see a link on the Wikipedia to [[:Category:Science]], but to [[Science]].
- Let's take a case example: A person wishes to read about London Commons. In the case where the front page links categories, the person clicks on the link, and is confronted by a series of links which are necessarily out of context, and a one-liner saying "The main article here is London commons". They are necessarily forced into a situation where they must understand Categories to proceed.
- The alternate case example is that the person clicks London Commons and gets the article. They see what the author of the article intended in context, and if they are so inclined, can always select the category from below..
- I think the latter is more intuitive and usable, and that the Category structure should be there and well-organized, but not the primary system of navigation. The Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines are a good read on this topic.
- Tarek 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just upgraded the wiki code to the latest version, which should hopefully be more robust and secure than the old version. Let me know if there are any problems. Tarek 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)