Wikitravel talk:License upgrade

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion on Shared[edit]

For users just tuning in, plenty of discussion about this process can be found at shared:Talk:License upgrade, so take a look there first. Jpatokal 10:00, 1 November 2009 (EST)


Down with main namespace pollution. This should be at Wikitravel:Licence upgrade, since it is nothing to do with travel. --inas 21:28, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Done. Jpatokal 00:22, 2 November 2009 (EST)


Would it be worthwhile to protect this page from anon edits, as we did for shared? This would discourage users from signing without logging in (which is not really helpful). --Peter Talk 03:16, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Doesn't autoconfirmed block users that has been registered for less than 30 days? --Stefan (sertmann) talk 03:31, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Bah, good point. --Peter Talk 03:33, 2 November 2009 (EST)

no 3rd section[edit]

Attempting to edit a section "Consent", I receive the following messsage under [1]:

No such section
You tried to edit a section that doesn't exist. Since there is no section 3, there's no place to save your edit.
Return to License upgrade.

--DenisYurkin 13:20, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Probably a cache issue. Purge the cache and try it again. LtPowers 14:06, 2 November 2009 (EST)

why separate pages on EN vs SHARED?[edit]

I wonder why a list at EN: is a different page than at SHARED:. Why not redirect from one to another, and merge content together? --DenisYurkin 11:04, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Good question, especially since both state that signing one released edits on all versions. I think Shared should be merged here. Jpatokal 11:42, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Not everyone has an account on both; I think it's best to maintain the two versions and let people sign wherever they have an account. LtPowers 11:59, 3 November 2009 (EST)
I would presume that everybody using Shared will also have an account on some other language version. Jpatokal 21:26, 3 November 2009 (EST)
OK, but I guess I don't see the harm. Shared is where most of the discussion took place, though. LtPowers 22:17, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Creative Commons mention[edit]

The Creative Commons blog mentions our potential upgrade in their blog: AntWeb, Fedora Project, Wikitravel → CC BY-SA 3.0 - Mike Linksvayer, November 9th, 2009. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 03:54, 10 November 2009 (EST)

XML dump[edit]

After the upgrade will we start releasing xml dumps . That is whaat I really care about. JDW 21:38, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Unfortunately that is not something we, the Wikitravel community, has control over. As the server host, that is IB's responsibility, which they are irresponsibly not fulfilling. Licensing, on the other hand, is something we have control over. --Peter Talk 23:24, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Attribution of sources[edit]

Do we have a general policy for properly attributing external sources with compatible licenses? If we do switch to cc-by-sa-3.0, this will become immediately important for Wikipedia imports. I bolted together a simple way of linking to a given WP article (Template:Wikipedia), but I wonder if it's acceptable to cite the article as a whole (including a reference to its history) rather than its individual authors? - D. Guillaime 16:32, 24 December 2009 (EST)

I believe that's the standard method. Your template looks good, although I'd add a link to the Wikipedia article's history. LtPowers 18:57, 24 December 2009 (EST):
Can do. - D. Guillaime 02:29, 25 December 2009 (EST)
Good work on that template. This has made me think though that we need some guidelines on what should and should not be copied from Wikipedia. The last thing WT needs is a flood of dry, encyclopedic content and yet more work for patrollers sifting through it. --Burmesedays 10:00, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Now what?[edit]

The article says "if there is a broad consensus in favor, the license upgrade will take place on January 1, 2010."

We appear to have a consensus and in my time zone, it is almost January 2nd. What happens now and who should do it? Pashley 09:51, 1 January 2010 (EST)

I would guess the first and most important step would be to edit LocalSettings.php, which is where the license information for the wiki is found. I don't know who can do that. LtPowers 10:22, 1 January 2010 (EST)
Actually, on second thought, the first step is removing User:Stephen sommerhalter's contribs. I'll get started on that shortly. LtPowers 10:25, 1 January 2010 (EST)
We can change the site licensing display by copying the following to MediaWiki:Copyright (after fixing the html tags with ">s"—I had to use "{s" to get around the spam filter):
Text is available under {a href=""}Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0{/a}, images are available under {a href=""}various licenses{/a}, see each image for details.
MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning will require a similar change (since we can't change $2 ourselves...).
This page should be a pretty clear indication of user consent—167 consents & 2 refusals. Of the two refusals, one was somewhat incoherent, as it explicitly gave consent under the terms at the top of the page, and the other a misguided attempt to abuse the process to achieve another aim. On the other language versions, we have a total of 53 consents and 1 confused refusal by someone who has not made any edits other than the refusal... On Shared, 27 consents and 1 refusal by the user also abusing the process here. (EST)
Also, lets please move any further discussion to wts:Talk:License upgrade, as this is a sitewide change, and Shared is where we collaborate on sitewide issues. --Peter Talk 11:05, 1 January 2010 (EST)
User:Stephen sommerhalter's contributions on the English Wikitravel have been removed and/or redacted. LtPowers 11:45, 1 January 2010 (EST)