Wipipedia.org talk:Community Portal

From wipipedia.org
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

(License Change)
(License Change)
Line 296: Line 296:
Actually on [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Licensing_update_June_19,_2009 further reading] dual licensing is an option, NOT a requirement. You can switch ''fully'' over CC-BY-SA. and the long and the short of is CC-BY-SA IS better for reference material, easier to understand, available in multiple languages (GFDL is only available in American (legal) English), and most important complaince is exactly in line with how we do things. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 06:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually on [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Licensing_update_June_19,_2009 further reading] dual licensing is an option, NOT a requirement. You can switch ''fully'' over CC-BY-SA. and the long and the short of is CC-BY-SA IS better for reference material, easier to understand, available in multiple languages (GFDL is only available in American (legal) English), and most important complaince is exactly in line with how we do things. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 06:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A complete howto is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach here]. Thought most of the software steps don't need to be taken, because this this site does not use the standard GFDL settings --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:11, 28 June 2009




I have just seen an image from here on Wikimedia. It has the GNU Free Documentation License attributed to it (user:Balzac) even though the image doesn't say so on this site. It IS reasonable to assume that unless an image has anything specific, it falls under the site's overall licence but I am not sure this is so in every case and I feel we really must go through all the images we have on this site putting copyright notices on them ALL. There are templates to assist. We might otherwise be exposed to quite severe penalties. I can start going through them myself but unless there is some annotation, the best I could do is remove the image (perhaps first putting it in a new category "about to be deleted" for a while). --Interesdom 07:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-consensuality vs BDSM

With all the publicity around about forced-labour and forced prostitution etc. I have little doubt that some people looking for links about nonconsensual slavery will end up on this site. It occurs to me that we should have a page on it, distancing this site and BDSM generally and pointing to other sites such as the BBC (I have the link somewhere) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery etc.

What does anyone else reckon and does anyone want to start it? I'm not sure what title for the topic would be best.

--Interesdom 18:08, 11 May 2005 (BST)

Take a peek at slavery and see what you think. I don't think the site needs to take such a negative stance with something that is generally accepted (outside of BDSM anyways) to be an illegal activity. It's assumed outside the BDSM lifestyle that slavery is socially unacceptable. --Vicious Lover 05:47:11, 2005-12-26 (GMT)

Topic Labels - abbreviations or not?

Please see Talk:Safe, sane, and consensual for proposals I have in this area. --Interesdom 19:10, 28 May 2005 (BST)

Topic Labels - Singular or plural

We currently have a mixture. What is the 'correct' ruling for this? Cane, Dildo and Paddle but Blindfolds, Spreader bars and Violet wands. I can understand some things remaining 'plural' even if we have singular - Handcuffs for example because we don't use 'handcuff' as a noun. Similarly, if we go plural, some things will make easier reading in the singular, such as St Andrews cross. Nevertheless, I think it would make easier navigating and linking if we were consistent.

Again, much easier if we sort this out now rather than wait until there's many more links. Any ideas?

--Interesdom 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (BST)

I try (most of the time) to use the singular. Balzac 17:19, 20 Jun 2005 (BST)

Someone has already moved all three of your 'plural' pages to the 'singular' form. I've gone to the old redirect pages and redirected the links directly to the singular form of the word. I think that you should be bold and change any plurals that you think should be changed to the singular form. It doesn't take long to move a page from 'Blindfolds' to 'Blindfold' and it doesn't take long to hunt down the small number of pages that link to the old page. Big Birdwatching Bob 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If the plural article exists, with a redirect from the singular, sometimes the software won't let you rename the plurl to the singular unless you're an admin. Ropeuser 07:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are always redirects. I know they are a pain in the @ss, but they are very effective in keeping people from getting lost. --Vicious Lover 05:50:07, 2005-12-26 (GMT)

The pretty standard wiki convention is Article use singular when possible, as [[Paddle]]s becomes Paddles, where it is much more annoying to go the other way (i.e. [[Spreader bars|Spreader bar]] )
Where as Categories use Plural. --Roguebfl 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical flaw

I repeatedly found that the Search/Go functions did NOT contain the clickable link to start creating an article (just some coe, probably with a small but critical error in it), while that is still possible if one first creates a 'red link' in an existing article, so the actual creation routine must still be valid - probably a small task for an expert, but greatly needed! Kosmetès 19:17:50, 2005-11-20 (GMT)

Thanks for pointiong that out. We upgraded to a new version of the software recently, there must still be some bugs to iron out! Balzac 23:12, 20 November 2005 (GMT)

Fixed it. --Interesdom 18:32, 24 November 2005 (GMT)

Copying from Wikipedia

Now that this encyclopaedia is established, I really don't think there is benefit in copying vast amounts from Wikipedia, especially without any alterations to change the point-of-view, or to add anything specifically Fetish or BDSM to the content. Wikipedia will always have a greater number of readers and editors than this encyclopaedia and so will always be able to be better and more informative on the 'standard' aspects of things. I think there is far better value in letting Wikipedia handle the main topic (such as cat o'nine tails) while this encyclopaedia just handles the specific aspects of Fetish/BDSM and puts that perspective and meaning on topics. After all, if I wanted to really know the 'standard' definition and use of some word, I will use Wikipedia. I come here - and edit/contribute here - for the Fetish & BDSM context or information.

As a further note, we must ensure that we credit Wikipedia whenever we use copy from there, in accordance with the terms of its licence. See the template Wikipedia and its discussion page.

--Interesdom 18:53, 24 November 2005 (GMT)

Any chance of a bit more, well, community?

The community talk page is empty and hasn't been edited since November

I can't find any list of admins to talk to regarding general newbie questions and stuff

Come on, this could be so great a project if people pulled together a bit more.

--Mistress Selina Kyle 13:17, 24 December 2005 (GMT) (The same Mistress Selina Kyle from Wikipedia)

>>>> P.S. Clicking the link above incorrectly displays that you're still on the Wipipedia website in the address bar, not Wikipedia - I guess this is because you are using frames to hide the lfhosting address - maybe you should make it so external links open automatically in a new window to avoid opening in a frame, or use "a href="whatever" target="_top"> to make it open ignoring the frame as a proper link.

alternately you might want to set up your website DNS to point directly to lfhosting instead of simply having a "frame" page on wipipedia.org that displays the real site, lfhosting in the frame: talk to your host if you don't know how to do this :)

Yeah, I know I'm clever. Thank me later. ;) :p --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:20, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Above message also on Talk:Main Page in hopes someone'll see it! --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:22, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

User Templates/Userboxes

I'm a member of the wikipedia userbox project (SeeWikiproject Userboxes) and I think it might be a good idea to set up our own templates here, so that we can easily say what sexual fetishes etc we have, like or like to have. I've already got an idea to seperate the templates into topics, such as Alt Sex, BDSM, Bondage, Clubs, Fetishes, Toys and Wipipedia. I created a link for it, WipiProject Userboxes. ISD 07:06, 24 May 2006 (GMT)

Wikipedia article on Wipipedia proposed for deletion

Wikipedia is thinking of deleting the article for Wipipedia. The article may be deleted on 23 June 2006 if the article is not improved. Please help improve our article! ISD 17:53, 18 June 2006 (GMT)

I can't see how amending the article would help. They say it's a good article, but that this site is insufficiently notable to be worth an article. The thing to do is to get everyone we know who is a Wikipedia editor to say that it is a notable site. --Taxwoman 21:39, 18 June 2006 (BST)

The article has been kept! Thanks to everyone who helped save it. ISD 06:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic images

We have had a number of posts of pornographic images to the site and I think we need to agree a policy regarding this. I have no problem with porn as such, and this is an adult orientated site but we do not have a splash screen warning users that they may come across pornographic images. It is also a UK hosted site so comes under UK jurisdiction in terms of obscene publication laws. My feeling is we should limit any images to softcore only and there must be a clear statement about the licence of any image uploaded to protect us against any possible claims from the image owner. Opinions please. Balzac 17:29, 8 July 2006 (BST)

I'm comfortable with the images already posted. I feel that as long as the copyright is mentioned, then it is alright to post them. ISD 20:45, 8 July 2006 (BST)

Wiki for Porn

Some of you might be interested to know that I'm working on Wiki for Porn, it's a GFDL licensed Wiki, well, you guessed it, for porn. We will probably have some more explicit material on the site. And, since it's GFDL, some articles will be based on Wipipedia articles. It might even be cool to set up interwiki links on articles that are available on both wikis. Fantasia 08:24, 5 November 2006 (GMT)


Why is this word "nothing to do with BDSM" (and therefore deleted)? I thought MineShaft's final version was quite good (sorry, only admin can see deleted pages), linking as it did to three valid topics in Wipipedia and being synoptic (though perhaps the first sentence (opinion) could be removed). BDSM and fetish is, for many, largely about sensuality/sexuality and fucking is a major culmination of sexual activity. I'm all for un-deleting, at least until we can have a debate over it. --Interesdom 07:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted before. However, this is a community endeavour and if others want the article restored, please go ahead.--Taxwoman 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been restored and so far no-one has put any discussion on it about deletion. Maybe it will stay? --Interesdom 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've decided after much thought that I'm indifferent. It is probably slightly out of scope for Wipipedia, but some people would expect to find an article like it.--Taxwoman 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Re-fuck article Fuck; I will improve the fucking article. So bring it back; I promise to make it S&M sick.--MineShaft 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard core porn images

We need copyright-free porn images to decorate our articles. For instance, I want some hard core scat fisting pix (been there, done that, but forgot to take Polaroids). I do have some Polaroids of me wrecked with five needles in each tit. Forgot to sign, so I do: --MineShaft 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to ensure that nothing breaches English obscenity laws, or there might be legal action against us. I would certainly delete anything I thought might get us into trouble. --Taxwoman 10:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


I've seen a couple of pages which I think belong in the Wipipedia: or Help: namespace. I haven't moved them since I'm still a little vague about what really belongs where, and why. However, both Editing policy and Edit wars are to do with maintaining the encyclopeadia rather than being content that belongs IN it. Should they be moved, and where? --Interesdom 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved Edit wars to Wipipedia space; I'm not sure about Editing policy.--Taxwoman 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Maeoniae

I'm not even sure of the procedure to start a deletion discussion here, but the guy who started the article never really replied to my comments on Talk:Maeoniae, and I very strongly suspect the whole thing is completely bogus. AnonMoos 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is a complete hoax, but to the author's credit, it is very well done. I added the section with the link to the wikipedia deletion discussion. Personally I am happy to leave it up as a bit of fun, providing we are not trying to pass it off un challenged. But if there is a consensus to delete then I won't object. Balzac 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about it and happy to go either way. On the general issue, I could easily start a VfD page.--Taxwoman 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a specific procedure to propose deletions and, given the mess that Wikipedia is in some areas, I'm not sure that is such a bad thing on a smaller-scale encyclopedia like this: the talk pages should suffice. I've added my comments about deleting Maeoniae at Talk:Maeoniae . --Interesdom 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just think that if we want to keep it as an example of marvelous bullshit, then we should move it to "Story:Maeoniae" or whatever, and remove all pretenses and claims to encyclopedicity. I'm not sure that a brief header which vaguely casts suspicion on the article is quite adequate. AnonMoos 07:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved it to "Story:". AnonMoos 21:17, 31 March 2007 (BST)

Uploading images

I don;t know if this is the right place, but i extended the articcle about chastity belts by copying the wikipedia=page. Problem: why aren't the pics visible? Where/how to load them? Please let me know: chastityslave22@hotmail.com, so i can correct this.
{Comment by Chastityslave, 16:58, 7 May 2007}

I've had to revert you. We shouldn't just delete our article and replace it with the Wikipedia one. To upload photos, put them on your hard disk and click on "Upload file" on the list at the left of the screen.--Taxwoman 18:33, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Forced homosexuality

Much to my disappointment, I can't find any articles on forced homosexuality Faustus Tacitus 23:29, 5 June 2007 (BST)

We tend to deal only with consensual activity here.--Taxwoman 18:58, 9 June 2007 (BST)
Surely, BDSM forced homosexuality is a matter of "consensual non-consent" and the consensual aspect is not a reason for it not to appear. I would suppose that we simply haven't had anyone interested enough in the topic to even put in a few words about it. Why Faustus Tacitus hasn't done so is a puzzle to me. --Interesdom 05:50, 14 June 2007 (BST)


I think it is over time that we looked at our category structure. I have no wish to upset anyone with criticisms but I have a number of issues with the structure as it stands:

  • Some categories hardly ever stand on their own, always being with another. E.G. where there is Category:Bondage, there is almost always Category:BDSM; this is a wasteful and confusing duplication.
  • Some sub-categories don't make much sense. E.G. we have Category:BDSM equipment subset to Category:Bondage even though not all under BDSM equipment is to do with bondage.
  • Far too much is under Category:Other_Topics. 12 subcategories and 84 articles is, to me, indicative of an incorrect or incomplete structure.
  • When considering why someone might want to use categories (see below), the current structure often fails.

Points to consider:

  • This is an encyclopaedia on BDSM and fetish. We need clear topics explaining what those are (and the relationship between them, which I don't think we have) and should treat those topics as gateways, as they form natural top-level categories (but see below also). Unfortunately, while breaking down BDSM is easy, I personally am unsure how to break down Fetish, and our category on it doesn't help (Body, Clothing, Objects?).
  • We can use categories any way we like and for multiple purposes.
  • We can use namespaces and although these may seem more limiting, perhaps we should consider having some custom ones. How about one for Advice pages and another for Personal Experience pages?

There are a number of ways that categorisation might be useful:

  1. To break down the components of terminology. This may help people who find they are interested in, for example, S&M, to follow a path on that specific category. (This is the easiest structure to build.)
  2. To highlight an 'effect' path. Some want to understand about relationships, some want to know about sex, others about erotic fun etc.
  3. To guide and assist newbies (and academic researchers). This would entail enabling them to approach subjects from common starting points, such as kinky sex, bondage, dressing up, role playing etc.

I'm willing to work up some recommendations for a new category structure if there is enough interest and a consensus on the ways we want to use categories. --Interesdom 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right to suggest that the categories need an overhaul. They were never fully thought through in the first place and as you say are contredictory and confusing in places. If you are up for suggesting a new structure I would be very supportive. I think what we should do is to map out the structure first, get agreement, and only then implement it. This is something that will take quite some time to do and I do feel that we should not rush in to make wholesale changes without having time to first fully consider any consequences of the changes. Balzac 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Before mapping out the structure, we must know what the structure is trying to achieve. I mentioned (above) three ways that categorisation might be useful. I think we should try to cope with them all, even though that may mean that most topics will be under at least three categories, if not four or five. The disadvantage to this is that too complex a category structure may put people off from using it at all. --Interesdom 16:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with having an article in more than one category. It would be silly to have a dozen categories in an article, but I can't see that happening.--Taxwoman 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For what purposes do we want to use categories? --Interesdom 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To allow people to find articles related to the one that they have just seen. If they have read an article on punishment, theyy may wish to see all such articles.--Taxwoman 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to take on a re-ordering of categories under BDSM. Initially, I'm thinking of creating/moving categories to suit the entire structure. Moving articles would be the second phase. Until the entire job is completed, the wipipedia categorisation will look a bit jumbled: as case of things getting worse before they can get better. I think that BDSM should be structured as follows:


Discipline (rename Punishment to this - or include it under?)
Punishment equipment
Domination and submission (should this remain "D/s"?)
BDSM equipment
Punishment equipment
Sex toys
Shopping (also under Fetish)
History (also under Fetish)

also I'd like to bring in two new categories that cut across this hierarchy (do these belong under BDSM?):

Please provide feedback on this proposal. --Interesdom 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Rather than BDSM equipment, should we have Bondage equipment (covering gags of course) and SM equipment? I would argue that sex toys should only be on Wipipedia if they are in one of these categories. Ropeuser 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Equipemnt is a tricky area and I don't have a firm opinion. There is equipement used for bondage, for discipline, for S&M. There is also stuff used primarily to enhance D/s (though when I think about this, it is often clothing, and not necessarily fetish clothing). I wonder how often items would overlap these categories if we broke them down. A spanking bench for example, is something that can be used for restraint (bondage), used in Discipline and used as an aid in S&M. If many itmes would be in all categories there is no point splitting them that way. How about a split between toys and furniture, though? --Interesdom 14:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A split between toys and furniture is cool. I think I was wrong before; for example, dildoes are not necessarily Bondage or SM. Ropeuser 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


I had never heard of Milowiki until a Google search came up with it (ABOVE Wipipedia - what are we doing wrong?). It appears to be a replica of 838 pages from here, with the only mention of Wipipedia being on the wiki main page. (I have not put Milowiki on the List of AltSex Wikis because they don't have anything extra to offer.) I think we should make an approach to them to credit Wipipedia properly, on every topic copied, but didn't want to step on any toes if this is an arrangement with people at LFS. --Interesdom 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They are technically compliant with GFDL, which only requires acknowledgement of the contributors, not Wipipedia itself. Since they have reproduced the whole edit history of each page, they have actually done more than if they had done a cut and paste of the text and just given a link back to the article here. However, it would be courteous to make more acknowledgement. Further, they seem not to have edited since February 2007 so in many cases the articles are not the latest versions. It is thus worrying if they come above us in a Google search.--Taxwoman 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
this is the first I have heard of it. The Wiki [art appears to be an add on to the site in the same way the the wipi is an add on to LFS (but theye don't seem to be as proctive!) I have no problem with them using our stuff (teh GDFL allows them to do so) but they should creit us correctly (as we do for the wikipedia) Balzac 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a redirect to something else now. Ropeuser 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Effect of costumes on women?

I noticed this article: "It is rare to find any situation where women drink more than men, and these events tended to have sexualised themes and costumes.". A search on some of the text showed up other pages such as this and this. It's all outside my area of knowledge but does anyone want to work any it into a any article? --Interesdom 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the suggestion that women drink a lot more when costumed but men don't? Preposterous!--Taxwoman 12:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

TrbocCnava, AclioLotrl and RelbaStroc are clearly the same person. They all did the same type of silly vandalism and edited from open proxies. Encyclopedist may also be the same person.--Taxwoman 21:25, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Image problem?

Uploaded a slightly tweaked version of Image:Kajira-kef.png, and now it doesn't seem to be displaying correctly in article Kajira. The uploaded image is fine as a PNG, as far as I can tell... AnonMoos 02:40, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Tried to delete the "01:10, 4 August 2008" version of Image:Kajira-kef.png as a preliminary to fixing problems with the recent versions of this image, and couldnt... AnonMoos 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to upload images and found I can't. Ropeuser 09:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat --Roguebfl (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least Image:Kajira-kef.png seems to be properly resizing now... AnonMoos 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


I notice this wipi is lacking the Cite extension that allows <ref></ref> and <references /> you might want to consider adding it. --Roguebfl (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Citations would help readers work out exactly which source each fact comes from.
(Over at Wikipedia, the delitionists are actually attacking articles, specifically because they are badly citated. The anti-delitionists are having a hard time at defending facts, because they are effectively needing to repete the research that the original author did when creating the article under attack.) I don't expect Wipipedia to get its own delitionists, but if anyone researching sex for a degree surfed onto this website, it would be good for them to be able to use the citations inside articles to surf onto research papers and other technical sources of sexual information. Big Birdwatching Bob 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Just adding some references at the end of the article would help. Ropeuser 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really. As you have no clue which fact is being sourced that way. --Roguebfl (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
True, but it would be better than nothing and would require no software upgrade. Ropeuser 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It works as a stop gap, but if you have access to the account the wiki is running on it actually rather trivial to install extensions (think plug-in rather than update). --Roguebfl (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken image in Uniform User Template

I was surfing around the user templates, when trying to find some that I might want to put onto my user page, and found that the above template had a broken image. The original image File:Uniform.jpg was pulled off the wiki because someone withdrew permission.

As a temporary fix, I've linked the template over to the image from the School Uniform User Template but in the long term, it might be better if someone could find a new uniform picture to put into the Uniform User Template. Big Birdwatching Bob 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've altered that to the photo in Uniform fetish. Ropeuser 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

New category

Think it would be useful to have a centralized category for flags, emblems, symbols, and signals of various kinds... AnonMoos 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Ropeuser 08:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
How about Category:Symbols as the category name? --Roguebfl (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Started Category:Symbols and signals to try to be comprehensive. It might be good to copy Wikipedia article Ring of O over here... AnonMoos 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing is all signals are symbols, so it not more comprehend to add it ans a secondary word, even words and letters are symbols for sounds, and words are symbols for concepts and meanings. All the "and signals" adds is possibly of getting the category name wrong. --Roguebfl (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but I wasn't sure that people would think that things such as the Hanky Code are "symbols"... AnonMoos 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Such unsureness can be elaborated on in the Category description. --Roguebfl (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Further category note

Wonder why we have Category:Men, but no Category:Women? AnonMoos 07:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, we did have it, but the category itself was miscategorized... AnonMoos 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that what I work on category structure. --Roguebfl (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Articles Usenet and Newsgroup should probably be merged and slightly condensed, and the BDSM history aspect further expanded, but I don't really feel up to it at the moment... AnonMoos 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

License Change

With a new version of GFDL an one time option of changes it CC-BY-SA was available. Wikipedia and it's sister projects made the switch. I would recommend that we do the same.

GFDL requires a complete version of the license to be distributed with every copy. (which is ~5 page printout) CC-BY-SA only requires a notice on the license it is under. That later is much more inline with how how this wiki does things. --Roguebfl (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty big change and it might have implications for our parent site www.londonfetishscene.com. Ropeuser 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the change has to be completed by August 1st. I don't like to throw cold water on something which undeniably would have some positive effects, but for a small project like ours, with no staff and no real access to legal advice, unless we have a very enthusiastic volunteer who would be willing to take on quite a bit of work, and has been given access to tinker with the configuration parameters of the Wikimedia software (to change the messages that appear beneath edit forms, etc.), then by far the safest alternative would be simply to do nothing... AnonMoos 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually nothing need to be changed software wise. Those pages you pointed out all wiki pages, not software pages. --Roguebfl (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We're currently stretching things by not including a sentence such as "By clicking the submit button, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" -- and if we were to do something complex like change to dual licensing without indicating the licensing terms in the edit forms, then we would be stretching even further what is already probably stretched a little bit too far. The change could backfire if it's not done well, and what is really needed is someone willing to work on all the details necessary to make sure it goes well, and for that person to be fairly quickly be given access to change the software configuration parameters (reasonably in advance of the impending deadline). AnonMoos 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this change retrospective? If not, it will be very confusing knowing what's GFDL and what's CC. If it is retrospective, could someone ever complain that they had granted GFDL but were not happy about CC? (Some people are perverse.)--Speedoslover 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is retrospective, but Images are given a separate license to the main text (i.e. images are licensed individually where as the text of the wiki is licensed collectively) So the main things is to only move the wiki's license and leave the individual changes to images up to the owners. --Roguebfl (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At a glance, the effects of the GFDL and the wikipedia:Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License CC-BY-SA are similar. Has anyone looked through them to compare and summarise the differences? --Interesdom 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But the main reason I'm recommended the change is:
  1. The GFDL can require front or back cover texts, and force people to preserve invariant sections. The GFDL also requires users to "Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers" such as Wikipedia's General disclaimer for example.
  2. The GFDL absolutely requires that distribution be accompanied by the full text of the license (much like its sister for software, the GPL)
Both of which we are lax on complying with. But CC-BY-SA requirements matches our current practices --Roguebfl (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of our photos were copied from Wikimedia Commons, SMiki Commons and Latexwiki under GFDL so we'd have to change our licensing if they do. I fear though that SMiki Commons is dead. Ropeuser 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well just rembed Photo will be case by case changes --Roguebfl (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be several misconceptions here. First, the change is from GFDL to dual licensing, so that an end-user will be able to choose either GFDL or CC-SA (whichever is most convenient or preferred). The GFDL is not going away. So this means that photos at Wikimedia Commons will never have fewer licensing options than they had before. They may have additional licensing options, but the ones that existed previously will still be there.

Second, all that about GFDL "invariant sections" and "cover texts" is really irrelevant for us here. We can choose to reject contributions whose uploaders insist on "invariant sections" and/or "cover texts", and that's the end of it. No contributor can force "invariant section" or "cover text" provisos onto content generated by any other contributor.

Third, text contributions are in fact licensed by the individual editors (that's the point of including the license terms in the edit forms).

Fourth, on Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons), traditionally every page has linked to GFDL, and there also have been links to image description pages and article edit history pages -- and for a number of years, this was considered "good enough" in sastifying the GFDL requirements, as long as the GFDL-licensed information stayed on the Wiki (if the content were to be copied to another publicly-accessible website, that might be another matter).

Fifth, Smiki Commons kind of lost most of its point when the English Smiki site never gained momentum, but if you have a serious concern about Smiki Commons, then you can leave a message on the talk page of the main page of Smiki.de (i.e. http://www.smiki.de/Diskussion:Hauptseite ) and there's good chance of receiving a reply. AnonMoos 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It this forth point that key. Because LOOK at our pages... WE don't do this. --Roguebfl (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If this site is not in full technical compliance with GFDL licensing terms, then switching to dual-licensing will not by itself fix such problems (and the change to dual licensing may involve many additional issues which we are not well-equipped to handle). I recommend that Balzac add the following text to edit forms: "By submitting an edit, you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium." This will be a significant good-faith gesture towards GFDL compliance... AnonMoos 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually on further reading dual licensing is an option, NOT a requirement. You can switch fully over CC-BY-SA. and the long and the short of is CC-BY-SA IS better for reference material, easier to understand, available in multiple languages (GFDL is only available in American (legal) English), and most important complaince is exactly in line with how we do things. --Roguebfl (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A complete howto is here. Thought most of the software steps don't need to be taken, because this this site does not use the standard GFDL settings --Roguebfl (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools