Back to previous post: Go, Paris!

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: The garden this week

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

June 7, 2005

Further annals of rent-seeking behavior
Posted by Teresa at 04:23 PM *

This site, the Lockergnome Encyclopedia (via), has found an easy way to generate its content: it mirrors Wikipedia. It’s a complete and comprehensive ripoff. The big difference between the sites (aside from Lockergnome’s dishonesty, of course) is that the Lockergnome Encyclopedia’s pages are dense with paid advertising.

The operation is run by DealofDay.com, a worthless site that’s pretty much all advertising, aside from a few links to second-hand content.

I could show you “M*k* M*n*y F*st”-type websites where the product they’re selling is semi-automated systems for setting up parasitic websites. You don’t even have to know how to do your own stealing.

When I look at sites like DealofDay.com or TrafficSwarm, I feel like I’m seeing an aspect of the true face of sin, damnation, and the loss of the good of the intellect. This is language turned into spacefiller and noise, communication that passes from no one to no one, commerce that exchanges nothing of value, and business that does no work. I don’t normally use language like this when I’m not joking, but this stuff is evil.

Comments on Further annals of rent-seeking behavior:
#1 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 04:42 PM:

Just to let you know -- the Wikipedia link above is broken.

At least Lockergnome provides an attribution for their content (even though it's hard to find) -- I've seen some sites that just rip of wikipedia's content and don't provide any clue as to where it came from.

#2 ::: bryan ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 04:48 PM:

This is actually a big problem for anyone who has to do very esoteric research, as I often have to do. Wikipedia by its nature often has some content on even the most esoteric of subjects but it is often not the best resource online for those subjects, in the past 6 months I have had several occasions where a search turned up a few hundred results, 160 or so of which were wikipedia, wikipedia ripoffs, another 20 were word lists or cryptic emails from various lists, out of the last 20 most had similar information to the wikipedia of lesser quality, and in the final analysis there was only one result that had more information than the wikipedia and which gave me what I was looking for. Wikipedia does not of course break the web, but it does come seriously close to breaking search, this probably has something to do with Google offering to host it, maybe they could better filter clones if they had direct access to the source of the clone.

#3 ::: Anton P. Nym (aka Steve) ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 04:58 PM:

The Wikipedia site linked has been down for several days... perhaps the leech-sites are part of the reason. (The error page says its down for maintanance, and refers visitors to answer.com and others.)

I'm hoping they'll find the Internet version of a salt shaker soon. I liked Wikipedia.

#4 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:01 PM:

My experience is that google tends to be pretty good at removing duplicated pages; a search for a phrase from a specific wikipedia article (I used "hydrogen bonding is a relatively weak attraction compared to the covalent bonds", a phrase written by a friend of mine when he was editing the "Water (molecule)" page a few years back and which seems to have survived unscathed since then) gives me less than two pages of results unless I click the "include omitted results" link. If you don't want wikipedia results, '-wikipedia' gets rid of almost all of them.

Out of interest here is a page that uses wikipedia content without attribution. There are many of them around -- just find a likely looking phrase and search for it with '-wikipedia' in the search box.

#5 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:06 PM:

Wikipedia ought to be able to claim a compilation copyright and shake off these leeches.

#6 ::: Beth ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:18 PM:

Interesting. I checked a bit further into that Dog Lover's site Jules mentioned. It turns out that their "Terms of Use" page says they've licensed the contents from Wikipedia. Perhaps they are legit?

#7 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:23 PM:

Wikipedia is "licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License." I'm sure that entails limitations as to how Wikipedia content may be used, but I doubt it's compatible with an old-fashioned "compilation copyright."

Wikipedia is an experiment. An interesting, and ongoing, one. It seems to me that a lot of the fussing over how it should do this or be that misses this essential point.

#8 ::: Rich McAllister ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:24 PM:

I'll quibble with calling this "rent-seeking" (on which Wikipedia has a fine article.) They're not trying to get a legal monopoly on something and make money by charging for access; they're just trying to pass off something as theirs when it isn't -- or at least isn't theirs alone. I don't know whether the GNU Free Documentation License permits Lockergnome's use or not. I think it's fair to call it plagiarism even if it's not copyright infringement. Is there a special term for plagiarism purely for monetary profit, as opposed to plagiarism for resume padding?

#9 ::: Anton P. Nym (aka Steve) ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:29 PM:

TNH: Can they? Wikipedia's open source for their engine and their content; anybody can be an "editor" or "contributor", so I don't think they can claim any kind of exclusivity. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding copyright law. (Does anybody really understand it, including the courts?)

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd want them to be able to claim copyright on the content as it'd strengthen the Disney et al claims on public domain material too.

Is there something in their "Terms of Use" that restricts access to the site to non-commercial applications perhaps? Then we can get away from the sticky copyright implications and yet still shed the leeches.

#10 ::: BobD ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:42 PM:

I think you've got it wrong about DealofDay.com. From allwhois, I show the domain registered since 1999 and a track record of being a bargain-hunter site. Apart from some articles on the site, it all appears to be original content.

#11 ::: Daniel Martin ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:45 PM:

The thing is, sites like this are not so much a bug of wikipedia, but rather a deliberate feature, or at least a necessary consequence of other desireable features. (Actually, the "Lockergnome Encyclopedia" seems to be more in compliance with the license than dogluvers.com, since I'm not sure a linked attribution notice is sufficient)

Wikipedia wants mirrors to exist. They also want derived content to exist, both on the wikipedia site and on anyone else's site. They want people to be able to make a reasonable amount of money for their efforts that happen to involve wikipedia content. They want fly-by-night publishers to publish paper versions of wikipedia. They want people to create things like this, a reformatting of wikipedia so that it fits on a PDA. (add one "Don't Panic" sticker, and you've got science fiction becoming reality)

"Non-profit only" clauses have been debated in the free software community before, and generally rejected as a bad idea about 10 years ago. (Though RMS led the pack on this, as the GPL very explicitly allows for people making money from covered software) Stupid stuff like this is an unfortunately necessary consequence of allowing the desired uses. I don't think most wikipedia contributors care about sites like this.

#12 ::: Jonathan Vos Post ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:46 PM:

Dang! Now I can't show you my first Wikipedia page: "superhelix."

#13 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 05:49 PM:

Wikipedia's license (the GNU Free Documentation License) clearly requires you to retain their subtitle ("From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia") in reproduced sites -- both sites mentioned here do not do this. They certainly are not living up to the requirements for distributing modified versions.

It might be that this is due to a misunderstanding, rather than evil intentions.

#14 ::: Matt Austern ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 06:38 PM:

I'm sure you thought about whether or not to provide hyperlinks to these kinds of sites. I'm curious what went into your decision to do it.

#15 ::: Randolph Fritz ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 06:49 PM:

Wikipedia is GPL, and I don't think that allows for compilation copyright, though the Wikipedia copyright holders could at least demand the rip-off sites maintain their subtitle. I think the Wikipedia compilers have shot themselves in the foot by using the GPL, and regardless of how "evil" the rip-off sites are--and I do not love them--one can hardly blame them for using material to which they have been granted rights. The GPL wasn't written for this situation, and I would like to see work put in on a better license for on-line libre reference works. I would also like to see another problem of Wikipedia licensing addressed; it is apparently impossible to visual materials from the past 150 years or so except for the very limited purposes covered by fair use, since the copyright holders usually want to maintain some rights in such works. This makes it impossible for Wikipedia to include useful information about architecture more recent than about 150 years ago; GPL rights for anything more than simple, rough diagrams are probably impossible to obtain in such situations.

#16 ::: Strangel ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 06:57 PM:

What exactly is the problem with DealofDay.com and the like? If you're right, if it's "communication that passes from no one to no one, commerce that exchanges nothing of value, and business that does no work" then these sites are of no use to anyone. If they are getting use and traffic, then someone is obviously getting some value out of them.

I'm a bit confused about the outrage...

#17 ::: Lenny Bailes ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 07:02 PM:

FWIW: a commenter on Harlan Ellison's message board touched off a flurry of anti-Wikipedia comments, last week by referencing a biography of Harlan that's currently posted there. (No permalinks. To read the thread in sequence, you need to scroll back about 100 to 125 messages, using the link at the bottom of the page.)

#18 ::: Daniel Martin ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 07:03 PM:
Wikipedia is GPL, and I don't think that allows for compilation copyright, though the Wikipedia copyright holders could at least demand the rip-off sites maintain their subtitle.
No it's not. Wikipedia is licensed under the Gnu Free Documentation license, (commonly "GFDL"), not the Gnu General Public License (commonly "GPL"). The two licenses are very different in some important respects. (which I won't go into here, but I'm sure slashdot will have a story on the GPL, GFDL, and Debian in the next few days)

Also, even when assembling a work out of GPL components, one is allowed to assert one's own compilation copyright on the whole compilation. (Some now-defunct commercial linux distributions relied on this, and it was accepted usage)

Yes, on further checking these sites aren't doing anything even vaguely like living up to the requirements for derived versions (I hadn't considered that they might be trying for the "verbatim" license).

#19 ::: Graydon ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 07:14 PM:

Strangel --

It's the theft of effort. (And it is theft; the GNU Free Documentation License isn't being respected.)

So there's this huge co-operative project to make information useful, by putting it in a common structure and connecting it up, to which many people have devoted time, effort, and scholarship.

That the best thing some people can think of to do with it is to see if they can steal its use and name and fame effectively enough to dominate search engine rankings so they can make money from advertisers (who are themselves being half-defrauded, since they're being rented stolen goods) does not recommend those persons as much other than potential mulch.

#20 ::: Andrew Gray ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 07:30 PM:

Reading back up a little, Wikipedia was down last night and then later on (effectively most of the 7th, this side of the water); the servers were being physically moved. Don't think the leeches have anything to do with it; all they do is lift a database dump every now and again.

Somewhere buried deep in Wikipedia is a list of all known clone sites, and some notes on how many of them live up to the full licensing requirements (very few, IIRC, but about half have a good-enough level of attribution) (Almost all of these are like the examples linked; they're static lifts. I can only think of one sizable project that actively developed material from Wikipedia)

I've heard there's some work going in to fixing the problem of searches turning up a hundred cloned copies of the same article, but I don't know what it's like. The problem is aggravated by the fact that a simple does-X-match-Y check won't always work, since the pages may well be lifted from subtly different versions of the same original article.

It really does need something, though; Wikipedia generally has decent content, but it is having the unfortunate effect of swamping a lot of obscure topics in search engines - and when the original article is wrong, which is generally more likely for obscure topics, a hundred iterations of it give a false impression of consensus accuracy. (This often backfires further; I've seen Wikipedia users cite cloned copies of the article under dispute in defence of a point, because of the license information being missed)

#21 ::: betsy ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 08:42 PM:

oy. it took me much longer than it should have for me to figure out why teresa was offering to send us to monkey fist websites.

#22 ::: Randolph Fritz ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 09:21 PM:

Daniel--yes, it is the GFDL. One could argue that Lockergnome's site falls under the GFDL's definition of an "aggregate":

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

Lockergnome does, in fact, include on every page the following statement, "This document is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license" and a link to the GFDL and Wikipedia. It looks to me they may actually comply with the letter of the GFDL or at least could do so with relatively little effort. Reprinting freely-available material is an old practice in publishing. Lockergnome looks to me sleazy but I am unable to see how they are in the wrong here.

I generally object to googlespamming, and I agree with Andrew Gray entirely; there are enormous problems checking Wikipedia's sources, and because it is widely mirrored its errors themselves become easily-found sources of errors. It is all very postmodern, and the stuff of nightmares for serious researchers.

It still seems to me that the licensing and distribution of co-operatively produced content has issues that deserve attention. If what Lockergnome is doing is "wrong"--can that be codified that in a future Wikipedia license (assuming, of course, that anyone is willing to undertake the work of writing the license and persuading Wikipedia to adopt such a thing)? Can errors in Wikipedia be kept from drowning out valid information from less widely distributed sources? How can a libre system address the design arts?

#23 ::: Avram ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 09:51 PM:

A scenario I suggested to Teresa just last week went something like this:

Soon, it will be common for large SF convetions to have wireless Internet covering all of the convention grounds, or at least all of the panel rooms. Some panel will break out in argument, with panelists looking up evidence on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, audience members will be editing Wikipedia on the fly, hoping to get in right before one panelist or another looks something up, and edit it out from under them.

#24 ::: Jonathan Vos Post ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 10:01 PM:

Avram:

One of the first modern science fiction stories about computer versus human chess champtionships (title, anyone?) had the human win a tight match -- because the computer's database had classic chess anlyses from books by grandmasters, and this human had put in a false analysis on purpose.

At the 1984 U.S. Chess Open there were picketers, with signs reading "computer go home" and "Human da. Computer, nyet" and the like.

#25 ::: adamsj ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 10:04 PM:

For what it's worth, one of the brightest and most ethical people I know in the tech industry thinks highly of Lockergnome.

Avram--they're going to have to have static copies available, made a few days (or weeks, or monts) previous to the con.

My biggest problem with this is that there's no mechanism for people reading the Wikipedia pages to do edits back into Wikipedia. ("Of course," says the guy who's been editing pages there, "I think Wikipedia will be a failed experiment in the end.")

#26 ::: adamsj ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 10:10 PM:

There's a nice story in a mid-nineties Analog involving aliens who put false information into scientific papers to prevent Earth from getting to interstellar travel before they can come do whatever awful thing they plan to do to us. It's a heck of a good story--I wish I could think of its title. It's in an issue that has either Jeffrey Kooistra (I liked his stories--good writing, much promise--where'd he go?) or the serialization of Ben Bova's The Precipice. Or both. I think.

#27 ::: Clark E Myers ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 11:23 PM:

One of the first modern science fiction stories about computer versus human chess champtionships (title, anyone?)

Might be 64 Square Madhouse in which Willie Angler has fans backing up his analysis - Fritz Leiber - best collection A Pail of Air

#28 ::: Clark E Myers ::: (view all by) ::: June 07, 2005, 11:31 PM:

... Fritz Leiber wrestled with the implications of a computer some day beating humans at chess. In "The 64-Square Madhouse,"2 Leiber offers a fascinatingly ...
Writing the Future: Computers in Science Fiction Kirk L. Kroeker & Jonathan Vos Post

#29 ::: JonathanMoeller ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 01:28 AM:

Well, as Screwtape himself said, Noise is the great enemy of both Silence and Music.

Though I dunno if you could apply Silence to a website (silence in the sense of saying/writing nothing), as it seems to defeat the entire purpose of having a website.

#30 ::: David Goldfarb ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 03:23 AM:

Jonathan Vos Post is definitely thinking of "The 64-Square Madhouse". He's misremembering several details: it wasn't a match, it was a single game in a tournament; also, the human didn't introduce the bad data into the machine's opening book -- the machine was using a book that had been published, and in which the human had discovered an error.

(The human in question was named "Willie Angler", a very thinly disguised Bobby Fischer; in fact, all of the players in the tournament were top players from circa 1961 -- most of them with names that make "Angler" for "Fischer" look like a masterpiece of subtlety. Mikhail Botvinnik was represented by Mikhail Votbinnik, frex.)

#31 ::: cd ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 03:48 AM:

Jonathan Moeller: Screwtape wasn't up on the musical niches of today - noise is music, these days (well, a genre of, and it's usually somewhat structured, but...).

#32 ::: Jonathan Vos Post ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 04:27 AM:

Clark E. Myers, David Goldfarb:

You're both right. So are those "Kirk L. Kroeker & Jonathan Vos Post" guys. But how did Kirk get top billing, when more than half the words in that article were by me? Oh, you say that he worked on staff of IEEE Computer and I was merely the paid author? Right. And the next time I drop Fritz Leiber's name, as in saying that my Dad published him, or that I wrote the blurb for his wife's book of poems, just remind me that my memory has more holes in it than it takes to fill the Albert Hall. Just having one of those "senior moments." Checkmate!

#33 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 08:54 AM:

Lockergnome does, in fact, include on every page the following statement, "This document is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license" and a link to the GFDL and Wikipedia. It looks to me they may actually comply with the letter of the GFDL or at least could do so with relatively little effort.

The GFDL requires you to keep the author attribution on the title page of the document intact (or at least five of the authors, if multiple authors are listed). According to Wikipedia's interpretation, this is the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" section of the document, and that's certainly a reasonable interpretation as far as I can see. Lockergnome does not leave this section of the page in, so I suspect they are not complying with the letter of the GFDL.

#34 ::: TJIC ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 08:59 AM:

I think that there's a framing problem here:

There is nothing wrong with other sites copying Wikipedia information (and possibly modifying it). The freedom for others to do so was part of the expectation that I (and many others, I would assert) had when we wrote or editted wikipedia articles.

If I or you or your mom copies Wikipedia, changes every proper name to be a link to a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, and then never tells google about it, and has no incoming links, no harm is done.

Framed this way, it becomes obvious that the problem is that google is giving the leach sites an overly high ranking. The issue is technological, not social, and does not scream out for a sociological / legal fix (using government to enforce laws against compilation, etc.). Google needs to fix a bug in their rankings algorithm, and/or developers need to make a plugin to Firefox, etc., that hide the undesired rankings when a google search is done.

My 2 cents.

#35 ::: TomB ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 11:26 AM:

Is there a special term for plagiarism purely for monetary profit, as opposed to plagiarism for resume padding?

Conversion? From the wikipedia article, I'm not sure, but that was the term used in a case where some of my dad's drawings were appropriated.

#36 ::: Andrew Gray ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 11:54 AM:

Ah, here it is: List of all Wikipedia mirrors. Lockergnome seems to itself be lifted from another mirror, Smartpedia, which put the site up after doing a search-and-replace for all incidences of the word "Wikipedia" and renaming them, so you get weirdness like this...

#37 ::: James ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 12:02 PM:

Conversion is the civil law equivalent of criminal law theft of personal property, and the personal property equivalent of real property "trespassing". Like trespassing, it's a common law "intentional tort".

Violation of intellectual property (which is a statutory creation) isn't conversion, since intellectual property isn't personal property, but a different set of statutory categories all of their own.

However, the general term "conversion to one's own use" might apply as long as it's not understood in its strict legal sense. However, it lacks the sense in conversion of exclusive control passing from one person to another.

In this case, where the version of copyleft in place may allow some of the less savoury uses, the status is even vaguer.

#39 ::: Tom Whitmore ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 01:02 PM:

I think that might have been a real comment, Vassilissa. Commercially oriented, but actually relevant. I don't expect T will join, however....

#40 ::: JonathanMoeller ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 02:31 PM:

cd:

I'd bet my bottom dollar (well, actually, my only dollar) that if you trace the finances of popular-music labels today, you'll find that a "Mr. Screwtape" is a major investor in most.

#41 ::: Rich McAllister ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 04:32 PM:

Avram : Soon, it will be common for large SF convetions to have wireless Internet covering all of the convention grounds, or at least all of the panel rooms. Some panel will break out in argument, with panelists looking up evidence on Wikipedia.

During a panel I was moderating at Wiscon a few days ago Allen Baum looked up the exact reference we needed on his handheld. So this part has already happened.

Meanwhile, audience members will be editing Wikipedia on the fly, hoping to get in right before one panelist or another looks something up, and edit it out from under them.

I think this is amenable to a technofix; Wikipedia could warn you that the article you're viewing has undergone a remarkably large amount of change recently and offer to show you a more stable past version. Someday with high quality displays maybe the page can be rendered as if the ink were still wet...

#42 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 06:58 PM:

Just ten hours ago, I wrote:

The GFDL requires you to keep the author attribution on the title page of the document intact (or at least five of the authors, if multiple authors are listed). According to Wikipedia's interpretation, this is the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" section of the document, and that's certainly a reasonable interpretation as far as I can see. Lockergnome does not leave this section of the page in, so I suspect they are not complying with the letter of the GFDL.

Is somebody from Lockergnome reading this? Because now, they've got the Wikipedia attribution on every page. They certainly didn't when I wrote that, because I visited their site to make sure they didn't.

#43 ::: Liz Lawley ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 08:09 PM:

The lockergnome site is run by Chris Pirillo, a well-known web geek who used to be on TechTV, and whom I've met several times. He's a good and ethical guy, and I suspect that if anybody brought this thread to his attention (which I will probably do), he would be happy to explain why he's using Wikipedia content, and to make any changes necessary to bring the site in line with the licensing used.

Most of Lockernome (main page here) is original content, and Chris is one of the most prolific tech writers I know. His high page rank is not a sociological snafu, but a result of his consistently good tech articles. He's far from a content leech, and I doubt whether many people go to his site for the encyclopedia.

However, the outrage about re-use of Wikipedia material seems misplaced. The whole *point* of Wikipedia was to make the information free and openly available. The "copyright that compilation" approach is clearly antithetical to their mission.

#44 ::: Liz Lawley ::: (view all by) ::: June 08, 2005, 09:57 PM:

I took at look at the Verbatim Copying section of the Wikipedia copyright/licensing guidelines, and it seems clear that Chris is well within those guidelines.

The fact that the Wikipedia was down for a period during this discussion is also a pretty good reason for people to mirror relevant content...

#45 ::: pericat no really it's spam ::: (view all by) ::: June 09, 2005, 02:32 AM:

I think that might have been a real comment, Vassilissa. Commercially oriented, but actually relevant.

It isn't a 'real' comment, or not for any value of 'real' I cherish. Google reports that same comment left in other comment threads on other sites in the last couple of weeks. TopsyBlogsyTom may be spamming by hand, but spamming he is.

#46 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: June 09, 2005, 04:10 AM:

Liz: the major problem was that (when Teresa posted) the content wasn't clearly marked as being from wikipedia. It seems this has been rectified already though.

#47 ::: cd ::: (view all by) ::: June 09, 2005, 04:23 PM:

Jonathan Moeller: Were I feeling snarky, I would say something along the lines of noise music being describable by many terms, but 'popular' wouldn't be one of them. Anyway, I know what you mean. (And it should be noted that a pretty large proportion of labels in the smaller genres seem to be run by musicians themselves. At least, I should add, in the genres I spend most of my time listening to.)

#48 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: June 09, 2005, 07:27 PM:

> Meanwhile, audience members will be editing
> Wikipedia on the fly, hoping to get in right
> before one panelist or another looks something
> up, and edit it out from under them.

When you go to a wikipedia entry, towards the top of the page, click on the tab labeled
"history"
It will show you a blow-by-blow history of all
edits that have been done on that page.
If it's a politically charged topic, you can
find great entertainment clicking on the
"talk" or "discussion"
tab which is right next to "history".

This will take you to the page that the editors
working on the article use to curse at each
other.

Yes I edit wikipedia.
Google any hot button topic and the wikipedia
entry usually comes up near the top.
So, I go in and give articles the
progressive side of things.

#49 ::: Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: June 09, 2005, 07:31 PM:

Oh, what exactly is the concern about GPL again?
I can't quite follow it.
pretty much anyone can use GPL works.
Verbatim copying is completely fine.
Derivative works are copacetic as long
as the finished product is ALSO licenesed
GPL.

I wrote a perl training manual and licensed
the whole works GNU-FDL, which documentation
version of GPL.

you can read it here.

#50 ::: Lisa Spangenberg ::: (view all by) ::: June 10, 2005, 10:49 PM:

Speaking of "Rent seeking behavior":

I Googled "Lisa Spangenberg" looking for something I'd done years ago, and instead, I found this

It's a page that, as far as I can see, exists to sell audio files, and my name is there in a fragment of text taken from two Making Light Open Thread comment posts.

Comments posted to Making Light by Kate: posted 03.02.05 on entry Open Thread 37: Lisa Spangenberg: that recipe freezes well, but how does it reheat? ... we do our scheduled audiobook of Peter's THE INNKEEPER'S SONG ... Bookish Valium: Donald Westlake's Dortmunder books. Comic caper novels ... on entry Open thread 29: JM Kagan: Malas? ...

You'll note it's combined text from here and here with reference to Donald Westlake and a comment by JM Kagan.

Weird.

#51 ::: Lucy Kemnitzer ::: (view all by) ::: July 30, 2005, 04:58 PM:

Well, well, comment spam, who'd a thunk it?

Choose:
Smaller type (our default)
Larger type
Even larger type, with serifs

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.