WordPress MU

Martin proposed a good idea when he suggested people copy helpful posts from here on the forum to the WordPress MU Codex. The copied text should link back to the original source as credit or attribution.

theapparatus replied that permission to copy should be sought first.

What do you think?

I'm perfectly fine with any of the Codex maintainers copying anything useful I write here into the Codex. Consider it GPLed in fact.

Forums vs Codex, what does it matter? The Codex will be easier to search though and organised in a better way than a rambling thread with a golden nugget hidden in the second last post.

If anyone has a major problem with Martin's idea let them speak up now. If everyone objects, then Martin, feel free to copy my forum posts and welcome to them.

I encourage everyone to liberally reuse content from the forum and paste it into Codex

Let's always ask first before copying other people's works though. :)

Exactly. I knew this would be on people's minds. That's why I said it.
There is
1) such a lot of information in these forums that is
2) duplicated and we have
3) no email notifications in the forum.

That asking and waiting for response is just not going to be effective.

So I propose:
1) Yes, give credit by referencing the originating documents
2) Link the forums back to the wiki page where the document is being developed.

Some projects don't use forums at all, because forums don't compost old content. Instead, the old, outdated content hangs around like old plastic bags, useless pollution that 1) clouds our mind and 2) actually costing our planet datacenter processing power when people try to find the answers to the same problems.

Let us at least grow ourselves an ecosystem of documentation, one that adjusts along with our changing needs. Save your mind. Save the planet. Use the wiki.

No problem here.

I don't think many people would have a problem with that and asking permission would be a logistical nightmare.

I think if it is posted to an open source forum, then it's fair game to be used in that same system. If someone collected everything here and wrote a book for sale, then that may be different...even though I don't think there would be any "legal" recourse for doing that.

Of course linking back to provide credit is a good idea.

Steve

If we are really behind using the wiki then we need to question how the community can become aware of the wiki for their discussions.

"I think if it is posted to an open source forum, then it's fair game to be used in that same system."

Technically, that is not correct, just to bring up the point.

Regardless of what the forum is for or about, the original posting author retains their rights to their creative works.

If transferring that work to another medium, in this case a wiki/codex/whatever, you are technically obligated to secure the original author's permission prior to.

Granted, most people won't care, but the above is the bottom line.

Regardless of what the forum is for or about, the original posting author retains their rights to their creative works.

Well, since you want to be "technical" ;-), most of the help here is exactly that...factual answers to technical questions...there is very little "creative" or even "unique" about it.

Of course, if someone doesn't want their "creative" stuff posted to the wiki, they could simply say so and I'm sure their objections would be honored.

Following this view, I guess Google had better rethink their practice of caching all those webpages ;-).

Steve

Hey, just pointing it out that there may be someone that won't approve of it. If so, cross it when it comes to it.

But, it's something that should be considered.

If you really want to get into it, your google example is not correct. As you can opt out of it at any time through your use of the robots directives, which google obeys.

So, by not exercising your right to tell them not to cache it, you're telling them it's OK to do so.

Nice try though.

If you really want to get into it, your google example is not correct. As you can opt out of it at any time through your use of the robots directives, which google obeys.

So, by not exercising your right to tell them not to cache it, you're telling them it's OK to do so.

Okay...let's use your example. Now...go back and read this thread and think about what you just wrote, that I copied above, and see if you can see how this may apply here...it's not really that difficult a concept ;-)

Steve

Steve

I certainly see how it applies, thank you very much.

If someone doesn't want their posts transferred to a different medium, it's their right. And you can't take that away.

So, you are right, it's not that difficult of a concept. So with all due respect, why don't you get it?

It may be a pain in the ass, but at least asking in general if someone has a problem with it, or putting up a notice, or something should be done.

Just discussing it isn't quite enough.

Yea, I'm sure you see ;-)

Steve

Yes, I do. But obviously I'm typing in English and you're reading in French or something.

A person's post is their intellectual property. Period. It doesn't matter if it's in support of something, or whatever.

You said google better rethink their strategy, but yet you can opt out of it.

If you link back to posts, I'm sure you probably won't piss anyone off. But cutting and pasting is a completely different ballgame, and unless you would like to take the full legal responsibility off of the shoulders of our hosts here, you need to secure someones permission before transferring it to another medium. It's that simple.

Just because it's on a forum, posted in public, doesn't mean it that person gave up their rights to their own material.

If using your original thinking, someone could grab your rss feed from your site, post it on their own site, and provide a simple link back to it. Is that not still violating your rights? But hey, they linked back to it, and you posted it on the internet, so it's a free for all right?

No, it's not.

So Cleaver was on the right track when suggesting that permission be asked. Whether it's a pain in the ass or not, it's the right thing to do.

When in doubt, do what's right.

Yes, I do. But obviously I'm typing in English...

Oh, is that what it is? I thought, as usual, you were typing in BS...my bad ;-)

I'm a little slow...you need to give me some warning if you're going to switch languages on me ;-)

Steve

Why not just post somewhere that starting now, as a condition of posting on the forums, if your post is deemed useful by the community, that it may be re-posted on the wiki as part of our growing collection of documentation., with attribution back to the original post. Maybe with the option of people explicitly requesting that this not be done (and respecting that request).

If people don't want the possibility of something being re-used on the wiki, then they can keep it to themselves, or request that it not be re-used.

And please let's not degenerate into a soup of semantic-nazi trolls.

Beau

Too funny,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Donncha,

I think the wiki documentation proposal is an excellent idea, and if someone has a problem with copying their tips, just remove them on request. It is far more practical then asking everyone for permission. More than that, 99.9% of the people in this fourm are here to help, and this is just another, more organized instantiation of that help. So, I am all for it.

Additionally, we could always slap a CC-SA license on the forums, or some other IP heresy like that :)

@dsader Lol!

Just pitching in here... The fact that WPMU doesn't have a decent documentation such as the Codex (I'm talking about usability here) have made me put off testing it for quite some time. I use the Codex a lot when doing WordPress work, so extending it for WPMU would be great for users I'm sure.

That being said, I don't have much to contribute, but what I might have will be made available there of course.