deskthority

7bit wrote:[...] Also, even if it is OK to use these, a source would be nice.

Source: http://www.cosgan.de/

See the difference between those?
and

The left version (which I never use) does not show where the smiley comes from, although it can be obtained with one right mouse-click on the author's site.
The version on the right shows where the smiley comes from (when pointing on it with your mouse), and it is explicitly made available by the author for use in forums ("click on the smiley and copy the code"). Of course I wouldn't use them if it weren't so.
Not me

kbdfr wrote:See the difference between those?
and
...

OK, thanks!

I did not really understand their policy on that.

The right one is link spam!

webwit wrote:The right one is link spam!

[text version] Not sure I understand that. [/text version]

kbdfr wrote:

webwit wrote:The right one is link spam!

[EVIL LINK SPAM REMOVED][/url]

[text version] Not sure I understand that. [/text version]

It is very simple:
The rankings of search results at Google and other search engines are based on how mny links point to a site.

Evil plan:

Make cool graphics.
Let people use them (with linking to their website).
Link spam complete.

Edit: And what shell we do with these photos in the wiki which are not the work of those who uploaded them?

That, and:
Make cool graphics.
Let people use them (with linking to their website).
Sell commercial services on website.

Re: Edit: Work can be of someone else if the work is released under an open source license or in the public domain.
If not, it should be replaced.

So, then, you get into licensing terms for your own stuff, how they're licensed to Deskthority.

Wikipedia, IIRC, requires open licenses (CC-BY-SA is, IIRC, their preferred license, although they seem to be fine with any of them other than a CC license that has the NC clause) when you're putting your own stuff on there, although that's partially because other sites use Wikipedia content.

We wouldn't need that, but we would need a license that's flexible enough for images to be edited and reused on the wiki at will, even if it restricts their use to the wiki.

If you upload your own stuff, it all belongs to deskthority, but the probmel is with things like these:

Is this from the author of the wiki-article or is it from somewhere else?

Oh nice. Webwit OWNS my Lego pics? I suggest Lego Keyboard Porn calendars.

We haven't formalized licensing yes, so I guess it's time to do so.

My preference would be open source licensing like wikipedia, for all kinds of reasons. So if you upload your own stuff, or write an article, it doesn't belong to deskthority, but to yourself, released with an open source license.

Making it belong to the community "deskthority" is nice, but if you formalize such ownership you probably end up with the founders, and why would you contribute to an open wiki if your work is owned by some guys?

It also allows the wiki and everybody's work to live on, whatever happens to deskthority, such as a hostile take-over by OCN, or people starting to post about fish like on otd.

But it would also mean others can reuse your work. Lets name it. People could clone the wiki and present it as their own. Your work! I myself wouldn't mind that at all, but maybe some feel different. IMO such free distribution would only make the deskthority wiki bigger. Many sites clone wikipedia or parts of it, and everyone sees it and regards wikipedia as leading. If legit keyboard enthusiasts use some of the wiki on their site it would be a great thing in my view. There will be some assholes who strip credits, but who cares in the bigger picture of things?

You mean they clone our wiki over at OCN?*

To be serieous, a license like on Wikipedia should be OK. Not that everybody has to be asked when we want to sell the book Introduction to Scientific Keyboard Theory by 7bit et al.

----------------------------
*) I've got no fear that they clone it over at GH.

I think the GH/DT/OTD/KBDmania/KBC-China wikis should all be merged into one huge Open Source Licensed wiki since the keyboard hobbyist is small (and not growing that much as far as I can tell).

Just watch the Koreans. They have some weirdass keyboard theories.

P.S. And OTD turned into a Fish forum?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCbdX92hbbg#t=06m04s

ripster wrote:I think the GH/DT/OTD/KBDmania/KBC-China wikis should all be merged into one huge Open Source Licensed wiki since the keyboard hobbyist is small (and not growing that much as far as I can tell).

Just watch the Koreans. They have some weirdass keyboard theories.

GH: No wiki, just some unorganised articles
DT: best Wiki ever!
OTD,KBDmania,KBC-China: can't find their wiki.

Fish. And women.
http://deskthority.net/post40643.html#p40643
Deskthority is growing each month!

webwit wrote:Fish. And women.
http://deskthority.net/post40643.html#p40643
Deskthority is growing each month!

These are female fish, yes?

Last link.

webwit wrote:Last link.

Ah, yes!

How sexy she is!

^ Now the same thing is happening here!

I see, fish are not your favorite food.

What about him:

Here are 2 more:

You're duck spamming.

Carry on.

We currently have 246 articles, 1,471 pages and 6,666 edits!

How many are on Ducks?

I WILL figure out this MediaWiki Gallery stuff but have to be in the mood to upload lots of pics.

I spend too much time writing articles ...

My vote is for Findecanor to win the contest!

http://deskthority.net/wiki/Monterey_switch

(kinda looks like another I know of but at least the info is correct, some of 7bits I worry about).

My articles are the best, because I use large photos.

Yes, but how do you propose to keep some consistency in a growing wiki and avoid a mess, if people want to ignore the majority vote?

I'm just trying to raise an interesting issue of how to deal with things with a growing, open wiki
What do you think is the best way? We could continue with no conventions other than technical, this leaves maximum freedom and little barrier. Me, I like some conventions, because the issues they consist of are too mundane to fight for beyond a vote, but when you add them up they elevate a wiki to a higher quality level because for the objective observer it is no longer a collection of separate styled articles linked with a structure, but more of a whole entity with a common style. Also it promotes crowd-editing, because when you look at the opposite, an author of an article with a very personal style, the author sort of starts to own that article. Someone might want to edit the article to add something, see a personal style, and is not sure what to do, learn that style and expand on it, or add to the article with the common style. He/she might decide to leave it as it is.

I always add stuff to other's articles and don't have a problem with others adding/editing those started by me. I just don't like cosmetic changes which do not improve anything.

Here, write a sample article and I will follow your style:
Sample Article