Talk:Sphaera Mundi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Per the requirements of the GFDL licence and Wikipedia's Cite Sources Policy, the Sphaera Mundi article must contain attribution and a link to the original location of the contributed material, since it's material copied from our wiki which Wikipedia can use only as long as all GFDL requirements are met. User:UninvitedCompany doesn't stop removing the attribution. I am not going to revert the article again. The Sphaera Mundi article should be deleted from Wikipedia if the attribution is removed again. Www.wikinerds.org 08:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That's only true if WE copied it. Not if YOU force it down our throats. If you keep Wikipedia:gaming the system, I will delete the article, start fresh and rewrite it completely. That is, if UninvitedCompany agrees. Uncle Ed 21:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

• This article contains material from the JnanaBase article at jnana.wikinerds.org/index.php/Sphaera_Mundi Sphaera Mundi written by NSK under the GFDL.

I am reinserting the source in the article according to the requirements of Wikipedia:Cite sources. However, it may be edited to remove extraneous info. — Joe Kress 02:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that jnana.wikinerds.org really qualifies as a useful, citable source because it lacks authority. The "citation" was added by the operator of the wikinerds.org web site primarily as an effort to obtain publicity and a higher Google page rank. Take a look at wikinerds.org and decide for yourself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

We have a Google PageRank of 6 and many JnanaBase pages have a higher page rank than Wikipedia's pages. We have been slashdotted four times. We do not get higher Google PageRank from links in Wikipedia because Wikipedia includes the nofollow value in the rel XHTML attribute in all external links, which means the links are not visible to Google. We joined Wikipedia to help this wonderful project and we only receive bullying from you. Www.wikinerds.org 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• We cite primary sources, which in this case would be the book itself, other literature about it, or whomever stated its worth to be $13000. A link to another wiki containing the same material is not a primary source. Radiant_>|< 13:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is copied from my wiki, and therefore we require an attribution and a link. Wikipedia requires other sites that copy its articles to have a GFDL notice and a link back to Wikipedia. We require the same. Www.wikinerds.org 13:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• From WP:CITE: "What are references good for? ... Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty". Kappa 13:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And how is that remark relevant? Nobody is accusing anyone of plagiarism here. Radiant_>|< 14:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Plagiarism refers to the use of another's ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." Kappa 18:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• nobody is accusing anyone of plagiraism here. Please read the RFC to find out what this actually is about. It's not about plagiarism. It's either about a legal tangle, or about spurious linking. Radiant_>|< 20:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify myself, the article should give credit where credit is due to avoid the appearance of plagiarism. That's why the source should be mentioned, regardless of legal tangles. Kappa 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, it looks like I've stumbled into an edit war here. Regardless, my feeling is that the source should be cited to avoid copyright problems, regardless of whether the contained information is verifiable or not. --Alan Au

[edit] Criticism

I did not realize I was stepping into an edit war. But regarding the article itself, there are many points which require correction. For example, NSK states that it was first published in 1482. Actually it was first printed in Ferrara, Italy in 1472. Ratdolt's version is much later. Indeed, it was published hundreds of times over the next two centuries. While 1472 may be its edito princeps, it was first written in 1232 by Sacrobosco in manuscript form. Furthermore, when written by Sacrobosco, it was not a collection. But by the time it was printed over two centuries later, many authors had added their own commentary about the cosmos. NSK's version does not even mention The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its Commentators by Lynn Thorndike. As implied by Thorndike, its usual title is De Sphaera, not Sphaera Mundi. But I would prefer a total rewrite, which would eliminate any need for attribution. I also think the material should be in the Johannes de Sacrobosco article, not in its own article. — Joe Kress 19:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Very good! Please add that material to the article. Content is more important than the existence or non-existence of a single external link. Radiant_>|< 20:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've done a total rewrite and placed it at De sphaera mundi. I then deleted this article to remove the attribution issue, and recreated it as a redirect to the new article. --Michael Snow 05:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your action now resolved the issue about Sphaera Mundi. Www.wikinerds.org 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)