Talk:Backbone cabal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


This article seems to have been largely plagarised from the [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/backbone-cabal.html Jargon File article] about the cabal. I don't know anything about this subject so I'm not going to attempt a rewrite, but a rewrite should be strongly considered. Gsgeorge 05:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jargon File is PD, so we can use it. Removed copyvio notice & restored original content. --SJK 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be marked w/ a template indicating this origin like the FOLDOC-based articles? --Cybercobra 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't have to be done for PD works, since you can use them without restrictions. For Copyleft, you do. Halo 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


(I just linked a few things in here for you guys in case people don't fully understand what some of your terms mean. Valeriya 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Contents

[edit] WP

Can I ask why this mainspace article exists? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I deny this article existsPdeitiker 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (member#666: TINC since 2000)
What article? Rissa (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This page is too one sided. I'm tagging it for neutrality. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A published reference

A published reference is:

Hardy, Henry Edward, 1993. The Usenet System, ITCA Teleconferencing Yearbook 1993, ITCA Research Committee, International Teleconferencing Association, Washington, DC. pp 140-151, esp. p 146 at subheading "The Great Renaming" and "The Breaking of the Backbone Cartel".

NB I have not put this in the main body of the article as I am the author of the reference provided above from the ITCA Yearbook, and therefore will leave the determination about including it to others.

I'm dubious about leaving the Jargon File as the principle reference, as it exists in many forks and versions and contains much "myth" and "folklore". It lacks proper sourcing and dates to provide context and verifiability.

Scanlyze 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone make this remotely comprehensible?

I mean, I've read it four times now, and all I can really pick up is that it was some bunch of guys who supplied servers for USENET who are involved in the Masons? Or something? 82.41.76.233 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, perhaps you should read it again. If you can make it more comprehensible, you don't even need to know about the subject, just help its readability. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)