Talk:Open Site
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-12-15. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The content appears to be copyright, however. Hmmmm.... Tannin
- Question: Is the MPL GFDL-compatible, or vice-versa?
-
- MPL is a software license, so I would say no. Also this only refers to the code. -- The "Invisible Friend" 19:34 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If anyone from the Open Site project is reading this, it would be interesting to know what your licence scheme is, and find ways in which our projects could work together, if possible.
Looking around this seems to be the full license: "If you use Open-Site data, please be sure to add the proper notation to the bottom of each page, available at http://open-site.org/docs/osnote.html." (found on http://open-site.org/help/Using_Our_Data/ ) -- The "Invisible Friend" 19:34 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Useful Link
http://open-site.org/help/Using_Our_Data/
[edit] Inclusionist doubtful of worthyness
I'm normally an inclusionist, but I wondering why we bother with this site. This slim article on an obscure musician [1] was a featured article. They don't have anything on animals that aren't pets. No lions, no tigers, no bears, oh my... it's silly to keep this lackluster project mentioned. -- user:zanimum
- Nonsense. We've kept a lot less notable sites. They're at a lot earlier stage than Wikipedia, and they're an attempt by the DMOZ community - and following the DMOZ model - to create an encyclopedia, which in my book makes them notable alone. It's just that Wikipedia, at this point is time, is crushing them. Ambi 21:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I can't understand why this discussion is being held. I edit at the OEP as do many Wikipedia editors (past and present). The fact is that it is a small example of one possible form of an encyclopaedia whatever that term now means. No one (except maybe KNOL) can compete (if competition is the right concept for knowledge workers) with Wikipedia but there are people who like the notion of a controlled terminology or ontology to try to encapsulate small items of information. To exclude it seems to me to smack of arrogance or more likely someone who has a gripe against past editorial control. It is true we are struggling at present as many of our prolific editors have moved to Wikipedia but we still have some interested and active editors. It is part of the knowledge web and I am surprised that anyone would want to censor that!Dajuroka (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Open Site
There is no reason to delete this article other than the fact that Open Site is a competitor. They may be far behind Wiki and not a current threat, but they are a credible and active encyclopedia. Just because it does not adhere to Wiki's guidelines or live up to Wiki's standards does not diminish the effort or minimalize it's signifigance. There have been numerous additions in recent months since the new editing format (Open Site 2.0) has been put in place and the forum is active daily. Please restore the article and your own credibility and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.48.55 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
