View Single Post
  #95  
Old 01.02.2017, 21:40
fduvall's Avatar
fduvall fduvall is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Used to be Zurich
Posts: 1,491
Groaned at 29 Times in 24 Posts
Thanked 1,373 Times in 668 Posts
fduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: All about the alt-right (in the wake of anti-Muslim shooting)

They have forked the codebase AND the content. And to your statement about it not being clear where the content comes from, on the bottom of EVERY page (except the landing page as this has nothing to do with Wikipedia), this appears:

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License unless otherwise noted.
This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (See original source).

I don't think they could be any clearer and I know that a LOT of time was spent to make sure EVERYTHING is squeaky clean.

I am well aware of what the Alt-right is about, thank you very much. Lots of elements of the GOP and Dem parties that I don't approve of, either. But I am not ALT-Right, and here I am talking about my support for the ALT-Tech movement, which is challenging some behemoths of the industry. I do believe that when people realize how they are being manipulated by Wikipedia, Twitter, FB, Google and many of the others, they will choose an alternative that neither censors nor supports a clearly political bias.

Quote:
View Post
Are you talking about forking the codebase, or the content? The codebase is shareable, the content has various, mostly open source licenses, but different to the codebase. Content from wikipedea should be attributed to the authors

You try to imply it's innocent, it isn't. Nowhere on any page is it clear where the content came from.

What it is, is someone taking a great big encyclopedia, taking the covers off it, replacing certain articles with their own, and trying to give the same level of legitimacy to their own articles as the stuff they've plagiarised from Wikipedia.

Once you learn how the alt right work, it will piss you off even more, it's misinformation, misdirection and just outright lies all down the line.

It's ironic that a page that tries to be about ethics, lives on a site where 99.9999999% of the content is stolen from another source.

EDIT: Look at what happens if you use the "cite this page" button https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php...ephant&id=5763. It lists the author as infogalactic.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank fduvall for this useful post: