|
This bill, Congress/Article Preservation, has passed the Wiki's Congress Committee and will be laid down as a law! |
Version One (Explorer)
I think this "deletion of articles upon quitting" thing is ridiculous. I, Explorer 767, propose that the COC disallow users to delete their articles, no matter how big or small, upon the users' quitting. Why?
- If the articles to be deleted are especially important and core to the wiki, the wiki is damaged and will probably lose popularity. For more, ask Kwiksilver about his Burger Analogy.
- It's just depressing to see all those redlinks where you should see fresh, clean blue links. It also reminds you more of said quitter.
- This wiki is licensed under the GFDL copyleft code, which, I believe, states that any work produced under this license may be copied and distributed as long as the work is attributed to any and all previous authors, all changes to the work are logged, and all derivative works are also licensed under the GFDL. Therefore, the articles are not exactly copyrighted to the creator(s) of their concepts, just the wiki as a whole. This means that the said quitters have virtually no right to delete "their" articles.
Yours "Falsely", Explorer 767 (The Nerd Quibbles On...) View this template 18:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
ZW Amendment
It creates plot holes, and causes users to quit and delete their articles. It can go on it a chain. --ZapwireThe cake is a lie 18:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Bugzy Amendment
- GFDL, anyone?
- By writing an article the author automatically acknowledges that people will edit it to their liking. If you don't want your work here, don't post it.
- I already see the whole "quitting" business as it is. People get angry, say that they quit, intend to make people feel guilty, then go ahead and delete their articles because "they have that right" sorry but Wikia begs to differ on that one. Especially if they know their articles are good and used by the community, they just do it out of spite/attention seeking.
In a nutshell: Quitters delete their articles out of spite. Bugzy 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
TurtleShroom Amendment
- I also say we restore existing articles that were removed, and eradicate "author request" from the delete reasons. Let's also make this apply to everything except user pages, and art, if it means a lot (like in PogoPunk's case).
- Furthermore, we should make quitter's articles Fair Game (no permission needed to change, use, alter, or role play as the quitter's item) and use Template:Memorial to remind us of who made it.
--† कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Happyface's Amendment
- I say that the quitter can delete articles if they are not popular. If User:Moo Cow wants to delete Billy Mays, that shall be unacceptable. Why? He is a FAOTW, used in countless stories, and you can't claim a copyright on a real life human.
- However, if he threatens to report to Wikia, we shall delete them, only to re-make them, not restore it.
--Happyface414 Through His Messanger.
- wikia won't do anything even if they get reported, they'll mention GFDL license. Bugzy 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The MobileShroom Amendum
- That's a bit depressing to determine if an article is popular or important enough to spare the Deletion Rod (which I feel like calling it, may make a good character/item). I believe ALL articles should stay, because I've written some worthless articles no one uses, reads or role plays on (C, Mission: Not Likely, ect.), but I still like them! It's not their useage but whether we want to make an effort to use them or MAKE them popular! We could have deleted Billy Mays, but we all used him. ShamOMG never took off, but it won't be going off our database if it's still here and I spelled it correctly. ALL articles are important, so no article gets left behind! --TurtleShroom on the road! Beep beep beep beep yeah! :) Jesus Loves You and Died for You!!!!!!!!!!!
01:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I meant if it was on a lot of stories, or nominated for a FAOTW and won. --Happyface414 Through His Messanger
Triskelle Rejection
We would also have to remove copyrights. I see this as the articles matter more than the people. Since it leaves a hole in the wiki, we should ban quitting. It leavs a hole too. I am not beign sarcastic, either. But still, removing the ability to delete articles restricts freedom more, and dont forget, it was because of less rights that the crisises started. Even so, it seems that it proves the articles matter more than the people themselves. --Triskelle3 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
TurtleShroom and the GDFL's Absolute Override of the Triskelle Amendment
You can't BAN quitting, that would be stupid and impossible. People grow up, get bored, etc. and the feel the need to leave the database. They have no right to delete their articles when THEY leave, particularly since they're articles matter as much as any other article. It may not seem this way to you, but The Big Newman Scan has the potential to become as important to the database as the USA or Freezeland, if the people choose to use an "unimportant" article.
This wiki is licensed under the GDFL. One of their policies is "Please note that all contributions to Club Penguin Fanon Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited without mercy (no mercy at all, like Mabel's insults), then do not submit it here.". It was edited in the System Code for thematic purposes, but you get the point. The GDFL allows us to redistribute, edit, alter and do anything to a GDFL item mercilessly. The only reason we DON'T is because we respect other users. Under the GDFL, I could take Mary and have her killed (though the COC says no, we're speaking theoretically), but I respect the creator of M enough to not kill her character. All I would have to do to be GDFL compliant is to attribute who wrote it.
Legally, if you quit, we only have to ATTRIBUTE you to keep your articles up on the site.
The GDFL tells us in their "0. PREAMBLE" section:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense.
Get a load of that irony... ""free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially". The license says it IS Free in the SENSE of Freedom.
To delete your articles is a violation of OUR rights to mercilessly edit it and do anything with it as long as we ATTRIBUTE you.
In short, by deleting articles, you're forming a weird parodox: by claiming that deleting articles when folks quit is a natural right they have, and that they have the freedom to do so, that freedom is violating the freedom outlined in the GDFL. So, the freedom of deletion actually violates the other user's freedoms whom are guranteed in the GDFL. It is OUR FREEDOM to keep THEIR articles which they FREELY wrote. We have the RIGHTS to keep your articles and anyone else's, as long as the Quitter recives the proper attribution as already drafted in Template:Memorial.
Our GDFL rights are to keep and edit articles regardless of who made them and whether or not they quit. Since you're not in the license writers or a Master Wikia Staff, the GDFL supercedes and thus PWNS your argument to the so-called "right to delete". There IS not a right to delete; that's a courtesy, not a right. It's an abused courtesy because angry or depressed or annoyed etc. people delete their articles so the rest of us can't have them.
Furthermore, I'm not the only BOBMASTER who agrees with this. You're democracy you so want apparently prefers to NOT delete the article. You wanted democracy, now you must deal with democracy. Democracy says you can't delete articles on quitting, so that courtesy, and your argument on banning quitting, is TOAST.
There are six sections and ammendments here, not counting MobileShroom which is my cell-phone. FOUR of them (ZW, EX767, Bugzy, and TS) absolutely state that it should be eradicated, and HF implies it. Even if you DO NOT count HF's, you have four YES and one NO, or four YES and two NO.
Triskelle, you have lost at your own game; the Popular Democracy you have so begged for has turned against you, and I am afraid the BOBMASTER's majority wants it.
--† कछुए मशरूम! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) DON'T YOU DARE QUIT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST TYPED!!!!!!!! † 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)