Talk:Galbijim Wiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (Pop Culture), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Please help us expand this article. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] RFD result
The result of the RFD made by FurryiamIAM is keep Davidpdx 03:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Galbijim?
What does the name mean? --Gbleem 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's a kind of Korean food called Galbijjim as well as Galbi itself (fried meat), which is popular with expats. Adding the name Jim is a play on words and kind of gives the image of an expat that's been in the country for a while while also making it easy for Koreans to remember. Mithridates 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] licensing
The comments on my personal talk page helped me to clarify the issues about licensing, however the only issue for this particular Wikipedia article is whether the quotes are correct. --Gbleem (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I have requested a third opinion on Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Gbleem (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Recap
Let's just recap the whole thing since what the argument is about is a bit vague. User:Gbleem believes that the Galbijim license is unclear, as written here and in the edit bar, where it says "Please note that all contributions to Galbijim may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" <--The Project: Copyrights part is a link to general disclaimer. My position of course is that the license is perfectly clear, because it is copied verbatim from Wikipedia. Multi-licensing under Creative Commons etc. when users wish is allowed, just as on Wikipedia, and the GFDL is the default. For more information check the article history. Mithridates (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Observation
Disputed content:
The licensing of contributions, and therefore all content, is unclear. The GNU Free Documentation License is mentioned on the "General Disclaimer" page which says, "There is no agreement or understanding between you and Galbijim regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)" However, the editing pages for articles do not explicitly state that contributers agree to place their contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License, but instead says, "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details)." "Project: Copyrights" links to the "General Disclaimer" page.
As of September 28, 2007, the total number of pages is over 10,029.
The above, obtained from this diff, seems to be central to this dispute. [The talk page discussion to which Gbleem referred seems to be User talk:Gbleem#Licensing.] — Athaenara ✉ 07:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Third Opinion
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The burden of evidence for controversial content is on the editor that adds it. In this case, it is up to Gbleem to cite his work with reliable sources. In reviewing the diff[1], Gbleem did not site the source of the claims made, which constitutes original research. Unless the additions are verified, I believe Athaenara Mithridates is correct in removing them. Justin chat 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Minor point of fact: I have never edited the article. I cited the diff as part of my effort to understand the dispute. — Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was obvious that the quotes are from the Galbijim website. I cut and pasted them. --Gbleem (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The original research stems from your interpretation of the quotes, not from the quotes themselves. According to the sources section of the original research policy, "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Quoting is fine, calling said quotes "unclear" requires a secondary source. Justin chat 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would also concur that removing them was the correct thing to do. Davidpdx (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Licensing
How about this:
Contributers to the Galbijim Wiki are shown the message "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details)." "Project: Copyrights" links to the "General Disclaimer" page which says in part "There is no agreement or understanding between you and Galbijim regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)."
--Gbleem (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As an addition to the page? Looks fine to me since that's a direct quote, so you could put up a new ==Copyright== section and add that if you like. Maybe add a line or two from the same page on dual-licensing as well from the Creative Commons part. Then people can decide for themselves how clear the license is. Mithridates (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
