Talk:GNU project releases new version of license to allow Wikimedia projects to switch to Creative Commons license

Revision 721140 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 721140 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Needed more work before publication

I know this sounds rather ornery, but it is meant as a constructive critique, not as a troll of the article. So view it through Rose coloured glasses... or maybe Tennant coloured ones.[1]

There are some serious problems with this article, but since we are post-publication I am loathe to completely re-write it. Instead I'll just point out a few of the problems and hope that they won't be repeated in future articles. "Despite the support of the Wikimedia Foundation, some people have voiced their opposition to the move." They do? "Some people"? Cool. How many? For what reasons? This is a generic statement of nothing but opinion and weasel words. At least it lists one Blog — since when are blogs a reliable news source? — but that's just like saying "some guy off the street that we interviewed doesn't like Wikimedia, so Wikimedia must suck". One person =! "some people".

Of course, the article then goes on to completely misrepresent what the Blog author said. Based on the Wikinews article I'd have guessed that he was foaming in the mouth in his "moral" opposition to this move, with his pitchfork and his tar&feathers at the ready. But nope. He said, "I agree that in a practical sense, little has changed, and in many cases CC-BY-SA is preferable." It is clear that he doesn't oppose the license change at all; rather he opposes what he believes to have been an unclear and murky decision making process.

This lack of attention to detail (the writers and reviews obviously just skimmed the blog, else they wouldn't have made this mistake) is a problem in many Wikinews articles. Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaasse: Quality over quantity. I can live with half as any articles if only the writers take twice as much time with each one. Even a short, few sentence long article should take an hour or so to write and research (more the researching than the writing). Skimming is not a viable option when writing an article; you have to understand your source, and all its nuances!

Also, each significant statement in the article needs to be supported by a list of Who, What, When, Where, Why, How, not just the opening thesis. The previously mentioned "Despite the support of the Wikimedia... (etc)" should have a full set of 5W's in support of it. So just because the opening statement of the article has the five W's doesn't make it a whole article. Gopher65_talk 23:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above criticism. Additionally, I find the subject so Wikipedia specific that it is of little to no interest for someone who is not a member of the Wikimedia community. It is better left for the Wikipedia Signpost, in my opinion. --SVTCobra 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Category

Please add category Category:Creative Commons. --Saki (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)