The Soldat Wiki.

[Brock]

There are no admins right? 

I tried to add myself to the "players" section, but I didn't see it there once I created it, which means it is somewhere else.  I put it up as an {{afd}} (article for deletion), but how the hell is it going to get deleted if there is no administration over the project?  Is there any way I can delete my own articles?

[Meep.]

You have to add [[Category:Players]] anywhere in the article for it to show.

[Brock]

Ok, thank you very much.

[Gold]

lol i added stuff to wiki, but they just go ape s*it and delete it after like 5 days lol

[Denacke]

There are administrators (including me). We do our best to keep the wiki as clean as possible.

If the information you post does not contribute, it gets deleted, it's as simple as that.

Most of the time we have to delete user pages consisting of one line. If you don't have anything to write about a certain user, then don't, if you do, at least make it more than just one line

[FliesLikeABrick]

lol i added stuff to wiki, but they just go ape s*it and delete it after like 5 days lol

the people who host it and manage it are very responsible individuals who are very strong supporters of the Soldat community.  If they deleted content, they had good reason to.

[Snowden]

Tip: If you want to retain the rights to the guides and tips you've labored over, don't submit them to the Soldat wiki. The copyright license is a joke. "Please note that all contributions to wiki.soldat.nl are considered to be released under the Red License. By submitting material to wiki.soldat.nl one forfeits all copyright to it to the wiki.soldat.nl staff." Lawl. I'd rather submit here or to Gamefaqs and keep my rights. It's also interesting to note that the edit window warns that you forfeit your rights, but the license itself says nothing of the sort. This would have been a good idea if it had used a real license in the wiki spirit, like Creative Commons.

[FliesLikeABrick]

... and what do they have to lose by forfeiting their natural copyright over what they post?  All that license does is say "You don't technically own anything you post on here, so you can't sue someone for reusing the information or us for having it posted here in the first place"

It isn't a bad thing at all

[Snowden]

The question isn't what the author has to lose by forfeiting their rights, the question is what does the wiki.soldat.nl staff gain by controlling the rights? Nothing, except perhaps to have a sense of power. There are perfectly good licenses already available that would fulfill the needs of the project without pointlessly stripping away rights. I'm not sure how you reached your interpretation of the license. It's more like: "You don't technically own anything you post on here. We, the wiki.soldat.nl staff, do. That means we can sell it, call it our own work without attributing you, prevent people from posting it elsewhere, or whatever else we decide, and you can't do anything about it." If I invested time writing a Soldat guide, I wouldn't want to relinquish my rights to it to a "party council" of Dutch teenagers when there's no good reason for doing so.

[FliesLikeABrick]

If you read my first post, you'd see exactly why that license is in there.  wiki.soldat.nl didn't put that license in there, it comes standard with mediawiki.  Mediawiki was made by wikipedia, and they are huge enough that they do need to worry about someone taking legal recourse against them for the content being submitted.

Stop trying to make a huge deal out of absolutely nothing.

[Chakra]

*goes to make a 'why Snowden should be fisted* article*

[Snowden]

No content license comes standard with MediaWiki. You choose the license. The "Red License" was obviously written by Soldatters, and someone obviously had to type in "...one forfeits all copyright to it to the wiki.soldat.nl staff". One post stating my honest opinion is not making a "huge deal out of absolutely nothing". You're the one debating me over it.

[FliesLikeABrick]

alright, well apparently I was entirely wrong about the license coming with mediawiki...

... but I still maintain that it is harmless in nature.  I'm guessing these "Dutch teenagers" would be willing to give us some insight on their intent and perhaps change the license to appease the community members who dislike it

[Denacke]

There was a discussion about that quite some time ago about which license to use. Seems we forgot about continueing there.

When Ender gets back (On holidays right now ) we'll most likely switch to GFDL License.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention snowden.

[mar77a]

lol i added stuff to wiki, but they just go ape s*it and delete it after like 5 days lol

the people who host it and manage it are very responsible individuals who are very strong supporters of the Soldat community.  If they deleted content, they had good reason to.

it's supposed to be funny also

*cough* Ender *cough*

[Stalky]

There's a fine line between humour, and stupidity / immaturity.

[Gold]

But when i added stuff to wiki it was about the game  (blockland) and it was quite important new stuff. Oh well i dont like debates/arguments im a happy flying cat

[Sebastian]

Why on earth would you like to keep your copyrights about the text you submitted at the wiki anyway. The only reason why there's 'some kind of a license' is to support the wiki, if a contributor suddenly decides to remove his lyric submissions to wiki, the staff can decide to keep those submissions just for the sake of wiki.

The wiki-idea is about adding voluntarily info to a project managed by volunteers. There's absolutely no point why we should abuse those copyrights ( who would be interested in it anyway ), actually Ender ( admin of soldat.nl, which also hosts the wiki ) doesn't make any profit out of his projects for soldat ( note the lacking of commercial banners ), he just pays for the hosting, voluntarily.

I honestly don't see the point why the info you add on the soldat-wiki should be copyrighted under your name, as the idea about wiki is gathering as much info as possible by as many people as possible just to get an as reliable as possible endresult. If that idea doesn't suit you ( if you'd rather write your memoires in a cave and wait 'til someone wants to publish it, that's fine to me ), simply don't add info to the wiki.

I have to say i find this quite amusing... in times were people are illegaly dowloading movies/music/software daily, there's somehow also a strong developed egocentric need to copyright everything those people (who often refer to themself as artists ) make, even if they just coloured 2 pixels...

The 'red license' was just a joke of Ender, prolly cause he also finds the booming of 'copyrighted ego' rather amusing, if that license stops you from adding info on the wiki, that's on you...

[ElephantHunter]

Sabastian, it was very well thought of Snowden to read the license agreement before contributing work to the Soldat Wiki. What you don't seem to understand is that Snowden wants his work to be freely redistributable; he doesn't care about forfeiting his copyright. There is no greed in wanting that.

The point of the GFDL is to weed out the greed and establish trust. There are two possible reasons I can think of that you haven't already established it as the default license. Either: a) You are lazy, or b) You don't want people to freely use the content on the wiki.

I understand this is a bold accusation, but I have brought the topic up before in the wiki IRC channel. The admins stalled me and kept changing the subject. I'm very dissappointed that it's been six months since that conversation on the license about page, and nothing has been done.

Prove me wrong. Take some time and read the GFDL. I've read it, and it covers every base.

[Sebastian]

Well, i'm not that familiar with copyright-laws, and i'm aware of the conversation you had with ender ( and me ) about it, where i spoke about Creative Commons ( which has quite a few of degrees/options, i've no clue which one snowden actually wants ) and you about GFDL. I can't remember discussing this topic after that conversation...

I'm pretty sure Ender will change it to a more proper, judicial correct form of the copyright law when he's back from Lithuania ( and when slightly be forced to do so ).