Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-17/In the news

Discuss this story

Wow, how ironic!—Chris!_c/t 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go figure. Another idiot politician.--Rockfang (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think that if he was going to copy-paste he'd at least clean it up a little bit. Seems like he truly put zero thought and zero work into his proposal. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "hoist by one's own petard" springs to mind. – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Outside organizing of editing#Jerusalem Post. Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia. It's about the Jerusalem Post story mentioned in the Signpost in the "Briefly" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is the word moron in definition. --Ularevalo98 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody can sue wikipedia if it infringes copyright. We should ask our lawyers to sue this guy or any other how copies from wikipedia without attribution and at least make him ask for public pardon... . I have seen even a published book for physicians who had whole chapters copied from WP (See here). Why does everybody think that wikipedia is not copyrighted?.--Garrondo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't; it's copylefted. --Yair rand (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Copyleft" is a form of license that depends on the licensed work being under copyright. It is not an alternative to copyright; it is, in fact, dependent on copyright. TJRC (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is copyrighted with an especific licence which specifies that to use it all the text where it is included also has to have the same license and the authors have to be named... So of course it is...--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]