Wikipedia content without required license notices
Here's an email exchange with someone named Robert, which I assume is one of you.

I'm aware that many of you are actually respected members of the bonafide Wikipedia community, so I'm surprised at these responses.

Also, I'm not sure which parts of my emails warranted such a heavy response, but it was certainly uncalled for. In any case, it seems like so much of a better idea if you guys just go ahead and use good content, just abide by the terms of the content that you "borrow". But if you disagree, then no big deal, just delete anything from Wikipedia.

Here are the emails so you can judge for yourself:

Editors,

As the author of original content on a couple of your encyclopedia
pages through the Wikipeida, I'd like to ask that you follow the GNU
Free Documentation License. I think it's great that you're using the
content, but please just attribute the source, as required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

I haven't studied a lot of your pages, but at least Secrecy, Finances,
and the leadership structure pages, including breakdowns of the CRO
areas falls into this category.

Nothing personal, I just appreciate the fact that my contributions to
the Wikipedia fall under the GFDL, and that's why I made contributions
to that site in particular.

Thanks,

Marcus

--------------------------


Robert to me, editors

gcomnz to Robert

Ummm, all the stuff that's from Wikipedia, as in tons of the site, LOL.

But yeah, if you check Wikipedia's history you'll find that I wrote
the majory of content on Secrecy and Finances.

I'm not saying remove it, just for all the Wikipedia content please
just respect the source and put the required notices. It's not a big
deal.

Marcus

--------------------------

gcomnz to Robert

BTW, when I say put notices, I just mean the sample they give on
Wikipedia itself, indicating that the content is GFDL. I don't care
for any personal attribution.

You'll have to dig deep though, I do see tons of Wikipedia content
there. Perhaps a lot more than you realize.

--------------------------

Robert to me

We have no intention whatsoever to be bludgeoned into accepting the
license terms you demand and no such notice will be posted.

Yes, there is a lot of wikipedia content there and that is because we
own much of said content as the primary wikipedia contributors on the
subject of this cult.

If you feel that specific portions of our website violate *your*
rights then point us to the lines in question. In all likelihood your
contributions are not covered by copyright (e.g. CRO areas is
information that you do not own or have any legal right to) or legally
defensible fair use. If not, we will remove or rewrite it but we will
*not* be bullied into accepting license terms for our website due to
feckless vigilantism.

So if you wish to make a specific DCMA claim, do so. But we will post
no such notice and will not license our content in the manner you
speak of.

I support open content very much, but will not abide this feckless and
frivolous harassment by the wikipedia community.

--------------------------

gcomnz to Robert

LOL, you're so touchy

1. I didn't threaten

2. You're stealing content from Wikipedia

All you have to do to fix this is abide by the license on that content
(simple) or remove it.