Okay, as of now, there are three:
See the Recruitment tab at the Strategy Center. I'm gonna put down who joined:
Project Head: Dr Hockenberry ,
DrCaduceus
More stuff to put on the site, like unique navigation and sidebar, logo ideas, other stuff.
Project Head: Nobody at the moment.
Send Message | Regeneration's a lottery.
User Chumagen put up a Spanish translation site. This is cool!
caosinsurgente.wikidot.com
Send Message | Regeneration's a lottery.
Proposing an Admin site where admins and mods can discuss things together. Name pending, I was thinking Falchion Valley or The Ouranos Council for the name.
Other things to consider is the restructuring of the forums which I have done mostly and the drafting up of some basic rules so we don't get overrun by gremlins in the near future. We don't need to be so strict in the beginning
Former CI Wiki Administrator Now just CI Wiki member: | Tuum Est: It's up to you
Seconding the Falchion Valley name for historical significance and sentimetality to the site. Also, Ouranos Council sounds like a member org for the GOC.
Send Message | Regeneration's a lottery.
I'm not a tech savy guy so I'll need help fixing up the admin site but the link is above. Here we will discuss all matters admin and disciplinary or the such. Help will be appreciated for basic set-up of a forums and the rest. Sorry but I'm not skilled in those matters at hand so yeah. Currently anyone who is and admin can join the site. We'll fix that up later.
Former CI Wiki Administrator Now just CI Wiki member: | Tuum Est: It's up to you
It is done, I invite all staff here to join us at our admin site and start fixing things up! :3
Former CI Wiki Administrator Now just CI Wiki member: | Tuum Est: It's up to you
Upcoming Project executed at 23 Apr 2014. All admins properly inoculated on Aleph 11 Tango are to prepare. Please refer to the selected thread at FV.
This post will be edited.
Send Message | Regeneration's a lottery.
Late Reports:
Headed by Chumagen and Yerko, still maintained and active
Awaiting more entries
On hiatus, we'd need a few more people and some guys to get this thing off the ground.
Decided on core format and converting existing items into the new version, will PM inactive authors about it.
Send Message | Regeneration's a lottery.
Thanks to Chumagen's help, I've been motivated to finally, officially introduce the recurring ShADES-Tech to you guys! Now, it's a private research firm that researches and manufactures anomalous gear to its benefactors, one of which is us!
Go here: ShADES Technologies
Send Message | Regeneration's a lottery.
This thread is hereby reactivated.
First things first, operation "Site-Revival":
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
I think changing the license would be nice, the images/photos (nowadays) are almost all under CC-4.0-BY-SA.
J'ai deux nouvelles, une mauvaise et une bonne
La mauvaise nouvelle c'est que je ne peux pas forcer les gens à m'accepter ou à m'aimer
La bonne nouvelle c'est que j'en ai rien à foutre
I'm happy i could help. I would love to make the site a better with you all. If you need any mods or anything because people say the staff is inactive, i'm here to help
Post nubila Phoebus.
The site is currently licensed under BY-SA-3.0.
I was made aware of a problem in that license that allows certain oversights in attribution to be abused for lawsuits that might deter adaptation of Insurgency materials.
I hereby propose to use this clause of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and pull all works currently under said license up to 4.0, via paragraph 4b (ii):
You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License.
To legally do this I would claim that:
I am not a lawyer, but this is how I would do it:
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Technically, the Wiki could just "Redistribute" or "Republish" everything on here under 4.0 and there is nothing to stop us. That's how CC-BY licenses work. As long as we make sure to properly credit them, upgrading the license is fine.
I don't see any compatibility problems here either — 4.0 can use anything before that, and if anyone out there can't be bothered to upgrade their own license, that's fundamentally on them.
However, I don't think it's particularly nice to just do a blanket roll-out. As a compromise, we can work with a hidden tag, i.e. _cc-by-sa-3.0 to mark such articles explicitly wished by the author to remain accessible under 3.0 license.
SCP-UA is using a license notice in the sidebar including the nifty Creative Commons license badges. Nothing stops us from wrapping those into Iftags and having it also display in the sidebar for all 3.0 articles.
Come to think of it, WD has not default 4.0 license to display in the footer. So we probably have to use the custom HTML option for that… well, at least we can also use images then.
Nest question is: what should we do with Items where the author is no longer available to tell us what happens with their stuff? Thinking of it like organ donations, we need to have some sort of default answer. I'd go with opting-in (for licensing, that is; you all should be organ donors) because doubt that somebody who hasn't show themselves in the past years is going to be bothered either way, so I pick what means the least work.
Do we have a 2.5 licensed article? I don't think we can legally have that, considering SCP in itself is 3.0 licensed… unless that thing is really old. Like, editthis-wiki old or older.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
I once successfully used a 4.0 wikidot banner. The field where that banner is configured in the admin panel is freely writable, therefor a site can be licensed with any license a user can come up with.
Why can we not just tag everything with 3.0 and than make a blank roll-out? As you said, some of our people have not been active for years. I do not think that we can reach them (all in sufficient numbers). As I previously said, the authors original license would stay intact and just the new content would be 4.0 only. Would your way not be an opt-out? (The license is being upgraded if you do not say we should not do it?) I get that it is more work to tag every page than to just tag the ones wishing to remain with 4.0, but that sounds illegal. We can not revoke the original 3.0 license and your way would essentially do that (as I understood your plan).
Iftags
Was that not part of the meta-tags discussion that I just now remembered? I am ok with them being used, but why would we have to use them if we can get the banner to read 4.0?
It is a really old file with a 2.0 image.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Yeah, as I mentioned, you can use a custom footer banner and even include images there, however you are limited to 300 characters of pure HTML… the current one is 119 chars in plaintext. If we're using <a>-tags for this to link to the license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ and include the license badge… it'll be close, but doable.
Because tagging everything with 3.0 means lot of manual labour. Unless you know a way to automatize this? And we're not revoking anything here; at best the stuff becomes no longer available under that license on this platform. it doesn't change that the work (as an abstract concept) was originally released under 3.0. However, the wiki, as a platform, choose to re-distribute only under 4.0.
However, if you're that concerned about the original 3.0 versions being no longer obviously and directly accessible, there is also the option to either letting the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine crawl this thing place before we upgrade, or simply [clone] the wiki.
There really is no reason for anyone to disagree on having their stuff released under 4.0 anyway, because people using 4.0 can incorporate this anyway, and nothing can prevent anyone from doing the above mentioned cloning action and re-distributing under 4.0. All this 3.0-business is basically just for people that want to keep their stuff additionally platformed here under 3.0 for whatever their personal reasons may be.
Again, just to make it clear: Nothing changes or can change that everything posted here was originally posted under CC-BY-SA 3.0, not even the original authors (you can not retract licensing agreements like that). Or, to quote directly from the actual license, (bold mine):
7. b) Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
Iftags are just a way to display/hide sections selectively depending on a page's tags (they're applied server-side, so excluded stuff isn't even served to the client).
Our Imperial Tsunderes are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 just like everything else, under the necessity of including SCP. They however include a piece of CC-BY 2.0 licensed media, which is perfectly fine since it is explicitly upwards-compatible. Doesn't make them 2.0, just like how Identity Receptacle isn't CC0 although including a CC0 picture. I don't know what Heartful was complaining about, the licenses are compatible in this direction.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
We can try your html thing and if that does not work, we copy the plaintext and replace one number.
All pages comes out to 20 pieces per page with 12 pages, meaning that the number of tags that would need to be applied is <240. Assuming I have the tag in the clipboard and have all the tabs open, applying a tag
should be doable in 2 minutes (worst case estimate, assuming I have to stay on a page until it has saved and reloaded). For 240 pages with 2 minutes spend on each we are at 480 minutes or 8 hours of work. Spread 8 hours over 2 weeks and we have a daily load of ~35 minutes a day. This plugged back into calculation would be 18 pages per day, which tells me that my 2 minutes was set way to high, since I think myself capable of tagging more than one page of list-every page a day.
In short, as soon as we say we do this, I start tagging things. If nothing goes wrong this should not take 2 weeks.
We are the only platform to redistribute the work, so yes, the original license is lost.
I do not think that ether the internet archive or clone idea stops
provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License
The author can at time of posting chose a different license, if there work does not to heavenly involve the universe itself. My current understanding of the site, says that you could write something vaguely insurgency related and than fully copyright it on this site if you do not tip your hand. The only indicator that the piece would have anything to do with 3.0 licensed work is its placement among said material.
BY-SA 2.0 indeed has that compatibility mechanism, so things should be ok to pull up. Maybe we have an explicitly differently licensed land mine elsewhere, but for now we can assume a clean 3.0 work bench.
Can users actually see hidden tags? If so I shall start to tag all pages with
_cc-by-sa-3.0
Let me see by how much I can beat my worst case estimate.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
WikiDot has a creatively named Button for tag update that you could include in a component that is rendered on every page — i.e. the top bar or the side bar. This way, you only have to smash that button instead of manually entering everything in a terrible form field.
Even faster, you could probably reverse-engineer the ajax request behind a tag update and just automatize that — some SCP wikis are doing that for harmless statistics, so I guess it's allowed? Certainly less work than spinning up Selenum.
My major concern here is that WD might decide to do its thing and mess something up during a mass-rollout. Frequent changes to the same page or changes to many pages at once sometimes cause hiccups, ranging from delayed changes, to changes notbeing registered at all, to the entire page disappearing in limbo for indefinite time frames.
(That's why when you dig through me messing around with Anubis in the sandbox, you'll find some revisions where I coloured it wierdly. That was to easier check whether my changes registered — Wikidot kept serving outdated versions even when I cleared my cache and connected from other exit nodes.)
Being the only platform should not matter; if WIkiDot one day dies they're not liable (at least not in this sense) either. Sources to references get lost every minute, doesn't impact the license, nor is it being withdrawn.
When it comes to re-licensing the work, this is something fickle (Intellectual Property Lawyers exist for a reason). One could easily argue that Spookman's Last Call or Dare (a.k.a. "Doel's Corners") do not contain enough elements of SCP to be affected, but the moment you mention any GOC or other "canon" aspects, it's hard to argue that this isn't somewhat related.
At the same time, you can contain parts of SCP under fair-use (a wholly different can of worms) without being bound by CC-BY-SA. But in short, unless explicitly otherwise stated, assume that everything here (inlcuding code, btw) was contributed under CC-BY-SA.
But whatever. I dealed enough with organizing CYAs for the majority of my life as that I wouldn't want to play it safe here, so we can do it your way. As long as I don't have to do it…
The hidden tag thing is actually a great question; I can see them here, but that might just be my rank? (I just checked and it appears to be the cause.)
The main attribute of those "hidden" system tags is that they don't appear in the tags list unless you specify showHidden="yes" in the respective TagCloud module.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
Than for the sake of clarity, I will make it just a normal tag. It will therefor be the biggest tag this site has.
I am not sure how to implement the add tag button to all pages as you suggested. Things like adding it to a side-bar might do it, but I suspect that it would just apply the tag to the sidebar page and not the page itself. I will try thou.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Errors corrected.
Tag => hidden (_cc-3.0-by-sa)
Workload => Here
Button => User guides
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Probably this comes to late, but it's technically _cc-by-sa-3.0, at least if you want to uphold the requirement to be machine-readable as inteded by Creative Commons. Given that we're mostly using the tag internall, renaming might not be necessary though.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
Where in there does it state that or is there a sub-page I am missing?
I believe the full workload is 11 pages and we are only down to 8 , so we can still change cause (adjust the button to remove the old tag and add the new, and change the workload page to once again show the absence of the correct tag).
I will adjust the necessary tools, before retagging more pages.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
If I understood Marking your work with a CC license right, the "code" of each license is they way they write them out, e.g. "CC BY-SA 4.0", although it't not really made clear. However, tags are all lower case anyway and don't allow for spaces, so what gives?
Also, if we were to use the notice generated from their own Choose a License page, we're 71 character's over WikiDot's maximum.
I'm starting to despise their information regardign machine-readability; they're not simple enough for a layman to grasp, and not exact enough for an engineer who's used to RFCs.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
"The workload is processed. The last that remains are administrative pages."
After this statement has been confirmed we might move on to uplifting the license side-wide to 4.0.
I think we can shorten this:
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/80x15.png" /></a><br />Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International Lizenz</a>.<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"><img alt="CC License Agreement" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/80x15.png" /></a>Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Yes it does fit. Why is yours in german? Why does the german look like Creative Commons didn't actually got a german speaker to doublecheck their translation?
You approach is minimalist, i think we should prefix it with "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under" and then that image, which leaves us characters below the limit. Also, we should ad a more descriptive image alt, i.e. "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
I notice the particular style of image you choose doesn't even show the version though. But I think there is a different variant that does?
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
When I went to get the html code it would not show up, so I had to lower some defenses. One of which must have been responsible for it becoming German.
I did not pick the image, simply copied what it gave me (according to the link, that image is indeed the compact image for 4.0 by-sa).
I could not remember or be bothered to look up how many characters the wikidot license box allowed, I just remembered we needed to shrink the default.
If you can confirm that all legacy elements are tagged 3.0 we can move forward.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
I can confirm all legacy elements are indeed tagged appropiately, though I might argue a few are marked that don't need to be. I'll list them later seperately.
Eventually we need to reconsider /start for special treatment.
Also, have we considered adding a license page tot he legal: category before? That whole category doesn't seem to be linked anywhere, but I'd be a great place to dump all the necessary legalese.
Looks like all the badges from licensebuttons.net don't even include the version, curious.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
We can put a license there, but if every page already links back to CC-official is that not a better option?
I will move forward with the license upgrade.
EDIT: Go to the hidden noise to find how I saw fit to implement 4.0. I am not 100% on the image, but that can be changed. Once you have confirmed that the implementation is appropriate, I will roll it out side-wide.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Hmmm… why are we adding the image again when we do have place? (Do we?) I honestly don't like that it's not in-line with the text, but I'm not sure if we have the character space to navigate this.
Also, you wrote
Unless stated otherwise Content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License
; why not
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
?
Did I already proposed adding the badge to the sidebar instead? I honestly don't know my own opinion on that, I just confidently know it's possible.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
We can do without the image or use the big logo (have not tested that).
I have no preference over where the words stand, believe both sentences to be grammatically correct and that the meaning of the sentence is unaffected by the word placement.
We can probably easily get the logo into the site bar. The only reason I see to include the logo at all is transparency, but as you pointed out, the logo does not show the version number, therefor does not show the actual license change. I say we just drop thew logo and stick to wikidots default way of presenting the license.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
I have implemented the 4.0 license side-wide and updated the guidebook.
We may find lose 3.0 ends in the future but form now on we are (by default) SCP Wiki incompatible.
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
Updated the link to be https by default and added a finishing period.
As for things I don't think shouldn't have the tag:
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
I am working under the German concept of an "artistic threshold". If something is at least a bid creative it has to be licensed and our default was CC BY-SA 3.0 (explaining: the tag guide (it is a work of art by the time that went into making it), Author pages (blank lists of works would not classify, but I have yet to see an author not put even a bit of creativity in their author page), Cad's Sandbox (original content, I believe by virtue of collage and curation).
(Site-Note: Every forum page has the license disclaimer, so every forum post is CC 4.0 now and if posted before the 13th also under 3.0)
As for removing 3.0 from your stuff:
§3 + §7 abs. 2 says the license is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) so until 70 years after you are dead.
You can perhaps dig some of your works out, if they were never under 3.0 and I unknowingly mislabeled them. So no, what you propose actually breaks the license, aka law, aka the stuff an admin can not overrule. (Should we start a new "The licensing issue") thread to sort through that?
Fighting Monsters and Language since 2016.
There are no strings on me! …Threads, I meant threads.
The same artistic threshold argument also put things like store receipts, code tables, etc. clearly outside of what can be protected… But then, we have like 4 or 5 descriptions that could be considered creative, so whatever.
You again confuse no longer distributing something under a license from revoking it entirely. If any of you really want to write some prequel about that fucker Jenkins reaping credit for what he doesn't deserve under CC-BY-SA 3.0, do your thing. But this place should only specify the most recent license.
Eschew elucidation, espouse obfuscation.
