Founding Agreement comments by David Cornelson on 1-20-2005 at 15:50 CST
First of all David, let me say that you don't _owe_ us an apology, but in the scheme of human dynamics, it might be a nice gesture. If for no other reason than almost all of your fears are unfounded.
When I first created the ifwiki I think I made it abundantly clear that I do not feel any ownership or urge to co-opt the IF community in any way. This is your wiki as much as anyone elses and I mean that as sincerely as I possibly can. Your voice holds the same weight as Nick's or mine or anyone else that joins in the discussion. I think I will make this clear to everyone if it isn't already:
No single person has authority over ifwiki.
I asked for permission to copy the glossary over and received it. It never even ocurred to me that a copyright was involved and I highly doubt Dennis Jerz thought so either. In my mind, I was simply being polite.
In seeking to pull Baf's Guide material over to ifwiki, I wasn't suggesting it become a replacement or to infringe on Baf's in any way shape or form. It was my thought in brainstorming with Nick that I could mirror Baf's database (which I had already started to do two years ago with the IFLibrary) and auto generate uneditable sections based on database information. These sections would have the proper attribution to Baf's guide and all links would point to wurb.com. I think having some of Baf's information local to the ifwiki is beneficial to those adding material and content. We could go so far as to create macros so that you could do something like this:
#BAFLINK game "Cattus Atrox"
...which would make a direct link to Baf's guide that would be maintained within his database as opposed to ifwiki. The point is that as we build articles, such as a potential artical about Narration, we can attribute games and authors via Baf's without a ton of effort (or copyright concerns).
Asking Roger or others for content
As for Roger saying no, that's fine with me. My thought was that there was a possibility that he has or will tire of maintaining some of his content and that a communal maintenance might be benefical to everyone. Parsifal has outdated links and would benefit being moved to ifwiki. As it stands, if I hurt someones feelings by asking, than I apologize. My intent is and always has been for the benefit of the IF community at large.
As for anyone elses content, it's the same thought. I think Gunther gladly offered the speed-if information because he does not have the time to maintain it. That is exactly the prospect I was inquiring for.
I think your assumptions about my motivations are incorrect.
Now, the funny part about all of this is that had you said FUCK and then dissented immediately, I very likely would have taken a position closer to your point of view than to Nick's (sorry Nick). I'm reluctant to place any burdens for editing on ifwiki. At the same time, I also believe that embedded copyrights should be allowed. So we need to rethink this licensing issue. We need to keep licensing issues to a Talk page and regard all content on ifwiki as attributable to their original sources, whether that is easily noted or not.
I think we can safely keep the license on the FAQ page, but in general, as far as I'm concerned, the ifwiki has no license.
I will now go off and do some research on licensing and copyright and see what ideas I can come up with. When I finish my research, I will write up my thoughts appropriately.
--David Cornelson 15:49, 20 Jan 2005 (Central Standard Time)