Possible Revival of FIRSTwiki?

[unionylibertad]

I would be very happy to help. I have 6 years of experience editing Wikipedia and I know how to run MediaWiki.

If you are an admin of FIRSTWiki, it would be awesome if you could PM me and give me a task to do! FIRSTWIki can be a strong resource to the community and I want contribute to that.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by unionylibertad

If you are an admin of FIRSTWiki, it would be awesome if you could PM me and give me a task to do! FIRSTWIki can be a strong resource to the community and I want contribute to that.

Also, to any admins out there, could you possibly get in touch with Max to see if he would make any other users admins? I think it would be useful for some people (such as me and others who volunteered to be) to become admins to help clean up the site, such as deleting pages and the like.

[Boydean]

Originally Posted by Hallry

Also, to any admins out there, could you possibly get in touch with Max to see if he would make any other users admins? I think it would be useful for some people (such as me and others who volunteered to be) to become admins to help clean up the site, such as deleting pages and the like.

I think to make this easier on all involved I suggest that people who want to become admins (and can seriously take on the active role of an admin, and dedicate the time to it) go the Nominations for Adminship page and put your name down.

Also, I think we will need at least one other person to become a bureaucrat, since it appears (from my perpective at least) that Max isn't involved much anymore.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Boydean

Also, I think we will need at least one other person to become a bureaucrat, since it appears (from my perpective at least) that Max isn't involved much anymore.

I have nominated myself to become a bureaucrat since I seem to be the one 'leading the charge' here, and am also very familiar with using wiki's, and have much leadership experience.

(Also, I again attempted at contacting Max, this time to see if he could promote users to administrators, and in my case, bureaucrats)

[Hallry]

Update: I have been in contact with Max, and for the moment he has made myself and another user, Boydean, sysops. He is up for updating the wiki, but stated that one large task which needs to be done is to update the software behind the MediaWiki installation to an up to date version (the current version installed is 5 years old) Is anyone with experience in Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL wanting to help us update the software?

In the mean time, let's get editing! When I have free time this weekend, I will make an outline of what needs to be done, in chronological order.

Also, a big thanks to everyone offering their support!

Sincerely,
Ryan Hall.

[Nemo]

What are the potential consequences of disregarding the license policy? I can't think of a way that this license policy could protect anyone from harm. Right now I don't see any reason to lose sleep over this, but I am willing to be enlightened.

If the license issue is a real issue, then I would advocate starting a new wiki.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Nemo

What are the potential consequences of disregarding the license policy? I can't think of a way that this license policy could protect anyone from harm. Right now I don't see any reason to lose sleep over this, but I am willing to be enlightened.

If the license issue is a real issue, then I would advocate starting a new wiki.

As noted above, there's no practical likelihood of legal action. (Yes, it's probably civil copyright infringement—but who would sue?) However, because the content would be GFDL-contaminated, you wouldn't be able to adapt or re-use it on sites like Wikipedia where copyright is rigourously enforced.

The whole Wikipedia thing revolves around the idea that FIRSTWiki's better articles could serve as the basis for a Wikipedia treatment of the subject—but since Wikipedia won't let you cite another wiki, only adapt or import its content under licence, it's worth paying attention to the licence terms. Ignoring the licence basically closes that door for future use of all existing articles.

In terms of harm, the harm is merely material (in that someone is being deprived of a copyright that they did not assign), however it isn't exactly a best practice or a good example to set. Though my feelings on the matter are complicated, I would say that it's one thing to break the law out of expediency on your own behalf or out of principle (those can be relatively easy to justify, under some circumstances), it's a different matter to subject all future editors to the ramifications of your choice. (Once they find out, they're confronted with the choice: become complicit in the infringement, or curtail their contributions.)

[Tristan Lall]

By the way: a few other Wikipedia-related thoughts.

Wikipedia normally prefers that article editors be somewhat distant from their subjects (to avoid bias). That's why incubating articles in FIRSTWiki is ideal. Using the FIRSTWiki history, it can be demonstrated that multiple independent users (i.e. people from other teams) contributed—so there's no concern that it's a mere promotional piece written by a team member. At that point, it's basically analogous to a subject matter expert writing about another researcher's published work—fair game on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) greatly prefer that images not be (exclusively) GFDL-licenced. Why? Because the GFDL makes you attach a copy of the licence—which is a ridiculous imposition for most ordinary illustrative uses. Right now, FIRSTWiki's images appear to be GFDL-contaminated. Irrespective of any decision on whether to ignore GFDL, FIRSTWiki should take steps to suggest that users licence any new images under CC-BY-SA or CC0 (public domain). In fact, an even better solution would be to have them upload to Wikimedia Commons under one of those licences—that will greatly facilitate re-use. (Only images ineligible for Wikimedia Commons would be uploaded locally.)

[cbale2000]

I think we might be seriously over-thinking this licensing "issue". I can just about guarantee that more than 90% of the editors of FIRSTwiki don't (or didn't) even know there IS a license, let alone care about it changing. I also have yet to see any of the content uploaded to FIRSTwiki put on ANY sort of license. Why? Probably because the people taking the pictures, or making the logos don't care if they're licensed or not.

I don't mean to come off as a bit harsh, but it seems like a big deal is being made about an issue that has never in the history of FIRSTwiki been and, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't need to be, a big deal. I understand why having a license on the site is a good thing, but lets not get stuck lawyering about the topic and forget what the important thing is here - the content.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by Hallry

He is up for updating the wiki, but stated that one large task which needs to be done is to update the software behind the MediaWiki installation to an up to date version (the current version installed is 5 years old) Is anyone with experience in Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL wanting to help us update the software?

A few people already noticed this and volunteered (unionylibertad and myself)

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I think we might be seriously over-thinking this licensing "issue". I can just about guarantee that more than 90% of the editors of FIRSTwiki don't (or didn't) even know there IS a license, let alone care about it changing.

Tristan has articulated this point particularly well: if we do a good job other groups or projects may want to use the content - the most prominent and likely example being Wikipedia. The problem is that all content imported into Wikipedia must be under CC-BY-SA, not GFDL.

The problem isn't about whether the contributors care what happens with their work; the problem is how the work can be used by others. I don't want to care about the GFDL or CC-BY-SA, or any other legal shenanigans. As long as I can read about teams and write about motors, I'm happy. But other people do care, and for good reason. Wikipedia is trying very hard to become a respectable source and not violate copyright law, and they have to pay careful attention to where content comes from. As much as I'd like to, I don't think we should just fake or fudge the license; that will only cause problems down the road.

WikiTravel's discussion of the topic is useful to get a simple overview of the issue and its implications: Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by StevenB

A few people already noticed this and volunteered (unionylibertad and myself)

My friend and I have researched how to do it and will hopefully be able to update the site's software this weekend.

I will also talk to Max about the licensing issue.

[unionylibertad]

im hoping the site will become a huge resource ...the concept is great, esp since FIRST has such a large and open community

[superbotman]

I am trying to add new competitions to FIRST wiki, but I have no idea how to create a new page. Could anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by superbotman

I am trying to add new competitions to FIRST wiki, but I have no idea how to create a new page. Could anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks.

To create a new page, simply enter the desired name of the page into the search bar. If there is no page with said name currently, you will be brought to a page showing that there are no matches, which will also have a link to create the new page. Simply click that link, and follow the formatting used for other competition pages, such as for the New York City Regional in 2011.

If you have any further questions, feel free to PM me.

Sincerely,
Ryan Hall

[Nomadic Mentor]

I'm willing to write articles or do some copying editing if there is a specific articles needing writing to help with the overhaul.