Talk:Lumenos

From RationalWikiWiki

Contents 1 Appearances and Disappearances 2 Forking brilliant! 3 Lolcowing me for no reason 3.1 Replying to the cowardly unsigned COMMENTS in this article 3.2 What I actually think about the Foundation 3.2.1 After interviewing Eira on what method of attribution/copyright notice the Board could require 4 Good ol' Lumenos

[edit] Appearances and Disappearances

"Lumenos is a particularly odd editor at RationalWiki. He disappeared following The WikiIndex Incident,[...]"

Please understand good Sirs, what choice had I when I haped upon the mighty ones conspiring to dethrone me? Shamefilled nightmares had I of mafioso taking innocent lumenati by the ears and... I can't mention of it before the wee ones. Lumenos 05:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I had experienced it, "Rational"Wiki disappeared following my arrival. Lumenos 07:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Forking brilliant!

Outstanding pun in the last line there, well done! DeltaStar 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Lolcowing me for no reason

I took the time out of my busy day to write exactly what I thought about the Foundation and they revert to these lies damn lies. ~ Lumenis (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Replying to the cowardly unsigned COMMENTS in this article

Recently (as of late July 2010), Lumenos has voiced strong opposition to Trent's decision to transfer ownership of RationalWiki to a not-for-profit foundation run by Trent and two other trustees (Human and Armondikov), claiming that this will concentrate too much power in the hands of Trent,[...]

Well that would be rather stoopid, wouldn't it, because Trent owned everything to begin with. ~ Lumenis (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

and that Trent will eventually begin curtailing the "freedoms" that the wiki users currently enjoy.

I specifically stated that I thought Trent to be perhaps the most respectable ratwikian and that I was considering situations that were even thousands of years into the future. But I don't think the "wiki users" currently enjoy very great liberty, compared to what could be. ~ Lumenis (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The biggest bee in eys bonnet seems to be over concern that a trustee will appoint himself the effective "President-for-life" of Rational Wiki,

Not one person. The biggest problem is the bylaws would not prevent the Board amending them in any way, for any reason. After much ado Armondikov finally admitted that the RW Board has the final say on anything because they effectively own RW. Once you understand that, I believe the "doomsday" scenario would be more like a rift wherein as few as three board members could legally dominate instead of working toward consensus. But that is the situation we have now to some degree. I think RW would benefit from allowing groups that are deemed "unrational" "conservative", etc, to participate in mainspace editing, and have some political influence. This would begin with allowing sourced information in, and allowing unsourced information to be deleted (kinda like WP is already doing). ~ Lumenis (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

and take away the "right to fork" that Lumenos continually brings up.

They could take away any right, but that is not exactly the point. Wikipedia just did their fastest fund raiser ever and made 16 million dollars. RW could get far better or it could get far worse, depending largely on management and if it wants to be a circle jerk or a serious endevour. So long as future editors have the right to fork they could move RW (our wiki) and the content is not owned by the Foundation. If that changes, it may mean the end of "Rational"Wiki (unless they are good managers in which case it might be the best thing that ever happened). ~ Lumenis (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FFS! The content of RW is owned by the individual contributors. They licensed it under CC-BY-SA. THIS IS IRREVOCABLE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO FORK -- Nx / talk 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are "right". I somehow forgot my good argument in all this time. See reply below. ~ Lumenis (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] What I actually think about the Foundation

Here I will reproduce what I wrote:

Recently (as of late July 2010), Lumenos has suggested that the proposed bylaws of the RationalWiki Foundation, may become important someday and that editors could make donations conditional on whether these bylaws reflect their interests.

Lumenos contends[1] that: Trustees would seem to have the power to name bureaucrats and settle their disputes. The bylaws seem to include nothing to prevent Trustees from making themselves absolute rulers of the domain names rationalwiki.org, rationalwiki.com, rationalwiki.net. They could take away the "right to fork" and if RationalWikian's move content they created to a new domain name (without consent of all who have edited their articles after the copyright changes have been made) the new host may be convinced to take down the wiki or the new wiki could be vulnerable to a lawsuit, AFAIK.

~ Lumenis (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You apparently still don't understand how CC-BY-SA works. Please come back when you do. -- Nx / talk 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The license states, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor".[2] The RW license does not specify anything.[3] The Board could decide to "fix" this and force a forked wiki to put attribution in every single article on the top of each page in VERY ANNOYING LARGE LETTERING. That subtracts greatly from the value of the forked wiki and let's everyone know who the real "Rational"Wiki is. ~ Lumenis (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the full legalese. -- Nx / talk 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I read section 4 c. It doesn't seem to elaborate on the above. ~ Lumenis (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The legalese states that you must keep intact all copyright notices - this means that you only have to include attribution in very annoying large lettering if the original also does that. In practice, attribution is done via edit histories, this is why they are important. -- Nx / talk 11:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

IANAL of course, so that's just my interpretation. -- Nx / talk 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You agree at least, that it is ambiguous? Shouldn't these things be clarified on the RW copyright page? ~ Lumenis (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are implying either. When do you imagine a "fork" must mention something on each page and when does the fork only have to mention this on the copyright page? Here are some examples: 1) A supermajority of RWians decide to "move" the wiki to a new domain, so they create a fork. 2) A "forked wiki" uses all content from RW (including talkpages), but they import it into another wiki. 3) Someone makes a wiki with content only from RW, but not all of it. 3b) Then they add a bunch of content that is not from the original location of "RW". 4) A copy of only one page. ~ Lumenis (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, okay, you are thinking that we are required to give attribution to every author, whereas I was assuming since this is a collaborative work we would only need to be attributing the "licensor" ie RationalWiki. So I suppose you would say that you always have to preserve and export entire edit histories. But in the new wiki they would all have red links unless the same people signed up. This gets rather confusing, for example, what if people sign up with someone else's username? The edit history does not clearly indicate what wiki domain, the user belonged to. I suppose you could somehow import to MediaWiki in such a way that it puts a message in every edit history that it came from another domain? But after much more editing this will be buried and won't be apparent, even to someone who knows about edit history. (I still don't know how you would answer the numbered questions in my last post.) ~ Lumenis (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] After interviewing Eira on what method of attribution/copyright notice the Board could require

I'm still replying to Nx' last statement. To quote, "[...]you only have to include attribution in very annoying large lettering if the original also does that.[...] -- Nx / talk 11:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC) "

Eira seems to have more legal experience than anyone else I've discussed this with. This is what Eira wrote at first (I put the "important" parts in bold), "My understanding is that RW does not have any specific or explicit method of attribution. As such, my understanding is that one need only give what they understand to be adequate attribution. If such attribution is in fact actually insufficient, then the RWF would notify that individual about the inadequate attribution, and state any necessary remedy."[4] So that would seem to me, to indicate that the Board could require someone put the full attribution or copywrite notice on every page, but later ey wrote, "The actual legal text covers the default attribution method. RW need not actually define it separately." followed by "[...]RW doesn't put a full copyright notice on every page. It does however contain a link on every page to the copyright notice. I don't see why it would be unreasonable for someone to simply include the attributions in a link upon every page."[5] so this would appear to mean that the Board could not require full copyright or attribution be put on each page. ~ Lumenis (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Good ol' Lumenos

I love Lumenos. Ey always gets me to giggle when ey are about sputtering eir nonsense. Punky McPunkersen 13:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, he doesn't wash his dishes, he licks them clean! Tyrannis^{An iron, yet caring fist} 13:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)