Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0/Archives/2016-12
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in December 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Anónimo
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Si se cambian los derechos de autor a 'Creative Commons', ¿Wikipedia conservará toda su personalidad?
Si se cambian los derechos de autor, tal vez hagan algunos cambios en la página los cuales a algunos usuarios no les guste; a menos que tengan algunas opciones como:
.[Opción 1]: Conservar el tema original de Wikipedia.
.[Opción 2]: Seguir con las actualizaciones que se hagan en la página.
.[Opción 3]: No estoy de acuerdo con esto.
.[Opción 4]: (Botón de ayuda) "[Ayuda]"
Sería como un "Test" que se le hagan a los usuarios, para consultar a quien le gusta y a quién no le gusta los cambios que se hagan en Wikipedia.
Eso pienso yo a cerca de todo esto.
Gracias por tomar un poco de tiempo para leer esto.
¡Qué tengan un bonito día! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.88.96.40 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Use of creative commons licence (loliver_m)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia is an organization that shares information from one person to another, this is information made by people, for people, using the creative commons license it is licensing information that already exists but a certain individual decided to edit/upload. People come to Wikimedia because they know the information is shared. If you ask me, I'm strongly against the license being set, as it credits the wrong individuals for the information made by others. There has to be a governed agency that monitors the information being distributed to the people of America. It is simply ludicrous that the internet is a world in its own and 99% of the information is inaccurate, fraudulent, and dishonest to the masses of people that rely on the internet for accurate information.
Sincerely, A'Yanni Purnell
78.162.160.15
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hayır bence böyle kalmalı. Vikipedi özgür bir site.
201.211.58.179
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it is really good to upgrade the licence, to give more credits to all the people involved in any article. Also to have like you say, the articles officially translated to English will be wonderful, and really helpful to expand the knowledge around the world, because for example I live in Venezuela and I can understand English like many people wordwide because its simplicity. So that will be very positive. For content creators (for example Youtube) the condition of information uses do not change to much so that is also great. No negative things to say, it is an upgrade so any improvement to a well done license can just be great.
If some employee read this, I want to thank you all because wikipedia is an amazing page Then I own my own money I will do a donation I promise :) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.211.58.179 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Alopediac
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I can only trust Wikipedia to do what they think best as I cannot fully assess this potential upgrade. I wish the actual purpose would be stated simply and clearly along with any negative aspects. Then I may be able to value it myself. Wikipedia is a marvel for society, may it always be so. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alopediac (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)