GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader ( talk · contribs) 12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
( talk page stalker) As a general rule of thumb, I would be very surprised if an article under 3,000 bytes of prose could meet both of the "broad in coverage" and "stable" criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments based on Special:Permalink/1060536661
The product being sold was not actual ownership of the edit (as Wikipedia content is released under a copyleft license), but rather a "digital item" that records the purchaser's name alongside a URL of the edit and by itself confers the owner no special rights.can't see where this appears in the source, also seems factually incorrect. Wikipedia's license doesn't stop people from transferring ownership over material to which they hold copyright. Potentially it is derived from
Which raises a question: could anybody sell an NFT based on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia where all the content is freely licensed for reuse?(which appears in the source), but that would be a misinterpretation (probably the hypothetical question raised is referring to whether I could create an NFT representing your edit, for example)
A message sent by Sanger to the Nupedia mailing list said "Humor me [...] go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes".is unclear to me; reading the source and the context in which it appears makes it even more unclear.
the purchaser would be allowed to edit it-- it seems anyone would be able to edit it (per The Verge)
Fails GARC #2, and has some inaccuracies, so failing overall. Could be renominated after improvements. Note I haven't assessed criteria marked as neutral, but at a glance most seem fine except potentially 3(b). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader ( talk · contribs) 12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
( talk page stalker) As a general rule of thumb, I would be very surprised if an article under 3,000 bytes of prose could meet both of the "broad in coverage" and "stable" criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments based on Special:Permalink/1060536661
The product being sold was not actual ownership of the edit (as Wikipedia content is released under a copyleft license), but rather a "digital item" that records the purchaser's name alongside a URL of the edit and by itself confers the owner no special rights.can't see where this appears in the source, also seems factually incorrect. Wikipedia's license doesn't stop people from transferring ownership over material to which they hold copyright. Potentially it is derived from
Which raises a question: could anybody sell an NFT based on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia where all the content is freely licensed for reuse?(which appears in the source), but that would be a misinterpretation (probably the hypothetical question raised is referring to whether I could create an NFT representing your edit, for example)
A message sent by Sanger to the Nupedia mailing list said "Humor me [...] go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes".is unclear to me; reading the source and the context in which it appears makes it even more unclear.
the purchaser would be allowed to edit it-- it seems anyone would be able to edit it (per The Verge)
Fails GARC #2, and has some inaccuracies, so failing overall. Could be renominated after improvements. Note I haven't assessed criteria marked as neutral, but at a glance most seem fine except potentially 3(b). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)