- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The article is found to be an essay about an unnotable neologism, and therefore not permissible for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Libre knowledge
- Libre knowledge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A rambling essay filled with superfluous images and lots of over-interpreted sources, WP:SYN and WP:CITOGENESIS in the references section (and even WP:COI it seems — see Libre knowledge#cite_note-brochure2005-102). All in a network of articles used to promote the author's favourite vocabulary. I cannot even discern the topic very clearly.
Wikipedia is already biased enough in favour of open-whatever movements without propaganda pieces like this one.
If there is to be any article at all about "libre knowledge", however defined, I will argue that it is preferable to WP:BLOWUP this version. — Keφr 20:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: The article has just been redone in the last month (mostly during February 2015). The work was done in parallel to (or on top of) the work on
Libre (word) during the past several months which was accepted only yesterday (on 12 March 2015). The trickiest part was separating out the "cultural", "knowledge" and "word" aspects of "libre" and trying to put the right sections in the right articles. There is unavoidable overlap in the history (common roots), but each forms a different branch worthy of its own Wikipedia article because each attracts readers (and edits of people) with an interest in that particular aspect (
culture and
the arts,
knowledge, and
the word itself). The images were carefully chosen to provide context and background for the interested reader.
Admittedly, I spent a lot of time contributing to the updates, so I obviously would not support its deletion so soon (if ever). I personally do use the word "libre" rather than "free" or "open" when it seems appropriate (to me) and have a keen interest in the word, libre knowledge and the cultural implications. I have tried to portray what I know as best I can using the references I know about or can find. Please give others a chance to edit the article to improve it. Deleting it removes that opportunity and further entrenches the "open" bias to which you refer ('libre' and 'open' are not the same except in practical terms in certain contexts).
The WP:CITOGENESIS issues can be fixed, and I am sure many improvements can be made. So, please give it a chance. - K ( talk) 00:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: The article has just been redone in the last month (mostly during February 2015). The work was done in parallel to (or on top of) the work on
Libre (word) during the past several months which was accepted only yesterday (on 12 March 2015). The trickiest part was separating out the "cultural", "knowledge" and "word" aspects of "libre" and trying to put the right sections in the right articles. There is unavoidable overlap in the history (common roots), but each forms a different branch worthy of its own Wikipedia article because each attracts readers (and edits of people) with an interest in that particular aspect (
culture and
the arts,
knowledge, and
the word itself). The images were carefully chosen to provide context and background for the interested reader.
- Delete. This is basically an essay. The sourcing seems to consist mostly of synthesis and explanatory footnotes. Also note that some of the sources go to articles written by "Tucker K", which seems a bit circular. If there's value in such an article, it should probably be written by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest?
For the record, I am not receiving remuneration for editing pages on Wikipedia. The reference highlighted above refers to a brochure prepared for workshops held in South Africa in 2005. As is evident in the brochure, the project was strongly aligned with the mission of Wikipedia - reminder:
- to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. [1]
Although that particular project ended early in 2006, my then employer continued to support my activities related to libre knowledge and open education until I left the organisation at the end of 2008. During all of that time it seemed appropriate to share knowledge gained through those projects on Wikipedia, which I regarded as the epitome of libre knowledge.
Since then I have continued to develop learning resources related to libre knowledge and occasionally support organisations aligned with the mission above, usually on a voluntary basis, and none of these have paid me to edit Wikipedia pages.
To me this seems to be an "equivalence of interest", not a conflict of interest. I hoped that some merciless editing would balance my biases and lead to a better article. Merciless deletion seems a bit harsh and removes the opportunity for commons-based peer production to take its course.
Having said that, there is obvious opposition to my participation, and I understand this. So, at least for a little while, I will at most contribute minor edits and comment on Talk pages, unless something changes in the meantime.
Please advise if there is anything more I need to do to fully address this now apparent conflict of interest.
Thanks - K ( talk) 09:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing disclosure
On reading Wikipedia policies (which I am still trying to get my head around) I came across the issue of canvassing and realise I may have inadvertently drawn unbalanced attention to this discussion. I am on a mailing list in which a discussion was taking place in which the topic of alternative terms for free software arose. In the discussion I stated my position (in support of the word "libre") and added: "Ironically, the Libre knowledge article has been nominated for deletion. So take a read soon in case it is: /info/en/?search=Libre_knowledge." - K ( talk) 09:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 10:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - despite being myself a proponent of the libre philosophy, I know an essay when I see one, and it does not belong to WP. If there is valuable content to be found here that is not already in Libre (word) or Libre software, merge it. (And yes, "libre software" is actually a redirect to "free software" which some people would rather not use, but that's the WP:COMMONNAME.) @ KTucker: thank you for your honesty about potential COI and canvassing issues. Tigraan ( talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This appears to be a little-used neologism. Despite the 100+ references in the article, they are about related topics and most do not even contain the words "libre knowledge". The few that do appear to be written by the person who coined the term. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The article is found to be an essay about an unnotable neologism, and therefore not permissible for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Libre knowledge
- Libre knowledge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A rambling essay filled with superfluous images and lots of over-interpreted sources, WP:SYN and WP:CITOGENESIS in the references section (and even WP:COI it seems — see Libre knowledge#cite_note-brochure2005-102). All in a network of articles used to promote the author's favourite vocabulary. I cannot even discern the topic very clearly.
Wikipedia is already biased enough in favour of open-whatever movements without propaganda pieces like this one.
If there is to be any article at all about "libre knowledge", however defined, I will argue that it is preferable to WP:BLOWUP this version. — Keφr 20:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: The article has just been redone in the last month (mostly during February 2015). The work was done in parallel to (or on top of) the work on
Libre (word) during the past several months which was accepted only yesterday (on 12 March 2015). The trickiest part was separating out the "cultural", "knowledge" and "word" aspects of "libre" and trying to put the right sections in the right articles. There is unavoidable overlap in the history (common roots), but each forms a different branch worthy of its own Wikipedia article because each attracts readers (and edits of people) with an interest in that particular aspect (
culture and
the arts,
knowledge, and
the word itself). The images were carefully chosen to provide context and background for the interested reader.
Admittedly, I spent a lot of time contributing to the updates, so I obviously would not support its deletion so soon (if ever). I personally do use the word "libre" rather than "free" or "open" when it seems appropriate (to me) and have a keen interest in the word, libre knowledge and the cultural implications. I have tried to portray what I know as best I can using the references I know about or can find. Please give others a chance to edit the article to improve it. Deleting it removes that opportunity and further entrenches the "open" bias to which you refer ('libre' and 'open' are not the same except in practical terms in certain contexts).
The WP:CITOGENESIS issues can be fixed, and I am sure many improvements can be made. So, please give it a chance. - K ( talk) 00:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: The article has just been redone in the last month (mostly during February 2015). The work was done in parallel to (or on top of) the work on
Libre (word) during the past several months which was accepted only yesterday (on 12 March 2015). The trickiest part was separating out the "cultural", "knowledge" and "word" aspects of "libre" and trying to put the right sections in the right articles. There is unavoidable overlap in the history (common roots), but each forms a different branch worthy of its own Wikipedia article because each attracts readers (and edits of people) with an interest in that particular aspect (
culture and
the arts,
knowledge, and
the word itself). The images were carefully chosen to provide context and background for the interested reader.
- Delete. This is basically an essay. The sourcing seems to consist mostly of synthesis and explanatory footnotes. Also note that some of the sources go to articles written by "Tucker K", which seems a bit circular. If there's value in such an article, it should probably be written by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest?
For the record, I am not receiving remuneration for editing pages on Wikipedia. The reference highlighted above refers to a brochure prepared for workshops held in South Africa in 2005. As is evident in the brochure, the project was strongly aligned with the mission of Wikipedia - reminder:
- to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. [1]
Although that particular project ended early in 2006, my then employer continued to support my activities related to libre knowledge and open education until I left the organisation at the end of 2008. During all of that time it seemed appropriate to share knowledge gained through those projects on Wikipedia, which I regarded as the epitome of libre knowledge.
Since then I have continued to develop learning resources related to libre knowledge and occasionally support organisations aligned with the mission above, usually on a voluntary basis, and none of these have paid me to edit Wikipedia pages.
To me this seems to be an "equivalence of interest", not a conflict of interest. I hoped that some merciless editing would balance my biases and lead to a better article. Merciless deletion seems a bit harsh and removes the opportunity for commons-based peer production to take its course.
Having said that, there is obvious opposition to my participation, and I understand this. So, at least for a little while, I will at most contribute minor edits and comment on Talk pages, unless something changes in the meantime.
Please advise if there is anything more I need to do to fully address this now apparent conflict of interest.
Thanks - K ( talk) 09:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing disclosure
On reading Wikipedia policies (which I am still trying to get my head around) I came across the issue of canvassing and realise I may have inadvertently drawn unbalanced attention to this discussion. I am on a mailing list in which a discussion was taking place in which the topic of alternative terms for free software arose. In the discussion I stated my position (in support of the word "libre") and added: "Ironically, the Libre knowledge article has been nominated for deletion. So take a read soon in case it is: /info/en/?search=Libre_knowledge." - K ( talk) 09:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 10:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - despite being myself a proponent of the libre philosophy, I know an essay when I see one, and it does not belong to WP. If there is valuable content to be found here that is not already in Libre (word) or Libre software, merge it. (And yes, "libre software" is actually a redirect to "free software" which some people would rather not use, but that's the WP:COMMONNAME.) @ KTucker: thank you for your honesty about potential COI and canvassing issues. Tigraan ( talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This appears to be a little-used neologism. Despite the 100+ references in the article, they are about related topics and most do not even contain the words "libre knowledge". The few that do appear to be written by the person who coined the term. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.