Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Click here to read a brief review of the above parable. — An gr 19:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about accidentally deleting the first para, I have no idea how I did that. Anyway, thanks for making this into an essay! Kelly hi! 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the message behind this parable? It's rather obscure. (This question by anon has been moved to here from the article) Dbfirs 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading it, but I didn't learn anything. I already know that some terms are binary. It seems a very long-winded way of making an elementary point. Centrepull ( talk) 15:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I've never actually heard how that sentence ends.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The bulk of the parable makes the point that food generally tastes better with animal products than without them. I, as "the vegan", agree with this, and conclude that such a meal is "high quality". Then, in the final paragraph my vegan self suddenly discards everything I just learned about animal products and aesthetic quality of food in favor of a completely vegan cuisine? And in my confusion, I declare this bill of fare just as "high quality" as the animal-product infested grub? Either the second group is cheating, or I have become so delusional that I can no longer tell the difference between good-tasting food and not-so-good tasting food.
To be fair, if one has had nothing but purely vegan food (free media content) their entire life, their opinion of what "high quality" food is would be a bit skewed by their experience, as they would have no idea what food with animal products (non-free content) tastes like. But like the hypothetical vegan in the parable, we have tasted of animal products (non-free content) and can tell "high quality" from "somewhat lesser quality" food (encyclopedias) quite easily. Thus the point that seems to be put forth here - you can have "equally high quality" with all-free content as with non-free content is inconsistent with the premise presented, and doesn't seem to hold up to logic. Shirtwaist chat 11:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
... not that FU and copyright are funny issues, but I did enjoy the dry satirical humor style. Ran across this as I've been researching some of the FU/NFCC etc. issues lately. Working with another editor (28bytes) on getting some sort of guide on the whole topic together. Only thing is that I'm not sure whether to have chicken or salad for dinner now. ...:)— Ched : ? 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all - technically this is an allegory rather than a parable --- Shirt58 ( talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
In common modern uses of "parable," though their significance is never explicitly stated, parables are not generally held to be hidden or secret but on the contrary are typically straightforward and obvious. It is the allegory that typically features hidden meanings. As H.W. Fowler puts it in Modern English Usage, the object of both parable and allegory "is to enlighten the hearer by submitting to him a case in which he has apparently no direct concern, and upon which therefore a disinterested judgment may be elicited from him." The parable, though, is more condensed than the allegory: a single principle comes to bear, and a single moral is deduced as it dawns on the reader or listener that the conclusion applies equally well to his own concerns.
Please see List of diseases that German speakers may suffer from. How would that figure into your parable? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in terms of persuading me towards a specific viewpoint, this essay was entirely unsuccessful.
First of all, the whole "vegan potluck" thing is incongruous. If the people there are vegans, then no one would be interested in eating anything containing meat, milk, or eggs. There would be no compromise on the matter.
Let's get down to the crux of the issue. At a vegan meal, if someone raises the question, "Hey, where's the vegan equivalent to chicken?" The answer is, quite simply, that there is none. So what's the logical solution? Do without.
Now, imagine a small group of Pink Floyd fans discussing The Dark Side of the Moon on its talk page, and one of them asks, "Hey, where the CC-BY-SA equivalent to the DSOTM album cover?" The answer is, quite simply, that there is none. So is the logical solution to "do without"?
Fair use exists for a reason. Album covers, movie posters, and the like aren't just there for decoration — they are an important component of their subject matter, and such things need to be dealt with using more than just text. In American copyright law, this is referred to as " transformation". Yes, we should obviously limit our usage of copyrighted content, as this remains the free encyclopedia. But the rules are not a suicide pact, and if removing a copyrighted image permitted under fair use weakens the quality of the article it is applied to, then I am not in favour of it. Kurtis (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This post is licensed for dissemination to other browsers servers by means of the HTTP protocol as defined in RFCs 2616 and 2817 under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.
In areas where such licenses are not recognized the content of this post may - in whole or in part - be reproduced under "fair use applying recursively to enable this post to be quoted in future posts in this and other threads including, but not limited to, quotations used in the future referring to this topic and the thoughts expressed within it
Permission is also granted to store this article for public retrieval under the conditions explained above, unless otherwise forbidden by local ordinance.
All trademarks that may be referenced are also acknowledged.
Each individual ASCII or Unicode character may reside in memory belonging to the owner of hardware, in which case the legal responsibility of this article, including deletion if found inflammatory can I stop doing this now or is anyone still reading this
far, I mean it started off well, but I can't really go on typing this stuff, can I?
Eventually it turns into something like the garbage you "agree to" without reading on so many webpages lorum ipso decoum est ipso lurmo groucho foo bar baz and indeed frek blah blah every alternate Tuesday blur, blah blah blech it would probably be best if I stopped doing this now so I conclude with the fact that portions of this document are invalid where void, and most of it should not be taken as legal in any way unless you really really want to get into all sorts of trouble, but the important thing is that the end of this must have LOTS AND LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS AT THE END ABOUT YOU HAVING ACCEPTED THIS LICENSE THE MOMENT YOU KNEW THE POST EXISTED AND ABOUT NOBODY HAVING ANY RIGHTS TO EVEN READ THIS LICENSE YOUR RESULTS MAY VARY PROFESSIONAL DRIVER ON CLOSED COURSE DO NOT ATTEMPT VOID WHERE PROHIBITED VOID WHERE NOT PROHIBITED MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF NUTS. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 05:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: Someone else who actually read it. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 02:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
In July 2020 this WikiProject got established
It got ~1000 views in the past month as compared to this page getting about 40. I am redirecting WP:VEGAN from here to that WikiProject, which is more on topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Redirect|WP:VEGAN|the parable about non-free content on Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Veganism parable}}
--
Hammersoft (
talk) 19:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)The redirect Wikipedia:Vegan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 16 § Wikipedia:Vegan until a consensus is reached. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Click here to read a brief review of the above parable. — An gr 19:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about accidentally deleting the first para, I have no idea how I did that. Anyway, thanks for making this into an essay! Kelly hi! 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the message behind this parable? It's rather obscure. (This question by anon has been moved to here from the article) Dbfirs 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading it, but I didn't learn anything. I already know that some terms are binary. It seems a very long-winded way of making an elementary point. Centrepull ( talk) 15:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I've never actually heard how that sentence ends.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The bulk of the parable makes the point that food generally tastes better with animal products than without them. I, as "the vegan", agree with this, and conclude that such a meal is "high quality". Then, in the final paragraph my vegan self suddenly discards everything I just learned about animal products and aesthetic quality of food in favor of a completely vegan cuisine? And in my confusion, I declare this bill of fare just as "high quality" as the animal-product infested grub? Either the second group is cheating, or I have become so delusional that I can no longer tell the difference between good-tasting food and not-so-good tasting food.
To be fair, if one has had nothing but purely vegan food (free media content) their entire life, their opinion of what "high quality" food is would be a bit skewed by their experience, as they would have no idea what food with animal products (non-free content) tastes like. But like the hypothetical vegan in the parable, we have tasted of animal products (non-free content) and can tell "high quality" from "somewhat lesser quality" food (encyclopedias) quite easily. Thus the point that seems to be put forth here - you can have "equally high quality" with all-free content as with non-free content is inconsistent with the premise presented, and doesn't seem to hold up to logic. Shirtwaist chat 11:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
... not that FU and copyright are funny issues, but I did enjoy the dry satirical humor style. Ran across this as I've been researching some of the FU/NFCC etc. issues lately. Working with another editor (28bytes) on getting some sort of guide on the whole topic together. Only thing is that I'm not sure whether to have chicken or salad for dinner now. ...:)— Ched : ? 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all - technically this is an allegory rather than a parable --- Shirt58 ( talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
In common modern uses of "parable," though their significance is never explicitly stated, parables are not generally held to be hidden or secret but on the contrary are typically straightforward and obvious. It is the allegory that typically features hidden meanings. As H.W. Fowler puts it in Modern English Usage, the object of both parable and allegory "is to enlighten the hearer by submitting to him a case in which he has apparently no direct concern, and upon which therefore a disinterested judgment may be elicited from him." The parable, though, is more condensed than the allegory: a single principle comes to bear, and a single moral is deduced as it dawns on the reader or listener that the conclusion applies equally well to his own concerns.
Please see List of diseases that German speakers may suffer from. How would that figure into your parable? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in terms of persuading me towards a specific viewpoint, this essay was entirely unsuccessful.
First of all, the whole "vegan potluck" thing is incongruous. If the people there are vegans, then no one would be interested in eating anything containing meat, milk, or eggs. There would be no compromise on the matter.
Let's get down to the crux of the issue. At a vegan meal, if someone raises the question, "Hey, where's the vegan equivalent to chicken?" The answer is, quite simply, that there is none. So what's the logical solution? Do without.
Now, imagine a small group of Pink Floyd fans discussing The Dark Side of the Moon on its talk page, and one of them asks, "Hey, where the CC-BY-SA equivalent to the DSOTM album cover?" The answer is, quite simply, that there is none. So is the logical solution to "do without"?
Fair use exists for a reason. Album covers, movie posters, and the like aren't just there for decoration — they are an important component of their subject matter, and such things need to be dealt with using more than just text. In American copyright law, this is referred to as " transformation". Yes, we should obviously limit our usage of copyrighted content, as this remains the free encyclopedia. But the rules are not a suicide pact, and if removing a copyrighted image permitted under fair use weakens the quality of the article it is applied to, then I am not in favour of it. Kurtis (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This post is licensed for dissemination to other browsers servers by means of the HTTP protocol as defined in RFCs 2616 and 2817 under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.
In areas where such licenses are not recognized the content of this post may - in whole or in part - be reproduced under "fair use applying recursively to enable this post to be quoted in future posts in this and other threads including, but not limited to, quotations used in the future referring to this topic and the thoughts expressed within it
Permission is also granted to store this article for public retrieval under the conditions explained above, unless otherwise forbidden by local ordinance.
All trademarks that may be referenced are also acknowledged.
Each individual ASCII or Unicode character may reside in memory belonging to the owner of hardware, in which case the legal responsibility of this article, including deletion if found inflammatory can I stop doing this now or is anyone still reading this
far, I mean it started off well, but I can't really go on typing this stuff, can I?
Eventually it turns into something like the garbage you "agree to" without reading on so many webpages lorum ipso decoum est ipso lurmo groucho foo bar baz and indeed frek blah blah every alternate Tuesday blur, blah blah blech it would probably be best if I stopped doing this now so I conclude with the fact that portions of this document are invalid where void, and most of it should not be taken as legal in any way unless you really really want to get into all sorts of trouble, but the important thing is that the end of this must have LOTS AND LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS AT THE END ABOUT YOU HAVING ACCEPTED THIS LICENSE THE MOMENT YOU KNEW THE POST EXISTED AND ABOUT NOBODY HAVING ANY RIGHTS TO EVEN READ THIS LICENSE YOUR RESULTS MAY VARY PROFESSIONAL DRIVER ON CLOSED COURSE DO NOT ATTEMPT VOID WHERE PROHIBITED VOID WHERE NOT PROHIBITED MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF NUTS. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 05:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: Someone else who actually read it. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 02:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
In July 2020 this WikiProject got established
It got ~1000 views in the past month as compared to this page getting about 40. I am redirecting WP:VEGAN from here to that WikiProject, which is more on topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Redirect|WP:VEGAN|the parable about non-free content on Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Veganism parable}}
--
Hammersoft (
talk) 19:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)The redirect Wikipedia:Vegan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 16 § Wikipedia:Vegan until a consensus is reached. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)