On 30/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg
<rory096(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 PM, Peter Ansell
<ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 2008 6:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 28, 2008 5:41 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Except that this one is a small group of admins (mostly) in
> userspace
> > > > and there hasn't been any enraged reports of hacking. Are there
> > > > policies related to linking *into* Wikipedia? I'd be surprised.
I
> > > > think (but I'm not 100%
sure) that this has already survived an
MfD.
> > >
> > > I missed that fact, but that just makes it all the more baffling.
> > >
> > > Using CSS hacks to hide the site and make it claim to be some
other
> > > domain is pretty darn
outrageous... at least the airline didn't
use
> > > clever kludges to rewrite the
page.
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't really call that a CSS hack, considering they could have
also
done it using a magic word ({{DISPLAYTITLE}}). It
doesn't seem to be
using
Wikipedia as a web host, more like using the
domain to make a parody
page in
userspace more amusing/realistic.
Gotta say its pretty close to free web host. Anyone that buys a domain
and redirects it to wikipedia is using wikipedia non-profit foundation
funds for something that is completely unrelated to the encyclopedia.
The userpage guidelines and the what wikipedia is not policy have been
designed specifically to restrict this frivolous use of bandwidth and
server resources, although the community may have enough powerful
supporters to make it an exception, it would break the rule and not be
consistent IMO. Recent happenings with spoofing the wikipedia UI may
also come into play.
Its always hard to say anything bad about humour pages that
established wikipedians create, but buying a domain and making a
straight redirect without prior authorisation from the non-profit
foundation is pretty clear.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos
on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do
that. But that isn't really the issue here.
Peter Ansell
The only thing they're using WMF funds for would be the hosting, and
it's
a
userspace page like several others, and it's
been kept in MfD. It's not
like
this is using the foundation as a host for
something completely
irrelevant-
this is a parody Wikipedia cabal, for which the
creators decided to buy
a
domain to redirect to it. I don't see what
the problem is.
People keep referring to a discussion that only lasted a few hours as
evidence that the community supports the idea, as opposed to a few
admins who were alerted to the page, including the participants who
purchased the domain to use with wikimedia hosting. Wikipedia Cabals
are, perhaps surprisingly to you, totally irrelevant to the purpose of
the encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to host websites for people it
might as well say it instead of proclaiming the no free web hosting
statement as policy (except when its an admin who gets special
treatment). If this is meant to be simply ignored because its a joke
then it isn't succeeding.
Peter
What I'm saying is that this is no difference from, say,
[[User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal]] or any others on the list at [[WP:LOC]] (the
penguin one was just the first I scrolled to), just because some domain
redirects to it.