Gossiping Commons

#1

Post by stared » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

Gossiping Commons
gossipingcommons.org

Re: Gossiping Commons

#2

Post by nalesnik3000 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:50 PM UTC

Does it mean that we can officially cancel social media?

Re: Gossiping Commons

#3

Post by SQueeeeeL » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...

Re: Gossiping Commons

#4

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:59 PM UTC

nalesnik3000 wrote: post #2

Does it mean that we can officially cancel social media?

It will work out like when Puritans canceled gossip and succeeding generations lacked it entirely.

Re: Gossiping Commons

#5

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #3

This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...

[deleted]

Re: Gossiping Commons

#6

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 2:30 PM UTC

Even knowing the April Fool's origins I can't help but interpret it as a Discordian style satire of both copyright for trying to claim exclusivity and copyleft for going from undermining the previous to its own social contract. I am more than willing to admit that the idea may be from viewer preconceptions and overthinking as opposed to any inherent message beyond the inherently silly instructions.

Re: Gossiping Commons

#7

Post by carlinmack » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 2:42 PM UTC

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #3

This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...

Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0

Re: Gossiping Commons

#8

Post by carlinmack » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 2:44 PM UTC

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #3

This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...

Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0 (functionally WikiData only stores raw 'facts')

Re: Gossiping Commons

#9

Post by homonculus1 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #6

Even knowing the April Fool's origins I can't help but interpret it as a Discordian style satire of both copyright for trying to claim exclusivity and copyleft for going from undermining the previous to its own social contract. I am more than willing to admit that the idea may be from viewer preconceptions and overthinking as opposed to any inherent message beyond the inherently silly instructions.

I've heard of copyleft but I'm not too familiar it. Can you explain how it's evolved into its own social contract?

Re: Gossiping Commons

#10

Post by jagged-chisel » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

carlinmack wrote: post #8

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #3

This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...

Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0 (functionally WikiData only stores raw 'facts')

you can edit and delete comments with errors (within the allowed time)