https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40934
--- Comment #1 from Krinkle <[email protected]> 2012-10-10 22:33:30 UTC --- How popular is this "standard"? It appears these are both 404 or unintentional redirects: * http://slashopen.net/open * http://opendefinition.org/open http://www.whitehouse.gov/open is referenced a fair amount in slash-open related documentation, but I'm not sure that's fair. That is a page about the open government policy that appears to be on that address by coincidence, it doesn't mention anything about licensing or "free" content. In order words, it isn't due to slash-open that that pages exists. Regarding the general purpose of this mission, MediaWiki already implements <link rel="copyright"> and <a rel="license"> on each page, which are more established standards. I'm not sure why it wants to be on /open. Probably not for machine-reading, since those have more established to which slash-open doesn't seem to contribute anything. If it is for human reading, then existing navigation is probably sufficient (and better localised / integrated). slashopen.net mentions "Mission statement", this reminds me, perhaps it is useful to redirect /open to https://www.wikimedia.org/ instead and add a licence + "free content" note there? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
