Last modified: 2005-12-20 04:56:12 UTC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&action=edit The source has this line: <link rel="copyright" href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html" /> The page has this line: Please note that all contributions to Meta are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Meta:Copyrights for details). "Meta:Copyrights" is a link to the article of the same name. Where are we supposed to refer people for copyright information - www.gnu.org or Project:Copyrights?
Individual projects have individual copyright quirks. This isn't a bug report, please ask on the wiki's end-user support pages or equivalent.
(In reply to comment #1) > Individual projects have individual copyright quirks. This problem, exactly as described above, exists on: * Commons * Meta-Wiki * English Wiktionary * English Wikibooks * Wikisource * English Wikisource * English Wikiquote * Wikispecies * MediaWiki (www.mediawiki.org) In addition, the English Wikipedia's source has the reference to www.gnu.org and there is no such link on the page (there is no link to Project:Copyrights either). The English Wikinews has a <link rel="copyright"... line that matches the link on the page. The similarities between the copyright warnings could mislead users into thinking that they are the same across all Wikimedia projects. Certainly the problem described here seems to be basically Wikimedia-wide.
How's that a development problem? It's not an issue with the software, is it? Wikis can change their own MediaWiki namespaces, allowing them to change their own system messages and so their own copyright messages.
(In reply to comment #3) "Wikimedia web sites: Configuration and other issues specific to Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons, and other Wikimedia projects, this includes issues with MediaZilla (this bugtracker)." (Enter new bug page) > It's not an issue with the software, is it? Where does it say it has to be an issue with the software? Maybe it's only a coincidence that many of the messages are similar but it doesn't look like it! Can't we standardise some things to make them easier to maintain and to create less confusion?
See also bug 4318.
