Wow, I just saw the saddest thing. It’s a section of the Wikipedia article about Red Hat, listing programs and projects that Red Hat does in the free software and open source communities. This is ‘programs and projects’ in the sense of, “Build a road is a project, build a freeway system is a program.” Here is the article section:
It lists a number of projects that are not really in existence, and are arguably not any more worth calling out than other projects.
In that comparison, realize something – both of those pages now share a content license. The list of Red Hat contributions is licensed CC BY SA 3.0 Unported. The same as the Wikipedia page. (I’m asking about the GFDL question on fedora-legal-list.)
As a Red Hat employee I feel socially awkward rectifying this situation. Is that incorrect? I don’t know, I’m not a regular Wikipedia contributor and have lapsed my knowledge of what is right and proper in authoring an article. Maybe it’s better or worse if the content is an aggregate from the Fedora Project wiki.
One idea would be to link to the canonical article from the Fedora Project. That’s not bad. But what about a new Wikipedia Red Hat contributions page? (Or would that be [[Red Hat software contributions]]?) I would envision the Wikipedia version to be a downstream usage, meaning someone would commit to maintaining it the way we maintain packages in Fedora. For example, watch the page for changes, then carry those changes to the Wikipedia downstream page.
The value added on the Wikipedia side? A properly categorized downstream page that re-sorts the content in to ways useful by the general Wikipedia audience. There are probably other ways to enhance the content to be useful to Wikipedia, and still refer to the canonical upstream.
On the other hand, maybe one of you Wikipedians will tell me that it’s perfectly fine for me to write and maintain this page on Wikipedia myself. In that case, maybe I’ll do it. Otherwise, I’d be happy to help contribute, and I know of a few others who would likely do this already.
Or you’ll tell me it’s not appropriate for Wikipedia, in which case, I’d like to get the two sections I reference above to be removed from the [[Red Hat]] page. They stand in stark contrast to the reality.