I pondered not discussing it… but really, it is a bloody mess.  Bull and James are both talking about it.. James has more reasons to hate it that I do.   But really, how could I NOT talk about it?

What I am referring too is what James so easily calls “Wikipedia Police” and their “What the Fu*k are you doing?” edits to some Wikipedia posts. Lately, their target has been the NASA World Wind Wikipedia page. and their changes just DO NOT make sense.  And they are inserting their views onto the page.

Here are some of the edits that have since been reverted:

• remove free software claims, change plugin claim to gratis, remove self-reference
• Competition - source needed for these types of claims
• remove free and open; not free and aleady stated to open source
• not free
• removed Geody link

World Wind is not free?  Hmm, but it is.  The license may not fit what they want to be a “free” license.  But it is a valid license.

The related Wikipedia “Talk” page is interesting.

In the Competition section, the article makes this claim: NASA World Wind will always be free and open. What is the basis for that claim

Hehe.. how about straight from the NASA Project Leaders mouth?

I have a source that says NOSA is not a free license and there is no opposing source (that I know of).

I have an almost direct link to NASA Legal … shall we see who’s “source” is better?

Again.. these are just Wikipedia “editors” and they are mainly asserting their feelings and opinions onto the Wikipedia page.. so I have a feeling quite a few revers are going to be going on back and forth.