Open Knowledge is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
Open Knowledge is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
The Open Knowledge Foundation is a growing body which has very similar aims to Wikipedia and other Open Knowledge projects. Gordo (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, why is someone trying to delete what wikipedia does? The article could do with cleanup and expansion, but it is worthy of retention. At the moment, there is no statement of the significance of the work done by the foundation, and that needs to be explicitly stated. As it stands, it is also somewhat orphaned, that also needs to be addressed. Kbthompson (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh thanks for the article. Looks like there are too many references. :-) -- Nichtich (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Desperately needs reliable sources proving it is notable and a rewrite so it's not so spammy. (It also makes it difficult to take them seriously when their tools for determining what is covered by copyright and what is public domain were coming up with responses that were very clearly inaccurate when I checked their validity a while back after someone tried to include them on the public domain article External links section.) DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The WP:CONFLICT page seems the most authoritative. For the record, I am affiliated with the organisation. I'll attempt to add content that satisfies the notability requirement. However, I'll leave others to judge whether I've retained a NPOV and enhanced the POV of the article. -- TimClicks (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing Template:POV, it seems that reliable third-party sources are what's needed to remove this issue. I believe that I've added a sufficient number to clear the article. Please let me know if there are any residual issues. -- TimClicks (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Having not seen any specific response re notability after extensive additions ~ 10 months ago, I'm going ahead with a removal of the notice. -- User:Rgrp 27th January 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
Replaced, as a footnote, the reference to the presentation with the EFF to the ITU on the failure of DRM. This paragraph was deleted by Rufus Pollock presumably because it might be controversial. However User:Rgrp has a quite obvious conflict of interest here. FringeOkapi (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Brian Proffitt of ITWorld thinks they are important. we have used him as a source a few times. Of course, this is only a brief mention, but he may have written more. I am not affiliated with the org.(mercurywoodrose)184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)