HTYP:content copying policy

hile copying content from many sources is perfectly legal and legitimate, in most such cases a simple reference link will suffice; why take the trouble of moving the content here when it is already reachable on the web? HTYP aims to add to the content available, not to duplicate or collect what is already there. HTYP is part of a community/network of collaborative reference works.

Copying content to HTYP is reasonable (perhaps even encouraged) under the following circumstances, assuming the content is legally available for such copying:
 * Existing content is not available on the web
 * Existing web site is difficult to use (slow, poorly formatted, difficult to navigate, etc.)
 * Existing content is not in wiki format and therefore can't be annotated, corrected, cross-referenced, etc.

If content you want for an article is available in wiki format, consider these questions before considering a port to HTYP:
 * Are the changes I want to make acceptable within the content's existing site? (If they are, then perhaps it would be better to leave the content there, and make any requisite changes there.)
 * How does the content's current site compare to HTYP in terms of cross-referencing? (In other words: for all cross-references presently in the article, would corresponding sources be available in HTYP? Would HTYP be able to provide additional cross-reference sources? As it stands now, Wikipedia (for example) generally has a much richer cross-referential base than HTYP, so moving articles from there tends to be a net loss.)

Example

 * Linux manpages: While there are a number of sites which have copies of much of the manpage documentation, they are generally poorly formatted, minimally cross-referenced, difficult to search, and rarely (if ever) in a wiki format. Copying of manpages into HTYP is encouraged so that users may improve the formatting, add examples, correct errors, add cross references, and generally improve the quality of the documentation. HTYP and the Manpages are both licensed under the GNU FDL, so there is no license conflict.