Talk:Dribbble

A policy-oriented suggestion

I know dribbble very well, I am a user of their platform (Actually Server Service, but the service is pretty much full of users, who probably don't know what's a server, they care only about illustration, and in my view take software for granted.

This might be an example of a logical conflict between two different ideologies. I'm going to refer to them the same ay their proponents do, The Open-Source ideology (also know as Artist Disrespect, in the minds of animators, who use digital software, yet clearly don't care about it's developers/development, have no clue what Open-Source Software means, despite probably relying heavily on it, the idea to them is so alien, that they'd probably define the definition of Open-Source as slavery, and say nobody wants (or should work for free). They clearly happen to possess many biases (which they are unaware of), and it's clear to me that this is some sort of creative development form-factor gap, a one that poses many threats to society as a whole. To sum it up in a nutshell, I have purely speculative idea, that instead of respecting Wikipedia's politically neutral, open-minded, open-software, open-content, guidelines, it instead applies it's biases, which could be understood as subjective and proprietary. The ideas behind Wikipedia are that Wikipedia should be eqaulist and absolutely unbiased, allowing everybody to freely share their work to make knowledge freely available. Wikipedia is worried about bribery, because it means misleading their users to a partisan view that an entity wants to spread, in an attempt to brutally control it's own reputation. This might not sound as a giant problem, but imagine, if it was about something infamous and controversial (Holocaust, 9/11, Donald Trump, Communism, Racism). Therefore because it's universally assumed, that nobody should be paid for contributions, or be related to closely to it's subject, because it only harms Wikipedia, and people want to make free content anyway. Dribbble comes from a completely different mindset environment. Wikipedia is made to run on anything, from a server, to a smart speaker, from Windows, Through Ubuntu, macOS, all the way to something like RISC OS. While dribbble can achieve similarly, technology wise, it's politically pretty Apple-oriented-only, on the client-side, it targets users who find anything else unusuable, and pretty much everyone who uses dribbble has something like an iMac, an iPhone, or an iPad Pro. I myself use my iPad Air with iPadOS 14.6 Stable as my only desktop computer. A lot of These people have an agenda, that Windows is the only other OS out there, that the (zsh) terminal is scary and nobody uses it, that websites can't be built without squarespace (because they think that "programming" is a waste of time, sadly). Pretty much all their ads for the server show no other computer but a generic iMac from like 5 years ago, often a vector mockup. They only care about Wikipedia, because it comes up on pretty much everything they search for in Safari, they otherwise don't have clue about software distribution. The idea of dribbble is that artist don't have a voice unless they're part of "the industry" (Meaning Agencies), and that their, which they never refer to as software, instead as magic hub of sorts, they deem as unique to them (even though it's not completely true). They think that every work should be paid, and that quick resolutions, and fearful, quickly formed beliefs that are popular amongst their users are better. They just simply think that they're dispute-proof, just because they have something better, than their perceived norm. They have constant sponsorships, because they low key believe that making free-of-software/honestly-anything isn't possible. Their licencing is also unclear, they have terms (that barely anybody reads, yet everyone agrees to), that are a hybrid licence somwhere between open and open-source content and proprietary, but universal. This means that their users release their art legally and machine legally as open-sourc, but then behave with a strictly proprietary agenda, and controversies, based purely around the fact that somebody "stole their content", in a neutral view, made derived works, with no clarity of whether it is okay, or not. Therefore they might have thought, that not paying the one they just set up to write the article that disregards Wikipedia's guidelines, simply they assume it's just like the one's of let say facebook, they probably might not even think that this is biased, and shouldn't be written like this. This is actually really alarming, they are sometimes lenghty blog-posts, very similarly-minded to those of dribbble, that are just instructions for companies to commercially self-promote themselves on Wikipedia! This should be addresed, I think that they have no ill will, and just should know better. They think of Wikipedia articles as paid-for controlled works that belong to the person who wrote it (which has nothing to do with the reality), they basically think of it as a graphical craigslist.com, which they often promote too, they don't know it's not their intellectual property, but sensitive public commons/slash open-source works/documentation/mirror reasearch.

I think that I have probably explained what's the problem well enough. Have a nice day.