Talk:Regiving

Redirect[edit]

As the content of this page is for all intents and purposes the same as Regift I propose that it be redirected to that page and the content here become a subsection for comprehension. I realize there has been some discussion below about how the two terms or concepts are different, but it is clear this is an argument over minutia borne of an agenda regarding Freecycle (see section below, # 5 Regiving and Regifting different comment 2 by Sagepose). The words (re)give and (re)gift have the same root, meaning and behavior. So although there is room for extension of the word in relation to Reuse, Recycling and Gift Economy, there's no practical use for it to live separately. It would better serve the purposes of Wikipedia for them to appear together. (76.102.73.78 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, this article is very awkward and out of place. The description contorts trying to make it be something it isn't. It doesn't belong here on it's own because it is only a very slight variation on regifting. (204.95.147.226 (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Deleted links[edit]

Deleted several links that are only either spam links, dead links, or do not link to Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.36.175 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 May 2006

"Freecycling"[edit]

The references to the fictitious term "freecycling" are there only to promote dilution of the Freecycle Network's trademark. They are not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.36.175 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 May 2006

[Regarding the above] tendentious remark:

Allegations of intent such as this are of little merit. On the facts, 'freecycling' was a term coined and promoted by The Freecycle Network (Google cache or Way Back Network[1] easily demonstrate this), who later began to suppress the term once a TM application was made. Hence, the description of the page, that there was a generic term but is no longer appears to be solidly factual. On the other hand, this page should not be a place where groups who are currently breaking the TM rights of The Freecycle Network have an opportunity to place their links. SagePose 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But removing all references to the term, which is in actual use despite the (possibly spurious, and pending the outcome of litigation) trademark claims of that group, is itself a NPOV violation. *Dan T.* 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, TFN have a legal claim on this term in US and EU and thus the rights to vigorously pursue anyone using it as a generic term. You can argue whether that should be the case, but not that the TM office has granted the mark. I'm not certain of Wikipedia's stance on de jure vs de facto. There's certainly an arguable case that the generic term is widely used. My guess is that refusing to define the term, whilst acknowledging its casual use, keeps Wikipedia balanced between activism and reflecting the real world. SagePose 13:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not true that they have a registered US trademark on the word; according to the uspto.gov site, their application (which is for a mark consisting of a particular logo with the word "Freecycle", not the word alone) is still pending and has an opposition registered on the grounds of alleged genericity. *Dan T.* 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. However, Freecycle groups have been instructed recently to change all their TMs to (R)s to reflect the registration. Are you certain? SagePose 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very certain. Again, you're misunderstanding what's happening with freecycle, the freecycle community and their trademark status - though it is a matter of public record. Only European sites have been asked to change their logos to an (R) version because they were granted a trademark for European territories. Dharmaburning 06:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Freecycle TM policy [2] the change to (R) will occur in the US when the mark is eventually registered. So Dtobias is correct, the amrk is not yet regsitered, except for Europe. SagePose 10:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the UK registration is ONLY on the custom graphic of Freecycle. The wording "Freecycle" is not registered in the UK - there is however a pending application. So the word "Freecycle" is not trademarked anywhere yet, that I know of.

Compare with Regifting[edit]

is regiving the same as regifting, ie you get some item as a birthday/wedding/whatever present. You don't want it so you re-wrap it to give away at some other party you go to. And you hope like hell you don't give it back to the person who gave it to you in the first place....

BTW I saw on Beyond Tomorrow, some guy using the Internet to swap things.. he started with a red paperclip (standard size), at the time of the show he was up to a truck and he was aiming for a house in Australia.... I guess this fits in with Regiving somehow!--Garrie 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regiving and Regifting different[edit]

Regifting, a curious word, implies handing on a previously received *gift*. Regiving is generally giving back, and does not suggest that it was is given was previously a 'gift' (other than in the sentimental sense that 'alles ist lebensgaben')

The generic term exists because the previously generic term was privatized by The Freecycle Network, and anybody using any variant of freecycle is subject to cease and desist orders. SagePose 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Google returns over 71,000 hits for the term "freecycling" but only returns about 900 hits for the term regiving. Regiving seems to be a newly coined term that was created by SagePose. It does not seem to be in wide use elsewhere, unlike freecycling which is in much broader use. Regivingn does not seem to be used at all within The Freecycle Network. Zebra6 07:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias should not be places where new terms are invented, encyclopedias should be places that accurately reflect facts in the real world. Zebra6 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra6, not sure what your personal agenda is here, neither do I find your personal attack appropriate. How TFN descirbe themselves internally is immaterial here (and I have been informed by friends within TFN that their leadership now strees the term regifting as opposed to recycling). I did not invent the term regiving, nor the uglier regifting. The word 'freecycling' has been taken out of the public domain, and people who use it may expect a strong e-mail from TFN. That seems to have driven use of alternate terms, of which there are several. It is also reason why Wikipedia cannot use what was a preferable term for the phenomenon. SagePose 12:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)SagePose[reply]

It is not possible to take a word out of the public domain, Sagepose. Centerone (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? I don't see any. *Dan T.* 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your friends tell you is wrong or you misunderstand. Regifting has only ever been discussed within freecycle relating to the holidays and freecycle being used to regift unwanted holiday gifts. 216.103.255.18 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try watching Seinfeld sometime, 216.103.255.18 SagePose 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Recycling[edit]

If the goal of this article and catagory is to find a generic of the word freecycling, then I'd suggest Free Recycling which is a more accurate term for what is happening and is in common usage in most of the groups that are avoiding persecution from TFN and elsewhere in news and other articles relating to the free recycling movement. I had a free recycling article up for about 8 hours before it was redirected to freecycling, then I edited freecycling to include the free recycling reference, which was later stripped out by Zebra, and reinserted by myself. I believe that free recycling is the accepted generic alternative to the word freecycling, and regardless of your opinions regarding TFN and the legal battles, it is still an accurate term for the activity being discussed. --Razmear 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free recycling is the generic term for Freecycle and their activities. This regiving is nonsense. Many people have voiced their displeasure with it here and on the freecycle page but you keep pushing it onto everyone. Nobody wants it. 216.103.255.18 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a personal campaign by a single user (with several IP addresses) against the term, with unsubstantiated and unnecessary personal insinuations against me. It's not grown up, it's not useful, and it's not true. I didn't invent the word 'regiving' (it's in the dictionary), nor did I create a usage for it in the context of freecycle. Please stop alleging otherwise. SagePose 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing "regiving" to fit into the recycling idiom is absurd and counterintuitive. Regiving alone refers to regifting which has only at best a casual connection to freecycle. There is absolutely no connection to the frankenstein this entry has become. 216.103.255.18 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

216.103.255.18 does not appear to understand English verbs. Most gerunds do not have their own dictionary entry but will appear under the infinitve, and prefixed words often under the root. Try [3], [4], even in Italian [5] SagePose 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

There were about 50 external links here - none of them to FreeCycle, of course. I removed nearly all the links. I think including a link to FreeCycle, FreeSharing, and FreeSharing's "sites like us" list is a nice compromise. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not if you're considering a revert: "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". Rhobite 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]