Hi Lori and Dominic,
the article is nice, though I would imagine that historians might have
benefitted from some explanation beyond Wikipedia (e.g. Commons,
Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikidata).
Thanks for your comments. We were working with a very strict word limit (and, indeed, had to cut hundreds of words from our first draft), and we made an decision to stick to a clear argument for historians getting involved at all, rather than get bogged down in too much explaining of concepts the audience would not already be familiar with, like other Wikimedia projects. I understand where you are coming from, though. I'm normally one of the strongest proponents of being precise about describing Wikimedia universe and promoting the other projects besides Wikipedia.
What I found confusing is how the copyright status is signaled. The blog post at
http://blog.us.glamwiki.org/2012/12/historians-in-wikipedia/
states that the article is reproduced "with permission" and at the
same time labeled in the sidebar as being available under a CC BY 3.0
license,
Well, we're not going to change the site's copyright notice just because we are using copyrighted text with permission in a blog post. It is labeled as being used with permission, using the same language that the editor provided us. This is no different from the fact that every Wikipedia page carries the CC-BY-SA notice despite the fact that there may be non-free content used on some of the pages.
which is an odd combination, especially when
http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1212/Historians-in-Wikipedia.cfm
states "Copyright © American Historical Association". Did you actually
hand over copyright to them?
Dominic