In theory the idea that public credit should be given for good work is
nice - it is simply unworkable for Wikipedia. What is public credit?
What is good work? Who gets credit, in which order? Can you change the
credits over time? Who decides?
I can see a hundred ArbCom cases rising from this issue, and I don't
see how it is nearly worth the trouble given that all of our existing
contributors have agreed to have their work published under the
existing standards of attribution.
On Jan 24, 2008 2:43 PM, Shmuel Weidberg <ezrawax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 2:07 PM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
so the only true attribution for the current
state of an
article at any particular time is to the "Wikipedia community" not
"Editor So And So, Who Wrote Two Paragraphs 5 Years Ago."
You would certainly have to work out who deserves to be credited and
whether somebody still deserves to be credited after what he
originally wrote was substantially changed, but that does not mean
that those who deserve to be credited should not be credited.
Many times it will obvious who deserves credit. I am not proposing an
automated system for credit, although it might me be possible to make
one. I am proposing a policy change that would require a section at
the end of any good article that credits the significant authors of
the article in a way similar to that of footnotes and references. If
there are contentious issues about who should be credited that would
be worked out on the talk page just like other contentious issues are.
Regards,
Ezra
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l