I wouldn't express it quite so bluntly, but agreed at a time when editing seems to
have stabilised again after the 2015/16 rally, shifting the Foundation to a strategy of
promoting compliance with both BY and SA would address a lot of problems. It is probably
demotivating for editors to see their work used without attribution, and whilst a link
back to Wikipedia is not as going to be as good as an edit button, we are greatly limiting
ourselves if we rely on people coming directly to our sites and treat every extract from
our sites as CC0 or Fair Use.
A few legal letters and maybe a court case a year should be easily affordable for the WMF
and an excellent investment.
Regards
Jonathan
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:12:43 +0000
From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?
Message-ID:
<CAD4=uZatXxeaxuod9R_sMsEujROG9s-XdhjyNpD9BvR6B5OC9g(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source
date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the
attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to
require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and
Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to
edit.
If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a
requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and copyleft
> retention for derived works.
>
>>
>> --