[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

[Erik Moeller]

2009/1/14 Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net>:
> It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to
> specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly
> the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard.
> The attribution itself would then be something like "Wikipedia 'Widgets'
> article" which is enough in itself for a user to be able to find the article
> and associated revision history (concise attributions are critical
> especially for print work, on t-shirts, etc.).

There are a couple of counterpoints to this:

* For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
author. If you are the photographer of a high resolution panorama that
you've contributed to Wikipedia, I think it's a reasonable expectation
to be named ("Photo by Sam Johnston"), as opposed to being referred to
as "Photo from Wikipedia". This is equally true, I think, for articles
where there is just a single author, or for pictures which have been
subsequently edited a few times.

* The attribution terms should avoid requiring specific reference to
Wikipedia, so that it's clear that there is not necessarily a tie
between the project in which collaboration currently happens, and any
future use of the content. If someone creates a better alternative to
Wikipedia where the content is used, why should it be continued to be
attributed to Wikipedia, rather than the authors?

I think requiring attribution-by-history should be the best practice
for heavily edited articles, at least until we more prominently point
out the author credit in the article footer.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate