2008/10/14 Johannes Beigel <johannes.beigel(a)pediapress.com>om>:
Secondly, current version of the tool does a
plagiarism - beacause
it does not mention
image authors and does not provide any mean (like by making images
clickable) to check
these authors.
Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. Tricky to do this automatically
since it's all wiki-text with templates, but we'll investigate a
solution here.
We'd highly appreciate input from the community regarding this topic!
The printed books from PediaPress contain a list of figures where the
license of each image is listed, together with the URL to the image
description page. As some kind of "hotfix" this solution could be
implemented in the PDF export of the Collection extension, too. But
this doesn't really solve the problem.
We think it's more of a technical/software thing, so I cross-posted
(and set Reply-To) to Wikitech-l.
In our opinion, license management/handling must be a core feature of
MediaWiki, because the software is explicitely developed for the
collaborative distribution of free content. Licenses of the containing
articles and images should not be represented via some agreed-upon
convention but via structured (and machine-readable) information,
available for each relevant object in the wiki.
Some information that would be desired:
- Full (official) name of the license(s).
- Whether the full text of the license has to be included or a
reference sufficient.
- Reference to the full text of the license(s) (in some rigidly
defined format like wikitext).
- Whether attribution is required. If so: The list of required
attributions.
So, basically all the information that's required to check if it's
possible to take some part of the MediaWiki and use it somewhere else
and all the information that has to be included in that other place.
This information could be made accessible via MediaWiki API, but
ideally it's contained in the wikitext and/or XHTML, too.
Because different wikis implement licenses in different ways (ie there
are no naming conventions for license templates), I am not sure this
license information would belong in MediaWiki core. But I think that
definitely Wikimedia Commons, and perhaps other Wikimedia wikis that
accept freely licensed uploads, should work on providing a "community
API" layer. My thinking behind this is that the communities build a
lot of structure into their content via templates or categories or
whatever. It makes sense to provide an API to stop every third party
user having to reinvent the wheel.
On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API>
In particular this contains some of the license info you mentioned.
e.g. below is the info for the GFDL.
GFDL
full_name
GNU Free Documentation License
attach_full_license_text
1
attribute_author
1
keep_under_same_license
1
keep_under_similar_license
0
license_logo_url
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Heckert_GNU_white.…
license_info_url
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
license_text_url
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt
The "Commons API" also has an author field.
<http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.php?image=Sa-warthog.jpg&meta>
I think at the moment this is being taken from the {{information}}
template. You can see in this example it includes a wiki link; it
should have already been resolved to a full URL, so there is
definitely still work to be done.
I would be interested to know if further development of the Commons
API would be "heading in the right direction" for PediaPress.
cheers,
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
