On 8/24/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
[snip for reordering]
suggested several in the past that we provide a more obvious
attributions link, for example:
This looks good, I like it.
Well then. :) If we agree, lets move forward! :)
Some nitpicking with the rest of your message. :)
Most of our text is written by wikipedians. They do
attribution. Text that is imported from other sources should be
attributed. (EB1911, MathWorld, etc.)
They most certainly do expect attribution. I do. Many other people do.
We've had angry complaints from people where we've screwed it up. And
we've had people specifically demand better attribution for text
authors, including a speaker at WM2006 as I recall.
Attribution It's required by the license. We provide it via a click to
the history page.
Photographers outside of Wikipedia also expect
So do photographers who contribute directly.
Shall I forward your message to commons so that a bunch of
photographers can mob you? :)
This is no problem: we don't have to add
attributions to Wikipedia
users, only to external sources.
This isn't true. In fact, providing inconsistent attribution can give
us substantial licensing problems. What we do now can easily be argued
as both customary and reasonable to our medium and means of
distribution. If we start breaking it up we make a mess out of it.
Not to mention that it would just be rude to provide better
attribution for people who may not even know we exist over the people
who slave over the site day after day.