On 8/26/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/24/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/25/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com>
But all text is under one license. The problem isn't about
attributing the photographer, the problem is about the numerous
different licenses for images. As this is the case for images only,
the solution is to include THE LICENSE, not the photographer, under
the image caption.
Of course, the licenses, except for PD are generally not
understandable by mere mortals for images, and one common ones appears
not to apply to images at all, but that's another story.
Many editors, including myself, license our text under other licences;
Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike and
Attribution licences are
as is releasing the text into the public domain.
The latter is not too
deal (although you can argue morally the author
should be credited, and
should specify that parts of the text are in the
public domain), but the
fact is, Greg is probably right about the need for consistency in
different types of content.
So, when you edit a Wikipedia article, you contribute your text under
another license, how?
When different things are different, there might be a reason to dreat
them differently. A photograph is an entity in
itself, while a word
here and there, and sentences here and there, even an entire article
in Wikipedia is seldom ever the contribution of only one editor, and
is not generally taken, except for mirrors, like a photograph, as an
entire usable object.
Whole paragraphs are certainly reusable content, and I suspect Greg was
correct in stating that most articles are the product of one or two editors.
I'm still not sure if anyone other than myself has made major edits to
articles like [[Second Malaysia Plan]] and [[Ketuanan Melayu]].
Photographs are not text, nor vice versa.
Certainly, but when there are similarities, there is a case for consistency
in how we approach those similar areas.