Stephen Bain wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
According to intellectual property laws, no one should claim he is the author of a work who someone else authored.
So...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicone_rubber&action=history
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Silicone_Rubber...
Who is the author of the article ?
If the text that actually ended up on the page was posted on AFC by the anon, then the anon is the author - the text has essentially been moved. If the logged-in editor who creates the article modifies this text, they own those edits in the usual way.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
So, in this case, the GFDL is violated. As it is violated each time a full portion of article is moved to create another article with no mention of the original author or source.
I remember once I worked many hours on an article about the GMO. It was quite long, I authored it at about 95%. I was quite proud of it. Then someone thought it could be divided for some reasons. He mentionned it in the talk page. I said I disagreed. The next day, that author took 75% of the text and created a new article with it. He changed nothing, did not even fixed the introduction which he left standing quite stupidely with no change to reflect the article had been divided.
But he became the author of it.
We may pretend it does not matter at all; but the truth is that most authors are proud of their work. And it is hard to be striped of one's authorship. If it were not true, we would not be so numerous to list articles we wrote.
Under GFDL, It is also illegal. Incidently, if I was guilty of copyright violation, the one who appropriated the work will also be facing legal issues. Not I :-)
Ant