This is probably the key of the problem.
Well, the fact the description is missing from all pictures used by
wikicommons (we do not really respect our own licence...) has already
been raised many times unfortunately.
It is certainly an issue to fix in the future.
Meanwhile, what can we propose to Answers ?
Christiaan Briggs a écrit:
I think I have an idea of where this problem stems
from; when you click
on an image in Wikipedia which was originally uploaded to Wikimedia
Commons the description (including who the author is) is not included on
the Wikipedia page for that image (only a link its page on Wikimedia
Commons is included). I would say Answers.com
is simply pulling down the
content from Wikipedia (and ignoring the link to the Commons page).
At the moment Wikipedia image pages only include a link to the
corresponding Wikimedia Commons page. I'm not sure what the technical
issues are here but it seems to me when a user clicks on an image in
Wikipedia the description of the image should be on that page. A couple
of ways of achieving this might be to link directly to the image on
Wikimedia Commons or to somehow import the text from Wikimedia Commons
onto the Wikipedia page. I'm sure there are probably problems associated
with these, otherwise I imagine we'd be doing it already.
> I think you are correct that there is possibly a problem as no where
> is the author of the picture mentionned, nor a link available.
> We should mention this to Jimbo
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm a écrit:
>>> Is anyone else surprised that Answers.com
doesn't seem to follow GFDL
>>> or CCbySA conditions with regard to images used from Wikipedia, such as
>>> crediting authors:
>>> Or am I misunderstanding the process?
>> Well, I could be misunderstanding the process myself, but aren't they
>> following GFDL by telling us it's a Wikipedia article to start with?