David Grant wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
But they are /not/ required to link back to Wikipedia! They're required to list up to 5 authors, and linking back to Wikipedia is the easiest way to do that.
Yes, this is the tricky thing though. However, my opinion is that this needs to be explicit on every Wikipedia article so that all people who "rip" an article, have a "fighting chance" of seeing it at the bottom/top of the page.
Yes, we must have /something/ better. I'm just criticising the factual accuracy or your /specific/ suggestion.
To avoid making people stop believing us, we must separate:
- You /must/ release your version under the GFDL; and
- We /advise/ you to link back to the original Wikipedia article.
Shouldn't we say "MUST" link back OR "MUST" give names of 5 authors? I don't think using "advise" is a smart thing to do...
OTOH, that's more complicated -- and we really do want them to link back. We can always say that they should look at the GFDL for the precise rules.
We basically agree, I just wanted to correct the factual misapprehension, so that the error isn't spread amongst the other readers. I'll take the rest of my comments to the English meta talk page [[En:Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia for content]], where people can discuss the best wording for such a statement.
-- Toby