We have the same problem with merges. Some people don't seem to think it's neccesary to attribute material to the original article and author when merging something. I'm not even sure of a majority of them actually say it's a merge in the summary.
That really needs to change.
Mgm
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
We should add an *editable* history section. Call it the history namespace. Put a link to it next to the link to the talk page. Automatically add a username to it when the user edits a page (at least if they are making a new edit for the year), and manually add a username to it when text is copied.
It seems to me that this could be resolved by properly referencing the source of the material in the summary. For example, copied from WP:AFC request per [[User:ip.add.res.s]]. And editors should be instructed when copying information from one article to another - to put the version of the source article just prior to the cut in the target article summary.
This would point them to the article before the cut and reference the authors that created the source article up until then.
This would work relatively OK if everyone did it correctly and consistently 100% of the time. Which is to say, we've already tried this, it doesn't work.
As for Ant's particular problem, one could suggest that she simply make some minor edit to the text, and thus her name will then show up as an author. But that's kind of a kludge, and someone looking at the actual diffs would get the wrong impression as to what she was the author of. It also doesn't address the GFDL requirement to include the title of the work (the title at the time it was edited), if a page is moved, and it makes the list of authors way too long and awkward (we don't need to list the same author more than once per year, in fact in my opinion there should only be one line in the history section per year, listing all the authors, unless the title changes or there is a merger from a different work in which case you'd want one line per title).
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l