In a message dated 5/4/2008 2:03:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:

Yeah, it's pretty academic. You'll note that my first email to this thread started with the word "technically". I know that in practise people aren't very strict in enforcing the GFDL, but that doesn't change what the license actually says.>>

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The problem lies in consistent application of the interpretation. If we ignore mirrors who are already ignoring any attribution other then "from the Wikipedia article such-and-so" then we have no one to blame for that.

If we force any re-distributor of mass-market to list *all* authors then we will have zero redistributors of mass market. So we should simply say, we don't allow redistributions to mass market instead of trying to create a situation where people think they can, and then get slammed for trying it.

If we as authors are going to want attribution to ourselves, we should just make our own wikis in the first place. I have no problem with the work I've done within Wikipedia, being attributed simply to "Wikipedia". I've formed the opinion that true excellence can only be realized solely, not in the collective. So our work is essentially comprehensive, but mediocre. Global yet mundane :)

Hmm I should really add that to my article on Ayn.

Will Johnson

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)