Question:
According to GFDL, when useing a Wikipedia article, i have to mention the authors.
Do i have to mention Wikipedia too?
thx. Heinz
Heinz wrote:
Question:
According to GFDL, when useing a Wikipedia article, i have to mention the authors.
Do i have to mention Wikipedia too?
thx. Heinz
Yes, that'd be a good idea. :) Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia for more.
John
Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior. But my question has a more legal background.
MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?
Heinz.
John Lee schrieb:
Heinz wrote:
Question:
According to GFDL, when useing a Wikipedia article, i have to mention the authors.
Do i have to mention Wikipedia too?
thx. Heinz
Yes, that'd be a good idea. :) Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia for more.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Heinz wrote:
Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior. But my question has a more legal background.
MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?
Heinz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors#License indicates a link back to the Wikipedia article /may/ suffice as "[acknowledging] the main authors". Generally the style used to *cite* Wikipedia (not copy its articles) just attributes the article to something like "Wikipedia contributors". I'm not familiar with the legal ramifications of the GFDL, and from the appearance of that page, neither are the fellows who write our policy on mirrors. :p Just err on the safe side and cite both.
John
On 2/21/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors#License indicates a link back to the Wikipedia article /may/ suffice as "[acknowledging] the main authors". Generally the style used to *cite* Wikipedia (not copy its articles) just attributes the article to something like "Wikipedia contributors". I'm not familiar with the legal ramifications of the GFDL, and from the appearance of that page, neither are the fellows who write our policy on mirrors. :p Just err on the safe side and cite both.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need to list the 147 authors who worked on [Fred Smith] when you cite Wikipedia's article on Fred Smith.
It depends very much whether you're talking about plagiarism or copyright.
Steve
On 2/21/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
It depends very much whether you're talking about plagiarism or copyright.
Or respecting the terms of the GFDL, which are probably harder to enforce in practice.
Steve
Heinz wrote:
Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior. But my question has a more legal background.
MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?
If one author's name is "Wikipedia", you have to cite him or her as well for legal reasons. Other than that, you don't have to. If you refer to "zitieren" in the German legal sense, you don't have to follow the GFDL at all. However, zitieren is generally more restrictive than fair use. Citing in the German legal sense would require to name the actual source of the text: Wikipedia.
Mathias
On 2/21/06, Heinz h-j.luecking@t-online.de wrote:
Of cource citing is always polite and good scientific behavior. But my question has a more legal background.
MUST i cite wikipedia - according to GFDL -- or is citing of authors enough?
Heinz.
The name of the foundation is the "Wikimedia Foundation", not "Wikipedia", so even if you consider the foundation to be a publisher (I believe they take the position that they are not), the GFDL makes no mention of citing the name of the website on which the document was first published. It does require that you "preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." I suppose one could interpret that to mean that you must preserve the edit link, which would contain a url pointing to wikipedia.
The GFDL also requires that you give the authors and publisher.
It's all pretty hard to understand, because the Wikimedia Foundation itself doesn't even follow the GFDL.
Anthony