I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
Shouldn't photo credits be allowed *only* in the image description page?
I don't see why images would have a special status when compared to text contributions, the credits for which are found also a click away, in the edit history.
AFAIK, there's no policy disallowing photo credits, but there should be one clear policy to discourage that -- it would also be a place to point people when asking about that. :-)
(I'm not referring to photos by famous photographers who have their own articles, but to photos uploaded by users or found on Flickr)
On 12/21/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
Shouldn't photo credits be allowed *only* in the image description page?
I don't see why images would have a special status when compared to text contributions, the credits for which are found also a click away, in the edit history.
AFAIK, there's no policy disallowing photo credits, but there should be one clear policy to discourage that -- it would also be a place to point people when asking about that. :-)
(I'm not referring to photos by famous photographers who have their own articles, but to photos uploaded by users or found on Flickr)
It is unfair to provide inline attribution for images when we don't provide it for text. (And certantly we could provide it for text.. Most articles don't have many authors, and if it were done by hand as the image attribution is being done, it could be placed at the bottom of the article)
Furthermore it's tacky and distracting... and I'd argue that if we do it for some then we can be required to do it by all (since all the free content licenses require attribution in a consistent and fair method which is consistent with the standard in the medium, for wiki that used to be on a second page). If we're required to do it by all we're going to end up being forced to reject more uploads by OffensiveUserNameN, and we're going to have a a world of hurt extracting the data from the free form image pages.
I've long advocated that we create a second talk namespace for the main NS called "Credits". There, interested editors could add their name if they wish to be credited. Images could be credited there as well.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It is unfair to provide inline attribution for images when we don't provide it for text. (And certantly we could provide it for text.. Most articles don't have many authors, and if it were done by hand as the image attribution is being done, it could be placed at the bottom of the article)
Actually, we do somewhat require it for direct quotations, we're supposed to reference it. Couldn't we simply throw a <ref> on it with the attribution in the references area? Seems like the best of both worlds, IMO.
-Jeff
On 12/21/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Actually, we do somewhat require it for direct quotations, we're supposed to reference it. Couldn't we simply throw a <ref> on it with the attribution in the references area? Seems like the best of both worlds, IMO.
Still leave us with the text image inequality, but at least that would make it unugly. The problem then becomes that were seriously overloading rev... Already it's hard enough to tell if an article has any sources.
... plus another issue that I didn't bring up, more frontline attribution risks creating a mismotiviation to contribute. How long do we use the ref tag before people figure out that it's a fun way to cram external links into our articles?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/21/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Actually, we do somewhat require it for direct quotations, we're supposed to reference it. Couldn't we simply throw a <ref> on it with the attribution in the references area? Seems like the best of both worlds, IMO.
Still leave us with the text image inequality, but at least that would make it unugly. The problem then becomes that were seriously overloading rev... Already it's hard enough to tell if an article has any sources.
It's not that hard to tell if an article has any sources, and, technically speaking, attribution is sourcing. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to toss the attribution into the reference area, even if the rationale doesn't explicitly require it.
... plus another issue that I didn't bring up, more frontline attribution risks creating a mismotiviation to contribute. How long do we use the ref tag before people figure out that it's a fun way to cram external links into our articles?
Why should that be an argument against attitribution? Our referencing/verification policy already sorta does the same thing, but we'd never stop referencing articles.
-Jeff
On 12/21/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Why should that be an argument against attitribution? Our referencing/verification policy already sorta does the same thing, but we'd never stop referencing articles.
WP:NOR prevents people from just making stuff up for the purpose of putting their name in the citations.
Attribution is not a reference, if you actually think that then you completely misunderstand the purpose of citing our articles.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
WP:NOR prevents people from just making stuff up for the purpose of putting their name in the citations.
Okay. Still not catching the relevance.
Attribution is not a reference, if you actually think that then you completely misunderstand the purpose of citing our articles.
I disagree. It's a reference regarding where the infomation comes from, and it's similar - similar, not identical - to adding a source for a direct quote. Thus, if you have a CC photo of, say, a dead person who's appearance was not well known, attributing this photo makes sense, as it sources the claim to a specific place.
I'd hope we'd do that for photos like that, and there's no real reason why that shouldn't occur for others.
-Jeff
Thursday, December 21, 2006, 6:46:56 PM, Jeff wrote:
I disagree. It's a reference regarding where the infomation comes from, and it's similar - similar, not identical - to adding a source for a direct quote.
So you think it would be ok for me to make a bot which spams my name in the 200+ articles which use my photos? ;-)
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Thursday, December 21, 2006, 6:46:56 PM, Jeff wrote:
I disagree. It's a reference regarding where the infomation comes from, and it's similar - similar, not identical - to adding a source for a direct quote.
So you think it would be ok for me to make a bot which spams my name in the 200+ articles which use my photos? ;-)
Did you take them? If so, then I think a case could be made for it, yes.
I can certainly accept being in the minority on this one, but I'd also think that we'd want to have valid sourcing on an image regarding its use in an article, too. Preferably without having to leave the article page itself to a separate image page with a bunch of templates and text that isn't of use to the casual reader.
-Jeff
On 12/21/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I can certainly accept being in the minority on this one, but I'd also think that we'd want to have valid sourcing on an image regarding its use in an article, too. Preferably without having to leave the article page itself to a separate image page with a bunch of templates and text that isn't of use to the casual reader.
So you think that every sentence should have a tag denoting who wrote the sentence?
Again, you misunderstand citations. They are not for attribution they are for factual tractability.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So you think that every sentence should have a tag denoting who wrote the sentence?
Every sentence, no. Every section that takes its reference from a specific source, yes. I come from a history background, I'm a bit intense about sourcing.
Again, you misunderstand citations. They are not for attribution they are for factual tractability.
They're really for both - attribution of the factual tractability, if you may. Remember, we don't deal in truth, but in verifiability. We source things that may not be true, even though they're verifiable. Why? To attribute such statements to a certain thing. If I upload a picture of my grandfather, and say he's J D Salinger at the supermarket in 2005, attributing that photo to me does the same thing as my quoting a book abut whether a full grown man can fit into a chess machine.
Attribution serves multiple purposes.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So you think that every sentence should have a tag denoting who wrote the sentence?
Every sentence, no. Every section that takes its reference from a specific source, yes. I come from a history background, I'm a bit intense about sourcing.
This would open up a whole different can of worms: Ownership. The scope for editing images is not as wide as for text, so a person uploading an image is less likely to have another editor come along and turn it into something else, and using that as a basis for an edit war. Thus it is easier to give personal credit to a Wikipedian for a photograph.
With text, however, we have long held the notion that it may be brutally edited I don't think that any of us wants to deal with the situation where an editor defends his own text on the grounds that his prose style is better than anyone else's.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
This would open up a whole different can of worms: Ownership. The scope for editing images is not as wide as for text, so a person uploading an image is less likely to have another editor come along and turn it into something else, and using that as a basis for an edit war. Thus it is easier to give personal credit to a Wikipedian for a photograph.
True. But no one's really claiming "ownership" here as much as credit. will people confuse the two? Sure, but people already do.
With text, however, we have long held the notion that it may be brutally edited I don't think that any of us wants to deal with the situation where an editor defends his own text on the grounds that his prose style is better than anyone else's.
Ever been to WP:FAC? d;-)
Also, Merry Christmas to all celebrants.
-Jeff
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:01:39 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
True. But no one's really claiming "ownership" here as much as credit. will people confuse the two? Sure, but people already do.
I'd say credit if it's a famous photographer, otherwise not.
Guy (JzG)
I wanted to post this on Village Pump but, after Bogdan's query, I will ask this question here. Is it appropriate to indicate in image captions the website from which a photograph is taken? The way it is done on [[Nestor Kukolnik]] or [[Taganrog Museum of Art]]? It seems to me odd to advertise image copyright holders in Wikipedia articles. Andrey
On 12/21/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
Shouldn't photo credits be allowed *only* in the image description page?
I don't see why images would have a special status when compared to text contributions, the credits for which are found also a click away, in the edit history.
AFAIK, there's no policy disallowing photo credits, but there should be one clear policy to discourage that -- it would also be a place to point people when asking about that. :-)
(I'm not referring to photos by famous photographers who have their own articles, but to photos uploaded by users or found on Flickr)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/12/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
Shouldn't photo credits be allowed *only* in the image description page?
I don't see why images would have a special status when compared to text contributions, the credits for which are found also a click away, in the edit history.
AFAIK, there's no policy disallowing photo credits, but there should be one clear policy to discourage that -- it would also be a place to point people when asking about that. :-)
(I'm not referring to photos by famous photographers who have their own articles, but to photos uploaded by users or found on Flickr)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Of course there should be some method of attributing major authors inline (incidentally, as far as copyright goes, those making minor edits which don't substantially change the content, aren't creating a "new work", so we would only need to credit major authors). This would be work, but it's not particularly acceptable to be lazy with regard to copyright just because content is licensed under a free/open licence. Besides, having such inline attribution would make reuse of Wikipedia content a lot less awkward and more legally sound, e.g. for print.
As far as I can see, Wikipedia as an entity is a serial copyright infringer, even of content licensed under GFDL. It's all a bit of a house of cards - and eventually the project will be caught out by some litigious contributor.
Zoney
Giving people credit for their contributions on the page itself would encourage [[WP:OWN]] violations. I think keeping all credit on the appropriate history/image page is best.
On 21/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Giving people credit for their contributions on the page itself would encourage [[WP:OWN]] violations. I think keeping all credit on the appropriate history/image page is best.
People who contribute on Wikipedia still own copyright to their content, they are merely licensing it under GFDL (and so others can use/modify/copy it, subject to the new work being under GFDL).
I understand the point of WP:OWN - but it's not an excuse to avoid crediting people for their work. Having the GFDL notice and history page is certainly good faith, but it doesn't really seem like particularly good or useful attribution. Most of the history page can be viewed as "spam" if you're looking at it with an interest in attribution - as the bulk of it is usually minor edits (formatting/language/style/accuracy tweaks) and vandalism/reverts. The more major the article is, and longer history it has, the more useless the history page is in this regard.
Zoney
On 12/21/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
People who contribute on Wikipedia still own copyright to their content, they are merely licensing it under GFDL (and so others can use/modify/copy it, subject to the new work being under GFDL).
I understand the point of WP:OWN - but it's not an excuse to avoid crediting people for their work. Having the GFDL notice and history page is certainly good faith, but it doesn't really seem like particularly good or useful attribution. Most of the history page can be viewed as "spam" if you're looking at it with an interest in attribution - as the bulk of it is usually minor edits (formatting/language/style/accuracy tweaks) and vandalism/reverts. The more major the article is, and longer history it has, the more useless the history page is in this regard.
Right, I don't follow the concern about [[WP:OWN]] with respect to that suggestion.
No machine generated list of copyright holders is going to be right.. better to let the folks who are interested add their own name to the credits. Community standards (and bot based sanity checks) can make sure no one spams the credit page without editing the article.
::shrugs::
On 12/21/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
Shouldn't photo credits be allowed *only* in the image description page?
I don't see why images would have a special status when compared to text contributions, the credits for which are found also a click away, in the edit history.
Images shouldn't have a special status. The attribution of the authors should be part of the article too. That's what the GFDL requires, not that the attribution be "a click away".
One difference with images is that many images are copyrighted by non-Wikipedians. This is true with some text, but much less so. So with text you can argue that the submitter gave an implicit license. Not true with images which are copyrighted by someone different from the submitter.
Anthony
On 12/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Images shouldn't have a special status. The attribution of the authors should be part of the article too. That's what the GFDL requires, not that the attribution be "a click away".
You've not actually read the GFDL have you?
... I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
In any case, the technological nuance of Wikipedia's user interface isn't really a matter for the licenses.. It is normal on wikis for attribution to be kept out of the working document. To claim that the license wouldn't permit it would be equivalent to claiming that every page or even every chapter in a book had to relist the authors.
The CC attribution (2.0) terms used on the flickr images which have caused this discussion, which are simmlar...
"If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;"
"reasonable to the medium or means" Which is exactly what the image page is intended to be...
On 12/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Images shouldn't have a special status. The attribution of the authors should be part of the article too. That's what the GFDL requires, not that the attribution be "a click away".
You've not actually read the GFDL have you?
I've read it many times.
... I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
In any case, the technological nuance of Wikipedia's user interface isn't really a matter for the licenses.. It is normal on wikis for attribution to be kept out of the working document.
Then it is normal on wikis to not follow the GFDL. The section entitled history *is part of the document*.
To claim that the license wouldn't permit it would be equivalent to claiming that every page or even every chapter in a book had to relist the authors.
No, I haven't made that claim at all.
The CC attribution (2.0) terms used on the flickr images which have caused this discussion, which are simmlar...
"If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;"
"reasonable to the medium or means" Which is exactly what the image page is intended to be...
Obviously not everyone agrees with you that it is reasonable. The way I see it the image page is for internal use, not part of the work itself. So I'd say no, it isn't reasonable.
By the way, you cut out the end: "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."
Is the credit being displayed for the image in the same place as the text? No, it isn't. Is the credit for the images at least as prominent as the credit for the text? Once again I'd say no.
On 12/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, you cut out the end: "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."
Is the credit being displayed for the image in the same place as the text? No, it isn't. Is the credit for the images at least as prominent as the credit for the text? Once again I'd say no.
Yes, I omitted an extra half paragraph which I felt supported my argument, I thought I'd already made my point.
I thought the image page as as prominent as the history page, if not the other way around (after all you often must go through many pages of history to find the actual primary authors of a popular article because of the flood of vandalism)... I'd certainly support changes which make image attribution and text attribution more accessible and equal, so long as such changes don't preclude a professional appearance of the documents or create inappropriate incentives to 'contribute'.
On 12/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, you cut out the end: "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."
Is the credit being displayed for the image in the same place as the text? No, it isn't. Is the credit for the images at least as prominent as the credit for the text? Once again I'd say no.
Yes, I omitted an extra half paragraph which I felt supported my argument, I thought I'd already made my point.
I thought the image page as as prominent as the history page, if not the other way around (after all you often must go through many pages of history to find the actual primary authors of a popular article because of the flood of vandalism)... I'd certainly support changes which make image attribution and text attribution more accessible and equal, so long as such changes don't preclude a professional appearance of the documents or create inappropriate incentives to 'contribute'.
I think we're relatively in agreement, then. I especially like your suggestion of an editable credits section. The current history information suffers simultaneously from lacking some information that should be there and from containing too much information that shouldn't. With an editable credits section, we can get rid of the repeats, we can attribute people with their real names instead of their username if they want, we can attribute people who aren't in the current history but still deserve to be credited, and we can remove attribution for people who make insignificant or reverted changes. And possibly best of all, we don't have to repeat the same names over and over again.
Anthony
On 12/22/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
This should IMHO be the standard. Most books that publish photos "by permission" give the credit directly beneath the photo. We should be no different. And, it would help that goal of encouraging people to free up their photos for us.
Steve
On 23/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
This should IMHO be the standard. Most books that publish photos "by permission" give the credit directly beneath the photo. We should be no different. And, it would help that goal of encouraging people to free up their photos for us.
Most books don't have a descriptive page dedicated to each image, we do. I don't see why duplicating this information is necessary, it ends up cluttering the article proper.
Several people have mentioned (in this thread) crediting authors of a page on the page itself. Wikia has/had an attribution feature which is somewhat similar (see http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Attribution ). This incarnation probably wouldn't work for Wikipedia, but if it appears useful, perhaps someone can submit a feature request/argue it to death in the Village Pump until all our eyes are bleeding.
On 12/23/06, Katie the Obscure nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Several people have mentioned (in this thread) crediting authors of a page on the page itself. Wikia has/had an attribution feature which is somewhat similar (see http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Attribution ). This incarnation probably wouldn't work for Wikipedia, but if it appears useful, perhaps someone can submit a feature request/argue it to death in the Village Pump until all our eyes are bleeding.
Two problems: 1) it presents some performance challenges on pages with longer histories 2) It's a terrific vandalism tool which is, I believe, why wikia turned it off.
It also, like page history, does a poor job of fairly representing attribution.
On 12/23/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/23/06, Katie the Obscure nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Several people have mentioned (in this thread) crediting authors of a page on the page itself. Wikia has/had an attribution feature which is somewhat similar (see http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Attribution ). This incarnation probably wouldn't work for Wikipedia, but if it appears useful, perhaps someone can submit a feature request/argue it to death in the Village Pump until all our eyes are bleeding.
Two problems:
- it presents some performance challenges on pages with longer histories
What kind of challenges? Just cache the results periodically - then you only have to look up the modifications made since the last cache. The only real challenge is a political one, not many people have permission to make the changes to the software and database to support it.
- It's a terrific vandalism tool which is, I believe, why wikia turned it off.
Considering the ability to "remove_credits", I don't see why it's any better of a vandalism tool than any other. Care to elaborate?
(according to http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Attribution, it was removed for performance reasons)
It also, like page history, does a poor job of fairly representing attribution.
It's a start, and it's much better than the page history. In addition to "remove_credits", there should be a way to "add_credits". Then you've got all the advantages of a manually edited list, plus the additional advantage that it's automatically populated with a good default.
Anthony
Sunday, December 24, 2006, 6:36:55 PM, Anthony wrote:
- It's a terrific vandalism tool which is, I believe, why wikia turned it off.
Considering the ability to "remove_credits", I don't see why it's any better of a vandalism tool than any other. Care to elaborate?
(according to http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Attribution, it was removed for performance reasons)
I think there should be something similar for images: the author could be extracted from the template found in the commons/en.wiki image description page.
My objection is against mixing encyclopedic content with credits.
On 12/23/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
This should IMHO be the standard. Most books that publish photos "by permission" give the credit directly beneath the photo. We should be no different. And, it would help that goal of encouraging people to free up their photos for us.
Most books don't have a descriptive page dedicated to each image, we do. I don't see why duplicating this information is necessary, it ends up cluttering the article proper.
By the same article it's not necessary to include the image in the article, as there's a separate page dedicated to it.
Duplication isn't always a bad thing, especially when the duplication is a one line summary of the original. It usually isn't necessary (exception would be when the license requires it), but it also usually isn't harmful. I'd say in most cases it's better - I find myself clicking on image links a lot just out of curiosity to see how it was obtained. Saving these extra clicks would be nice, and the tiny bit of space it takes to do so would be worth it. But that's just me, other reader preferences obviously will vary.
By the way, if we're going to appeal to what others do, online Britannica has inline credits even though they have a separate image page. Online Encarta presents their credit information a click away. So there's precedent for either.
Anthony
I think having image credits in the caption/description box looks messy and cluttered For one, those used in infoboxes will look very untidy, and some image descriptions (for, say, paintings with long names) are long enough already. On the other hand, I've seen people who see images on Wikipedia and other WMF projects and have a vague notion about it being 'free content', take it to mean free-as-in-beer and lift it. So maybe it is a good thing...
On 12/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/23/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
This should IMHO be the standard. Most books that publish photos "by permission" give the credit directly beneath the photo. We should be no different. And, it would help that goal of encouraging people to free up their photos for us.
Most books don't have a descriptive page dedicated to each image, we do. I don't see why duplicating this information is necessary, it ends up cluttering the article proper.
By the same article it's not necessary to include the image in the article, as there's a separate page dedicated to it.
Duplication isn't always a bad thing, especially when the duplication is a one line summary of the original. It usually isn't necessary (exception would be when the license requires it), but it also usually isn't harmful. I'd say in most cases it's better - I find myself clicking on image links a lot just out of curiosity to see how it was obtained. Saving these extra clicks would be nice, and the tiny bit of space it takes to do so would be worth it. But that's just me, other reader preferences obviously will vary.
By the way, if we're going to appeal to what others do, online Britannica has inline credits even though they have a separate image page. Online Encarta presents their credit information a click away. So there's precedent for either.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/22/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I noticed that some people add credits of photos inside the articles, saying that CC-BY requires attribution.
This should IMHO be the standard. Most books that publish photos "by permission" give the credit directly beneath the photo. We should be no different. And, it would help that goal of encouraging people to free up their photos for us.
Photo provided by can't sleep clown will eat me. You see the ah problem?