In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, scs@eskimo.com writes:

Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever -- to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.>> --------------- OWN however deals with the feeling by some editors that they have a priveledged position vis a vis others, in accepting changes to certain articles. Attribution would only be OWN if OWNing editors prevented anyone else from making enough changes to subvert their by-line.

I'm not really sensing that attribution would increase or decrease the current levels of OWNership we already see. It would possibly, however, bring into the fold, more writers to help fix some of our more sub-standard articles. One of the benefits that I see in KNOL is attribution.

I contributed greatly, at one time, to our article on Helena Blavatsky. I have a deal of knowledge about her biography. However I know next to nothing about her philosophy/theology. So at one time perhaps, my own byline would wave in her article, but later on, perhaps I'd fall-from-grace if someone added several paragraphs about her beliefs as well. That's the breaks. My percentage of her article might fall from 60% to 20%.

It would be a lot more useful for the kind of attribution that the license (or at least the theory of it) seems to suggest for redistribution. Some people think naming the top three authors would be sufficient. Some want all of history. It's not obvious to know who the top three authors are right now.

Will Johnson **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)