Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:
* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a feel on
prevalent opinions regarding some of the attribution-relevant
questions from a sample of contributors.
* Our timeline will need to be pushed forward a bit, in part because
of this, but also for a number of other unrelated reasons. That said,
we want to move forward fairly aggressively given the constraints of
the re-licensing clause.
I think it's important to note that most other aspects of the proposed
re-licensing have turned out to be remarkably uncontroversial. I'm
very pleased that we've found so much common ground already. Even on
the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
apparently most people, that other people's web use should be treated
very similarly to our own.
The fundamentally divisive question is whether principles of web use
can be applied to some of the other real world use scenarios we've
encountered: DVD, print, spoken versions, etc. Our established
practices don't give us a huge amount of guidance in that matter,
though many past and present GFDL-based offline uses support the case
for stronger attribution, and when this hasn't been granted (as in the
case of the SOS Children's DVD), it turned out to be controversial.
Clearly, many people feel that these media lack the immediacy of
access to authorship information that the web medium provides.
An important counterpoint is that these media are among the ones which
are the most important to reach disadvantaged communities - people
without Internet access, blind users, etc. - and that any onerous
requirements are arguably going to diminish our ability to spread free
knowledge. So, there are moral arguments on both sides. Moreover, as
I've noted, many names only really have meaning in the context of web
presence in the first place.
A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
"reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to work
together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
implementations, and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
we don't have a better answer yet. I worry, in this scenario, about
instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well. And I want
to make sure that we don't embark on a compromise which achieves
nothing: that the vocal minority who feel very strongly about
attribution-by-name under all circumstances will continue to object,
that we will increase complexity for re-users, and that we will not
actually persuade anyone to support the approach who wouldn't
otherwise do so.
So, getting some more data on that question -- is a compromise
necessary and possible -- should IMO be the next steps, after which we
may revise our proposed attribution terms further. I hope that we'll
be able get some first survey data this week, and move quickly after
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Premiolino (which means "little award") is the ancient and most
important italian journalistic award.
it.wiki wins in the category "New media" for this reason:
"(because) it's a great, open, accessible for everyone, democratic
encyclopedia, always updated in real time (e.g. the article "Giorgio
Napolitano" improved by his staff), very useful for every writer".
The award consists in a parchment and a 5000€ cheque.
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective
look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The
atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day.
And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with
you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have
done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence?
That, alone, speaks volumes.
From: bawolff <bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700
To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning:
[I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit
war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant
about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up]
I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between
contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often
between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm
not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came
*"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always"
*"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that
someone in my position knows what they're doing"
*"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of
*"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_
Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't
care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is
incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any
circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they
would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year,
maybe even indefinitely.
How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when
this is how the long time contributors are treated?
Wikinews-l mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I just wanted to share some thoughts. This is not designed to address
any one situation, but to address a problem that is overarching. I
include myself in this address as I am sure I've been guilty as well.
I've recently seen some very respective contributers violate this.
We need to remember that in a volunteer environment that all things
are volunteer. We someone does something "dumb" we should not
suppose that they knew better and respond with name calling, talking
down, and other such things. In all things that we do, and in all
areas; development, editing, press, meta, et cetera. We should be
kind to one another. Just a thought - if someone does something
"dumb" politely explain why such action was wrong, and the correct way
to do it. Remember, that all volunteers do not know better.
Just a sane thought to ponder.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
There was a discussion at the Village Pump on en-wikipedia a year ago about implementing the rather familiar link sharing options that more and more websites have installed in order to increase readership.Typically this would show as:
Save to del.icio.us • Share on Facebook • Digg This! • outside.in:
geotag this story • Discuss on Newsvine • Stumble It! • Sphere: Related
Content • Add to del.icio.us.
- with perhaps some icons.
I haven't been able to locate other discussions with regards to our implementing this feature.
Have there been past discussions about this? Is this not a good idea?
all communication to and from this person will be subject to public availability
public password: 17stovner
Alt i ett. Få Yahoo! Mail med adressekartotek, kalender og
1. Wikipedia has a pretended version of it in "Moldovan language" using
the Cyrillic script
2. The state language is Moldovan (identical to Romanian), and it is
written in the Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic
3. we request you to delete the fake "Moldovan version in Cyrillic" from
We have 2,212 people on facebook who signed the petition.
Or at least rename it to mo-cyrillic.wikipedia