I wouldn't express it quite so bluntly, but agreed at a time when editing seems to have stabilised again after the 2015/16 rally, shifting the Foundation to a strategy of promoting compliance with both BY and SA would address a lot of problems. It is probably demotivating for editors to see their work used without attribution, and whilst a link back to Wikipedia is not as going to be as good as an edit button, we are greatly limiting ourselves if we rely on people coming directly to our sites and treat every extract from our sites as CC0 or Fair Use.
A few legal letters and maybe a court case a year should be easily affordable for the WMF and an excellent investment.
Regards
Jonathan
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:12:43 +0000
> From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?
> Message-ID:
> <CAD4=uZatXxeaxuod9R_sMsEujROG9s-XdhjyNpD9BvR6B5OC9g(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source
> date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the
> attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to
> require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and
> Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to
> edit.
>
> If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a
> requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
>
>
>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and copyleft
>> retention for derived works.
>>
>>>
>>> --