Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in this case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text can be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct credit, as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har
krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that
is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the
page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or
by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe