On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi wrote:
Hi all,
This is super interesting and important discussion. One idea.
On 10 Oct 2017, at 3.44, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote: And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making, transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.
Would it make sense to help and maybe even demand the proprietary service providers and AI application (Siri, Google, etc) using the Wikimedia content to include a statement if their reuse is from a "native version of live Wikimediaā€¯ and also this way tell that they do not?
That is a fantastic idea! CC-BY-SA says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor."
Is there anything preventing us from specifying attribution in a manner that makes clear the revision date?
I would love to see the re-users have to do that. Are there any downsides?