2009/5/29 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com>om>:
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in
which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
That's because the GFDL is monstrously ill-suited to wiki content in
the case of the "suit from persistent insane content author" threat
model. In practice, best-effort is about the best that can be done.
Even then the querulous will try to make trouble for the reusers (see
[[:en:Talk:Freebase]] for a recent example).
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever. That other sites
have used the GFDL following Wikimedia's lead is not a sufficient
justification for claims or implications that the GFDL was in any way
adequate for what we do, ever.
- d.