I advocate a much more flexible attribution scheme than listing the authors
or printing a url to the history page. I think a simple (Wikipedia) is a
sufficient attribution for text. If you have the text it is trivial to find
the original author of that text. It's not so trivial with images, but a
link to the history page of an image can be embedded in its metadata.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>wrote;wrote:
2009/2/2 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:
Just that I am skeptical that people realize
their pseudonyms will be
printed on potentially any medium and that they are further aware that
this
pseudonym can be linked to their real identity.
I can't say I agree with your general thrust here - I think that if
people contribute to a massively open project, well, they have to
accept "massively open". Bending over backwards to retroactively
provide anonymity gets impractical fast.
However, this proposal could allow an effective opt-out from any form
of downstream attribution - some kind of "NOCREDIT" magic word,
perhaps. This would neatly sidestep the worry of people not wanting
credited downstream...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l