On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Anthony
As Thomas said, it requires Internet access,
which might not be
I think it's a bit more than that, though.
The credit should be part of
work itself, not external to the work. When
you're talking about a
it's hard to define where the work begins and
where it ends, clearly a
can span multiple URLs, and it's essentially
meaningless whether or not
those URLs have different domain names (at least assuming they are both
nearly 100% reliable). None of these three
things are true with books,
T-shirts, or movies (for a movie a URL would be especially obnoxious).
As a contributor to these 'ere projects myself, I personally would
prefer the less reliable but more informative URL for attribution
myself. That's a personal preference only, and I don't see any need to
push that on others.
I understand that viewpoint and think it is reasonable. How about adding a
checkbox to preferences, that says "allow attribution by URL"?
Our authors contributed to our projects with the expectation that
their content would be freely reusable. Requiring even
2 pages of
attributions be included after every article inclusion is a non-free
tax on content reuse, and a violation of our author's expectations.
Demanding that authors be rigorously attributed despite having no
expectations for it, while at the same time violating their
expectations of free reuse doesn't quite seem to me to be a good
course of action.
I think it's clear that at least some people expected to be attributed
directly in any print edition encyclopedias made from Wikipedia. Do you
deny that, or do you just think it doesn't matter?
I think reusers should determine what the best way is
to give credit.
However, if they can't meet a minimal
standard, then they ought to not
the work at all.
Letting reusers "determine what is the best way" is surely a pitfall.
You're assuming that miraculously corporate interests are going to be
preoccupied with providing proper attribution.
I qualified my statement with the fact that they do need to at least meet a
minimal standard. That said, I believe that corporate interests *are* best
served by providing proper attribution. There may be some short-term gains
to be had by violating people's rights, but in the end doing so will kill
the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak. (They'll also be unable to
distribute their content legally in most any jurisdiction in the world other
than the United States.)