2009/1/20 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have to say that I do not think that attributing me in this way is sufficient. As a Wikimedian, I believe that a lot of people will feel the same.
That's probably true, Nikola. The proposed attribution language is intended to balance the various positions (ranging from 'an URL should always be fine' to 'names should always be given'), the established practices, and the language of the GFDL (principal author requirement). Our hope is that a strong majority will recognize the value of such a compromise, and the improvement over current state: huge complexity for re-users, legal barriers between groups that should be able to cooperate, inconsistent and confusing interpretations of the rules.
And I don't think we can or should take the easy way out and not make a decision as to what the terms of re-use should be. But any decision is likely to offend a sub-group of people who feel it's going too far, or not far enough. Nor do we have complete freedom to pick any solution we want: we need to make an effort to be consistent with past practices. So there will be a certain degree of unhappiness, as is always the case when a time period of inconsistency and arbitrary standards is followed by a time period of equal and shared standards. (The same happened, as you will recall, after the Board implemented a licensing policy prohibiting NC licenses, etc.)
I realize that some community guidelines have asked or encouraged print re-users to include a complete list of usernames alongside articles. (This, by the way, does not satisfy the GFDL's history inclusion requirement.) Under the proposed language, that would continue to be necessary for articles which have no more than five authors. The proposed language recognizes the value of direct name attribution in those instances: for articles that are essentially the work of just one or two people; for static multimedia works; etc. It is consistent with the GFDL's standards of visible byline attribution through naming the principal authors of a document.
There are various problems with making a distinction between print and online use when it comes to name inclusion. The first problem is that there are related questions which immediately pop up: Is it reasonable for a one page print document to have half a page or more of author metadata? Is it reasonable for a t-shirt to have to include a metadata text-block? Is a DVD substantially different from a print product? Is a screen in a flight information system? So in order to deal with those cases, you start making more complex rules which, again, discourage meaningful re-use. This in spite of the fact that the usernames we are talking about, in a large number of cases, will only be unambiguous and meaningful if resolved to username URIs; the extent of their contributions can only be meaningfully ascertained when reviewing a page history.
That's why I think history or credit URIs are a reasonable attribution mechanism for works that are the result of the work of many people. I also feel that they represent a compromise between your position and that of others who have contributed.