In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har krav på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that is given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the page if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have provided the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or by an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad