that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the
text would add context by using
On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Use of a template does not accurately identify the
copied text, and in this
case nor the author.
The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by
attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the
share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the
external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some
point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not
even contain this content anymore.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least
specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content
within articles
On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>