On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by URL. But these people will also probably be happy with attribution by listing of authors. So you can easily draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community will by happy with attribution by listing of authors. In fact, making your assumption you could say that
the
survey showed that 100% of them are happy with it.
I think it is reasonable to go with the simplest solution that a significant majority are happy with (I'm assuming everyone is in favour of making things as easy for reusers as possible, while maintaining what they consider adequate attribution).
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release *everyone's* work into the public domain?
If we look at just people's first choices (assuming they ranked the
options in way compatible with my ordering, first choices are sufficient) then:
12.11% would be happy with no credit 39.48% would be happy with credit to "Wikipedia" 69.66% would be happy with linking to the article 80.89% would be happy with linking to the version history
That clearly shows that a significant majority would be happy with attribution-by-URL (you can argue over where the URL should point).
Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia".