2009/3/15 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Wikimedia is not a party to the license therefor it's FAQ is of no relevance. The answer again goes to the license text. "You must...keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide ,reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author". The mug maker could lose the case on the grounds that the license made it clear that it is the person who is doing the reuse who has to provide the credit and attempting to do it via third parties is not legitimate. However any guidelines the foundation uses must be as robust as possible otherwise rather than being a significant part of the free content movement wikipedia ends up as the copyright equivalent of a radioactive mess no sane person would touch.
Good thing we're not using an impossible-to-obey licence like the GFDL, then.
- d.