Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example, everyone who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are given, but not the other way around.
That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they recognize that there is an additional good (ease of re-use) that needs to be served. It's true that this is not the case for a large number of articles, but it's often the case for the most interesting ones. The proposed attribution language - to state names when there are fewer than six - is precisely written as a compromise. According to your own metrics, for very many articles, this would mean that all authors would be named. And the filtering of author names could be continually improved to exclude irrelevant names.
I would say that it's true that the people who have made the case against heavy attribution requirements have been typically more willing to accept compromise. What compromise are you willing to accept? Saying that 'you can opt out' does not address the concerns of the other side. Opt-in permanent attribution would be an alternative that would probably not have huge impact, and it could be offered only on a retroactive basis (e.g. for past edits, but not for future ones).