Дана Friday 20 March 2009 06:04:49 Erik Moeller написа:
2009/3/19 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.yu>yu>:
Erik, this is simply not true. The sentence in
question reads [...] You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original
Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by
conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if
supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor
specifies to be associated with the Work [...] So, the URI has to be
given *in addition* to the name of the author, not *instead* of it.
No. You have to interpret the licensing of a work that is contributed
to Wikipedia as a consequence of a series of decisions.
1) An author visits the Wikipedia website.
2) An author makes an edit and agrees to license it under the terms
and conditions we specify.
3) By doing so, the author exercises the options that the CC-BY-SA
license grants.
4) The CC-BY-SA license grants the author the option to not supply a
name for purposes of attribution. The CC-BY-SA license grants the
author the option to supply a URL. The terms and conditions require
the author to exercise these options in that fashion.
5) The resultant work requires attribution by URL, but not by name.
Of course, if an author doesn't supply a name, then an URL is all that
remains. But most of our authors have not excercised this possibility: they
do supply their names, or pseudonyms.
This is also
not completely true. It is true that Wikipedia mirrors often
cited authors in this way; but a number of books that were printed from
Wikipedia content have a list of all the authors.
People have over-attributed out of caution given the known
inconsistency between site terms and content license. The CC-BY-SA
license resolves that inconsistency.
It is just your opinion that they have over-attributed; my opinion is that
their way of attribution is reasonable.