Scenario 1: An article from Wikipedia is used elsewhere (be it on or
offline), with a link to the history of the page. The article is
subsequently deleted from Wikipedia (e.g. accidentally and
irretrievably).
Scenario 2: Wikipedia ceases to exist in its current form. Its
content is hosted elsewhere, but no link exists from the former
location of the history page to the new location.
In either of those scenarios (and there's lots of other
possibilities), the attribution ceases to be meaningful or useful.
In my opinion, attribution of all authors is preferable, and
technically achievable.* Where that is not possible, e.g. due to
space restrictions, then naming the key N authors is acceptable (and
it should also be technically achievable to provide that abbreviated
list). Including "Wikipedia" in the attribution is very reasonable,
but not as the sole word. Providing a single URL only, which may stop
working in the future, is not acceptable (although it would be
acceptable as an accompaniment).
Mike
* If you don't want this cluttering up the footer, then simply have
an "Authors" tab along the lines of the existing history tab. Or some
sort of "Reuse this page" link with reuse instructions/guidelines on
it, along the lines of "Cite this page"
On 21 Jan 2009, at 07:51, George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller
<erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
CC General Counsel has confirmed that our
proposed attribution model
is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use
attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4
(c)(i)
and 4(c)(iii).
4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is
through
4(c)(i).
How is the foundation not distributing the (independently authored)
work?
Attribution methods are first controlled by 4(c) - specifically "
reasonable
to the medium or means You are utilizing".
If Mike believes that a URL to the page history for pages with 6 or
more
authors is acceptable under the terms of the license, and the Creative
Commons' staff attorney so agrees, then I believe that they have just
defined "reasonable to the medium or means we are utilizing" in
minimum
legal terms, at least. If you feel that it's morally repugnant
somehow then
we can talk, of course, but I believe that this is both reasonable
and on
first glance close to the optimum balance of practical (in the
sense of, can
be consistently and legally followed) and ethical (in the sense of,
keeping
people's credits as closely associated as we can).
Again lets go through that section you have two things you can
attribute to:
"the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if
supplied"
However since you reject that we have to move onto the second half:
"if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or
parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for
attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice,
terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party
or parties;"
So yes you can mess with the attribution requirements using that part
of the clause but trying to define say
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal&action=history"
as an
Attribution Party is somewhat unreasonable in the context of the
paragraph and in the general legal use of the term party.
Remember even if you do think you can somehow squeeze this though it
still causes issues with wikipedia's habit of deleting things from
time to time and prevent the import of CC-BY-SA 3.0 text from third
parties.
If we get common agreement with the CC's attorney and the populace
as a
whole that CC-BY-SA-3.0 means (for wikis with 6+ contributors) what
we say
it does, then it doesn't prevent any import or have any issue with
deleting
things.
If we delete a contribution, from the page text and page history,
then that
text is not part of the page that's being served up and to which
the license
applies. Legally, CC-BY-SA-3.0 could be fought over by me going in
and
taking all your contributions to a page and paraphrasing them, then
taking
you out of the "authors list" as you didn't write any text still
appearing
on the page. We take a more liberal view- if you contributed,
you're in the
history. There are exceptions - we do delete revisions in
extremis. But in
general, not one word you wrote can still be in a current article
and you
still show up and get credit now. In some cases your ideas may
still be
present, in some cases they have all been removed, but you still
get credit
except for rare and narrow circumstances.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l