Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
Let me make a radical suggestion. One that, for the moment, ignores all those overbearing legal questions.
This is only radical in the fashion ("radical" is based on the word "root"), that it is reasonable to root ones head in the sand. That is the common metaphor for ignoring questions of significant import.
Why not assume that the appropriate amount of attribution for a Wikipedia article is essentially the amount that it has now?
Why not assume the moon is made of green cheese? The significant point is that wikipedia articles will not be offered in the same form as they are now, for very much longer. There will be an increasing number of folks who will think of fixed forms to market wikipedia articles, where a simple internet link will not be a practical solution.
When you look at a Wikipedia article there is no list of authors (principal or otherwise). There is simply a link to "history", a statement at the bottom of the page saying that the content is under the GFDL, and a link to the GFDL. On the Wikipedia page itself, that is essentially the full extent of the licensing and attribution.
I assume that practically all Wikipedia contributors are comfortable with recieving this very low level of attribution for Wikipedia articles.
Attribution for wikipedia articles offered only in the form that they are on the wikimedia sites, perhaps.
Do not make the mistake of extrapolating from that into fixed media.
So, by extension, perhaps the goal should be finding a way to codify this scheme in a way that works both for us and for reusers. Namely, making the requirements for redistribution of Wikipedia content to simply be:
- A link or reference to the article's history
- A statement acknowledging the free content license
- A link or reference to the text of that license
That's very simple and practical. One can add some details regarding new versions and modifications, but even there I think you accomplish more by keeping it simple.
This is completely false and misleading. You simply can not practically link from a fixed media to the internets. You can tell people what to type into the browser, which will bring you the right history etc. Sure, technically that is one form of compliance, but that is going the route of "small print" stuff that one employs, when one is not too particular about the ethics of what is doing. That does not work for people who actually do the editing in chief of articles. This approach would really give them the shaft.
Now I suspect there are about three dozen reasons why defining attribution as simply a link to the history page is legally impossible and incompatible with the GFDL. But even so, doesn't it make some sense to start with: How are Wikipedia articles being used? and work backwards backwards to construct the licensing scheme that best resembles actual practice while still being legally rigorous? Wikipedia authors don't seem to want or expect prominent and overt acknowledgements when writing articles, so why should our licensing scheme require reusers to add more overt statements than even we ourselves have?
I will let that statement stand by itself, and let intelligent readers draw their own conclusions...
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
<snip>
So, by extension, perhaps the goal should be finding a way to codify this scheme in a way that works both for us and for reusers. Namely, making the requirements for redistribution of Wikipedia content to simply be:
- A link or reference to the article's history
- A statement acknowledging the free content license
- A link or reference to the text of that license
That's very simple and practical. One can add some details regarding new versions and modifications, but even there I think you accomplish more by keeping it simple.
This is completely false and misleading. You simply can not practically link from a fixed media to the internets. You can tell people what to type into the browser, which will bring you the right history etc. Sure, technically that is one form of compliance, but that is going the route of "small print" stuff that one employs, when one is not too particular about the ethics of what is doing. That does not work for people who actually do the editing in chief of articles. This approach would really give them the shaft.
<snip>
I am saying that a printed URL address in dead tree media to a site that contains the appropriate information would be fine by me. Perhaps you believe that it is totally unreasonable to draw a connection between printed material and the web, but as the world becomes increasingly connected, I see no fundemental problem with this. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be broadly generalizing that this approach would be unethical and unfair to editors, and as an editor I'd have to firmly disagree with you.
Also, keep in mind that we are discussing how licensing and attribution might work. Obviously, any attempt to faithfully apply the GFDL as currently constructed will be more cumbersome. But we can't possibly get a better GFDL in the future unless we are willing to discuss what we might want from it.
-Robert Rohde
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
<snip>
So, by extension, perhaps the goal should be finding a way to codify this scheme in a way that works both for us and for reusers. Namely, making the requirements for redistribution of Wikipedia content to simply be:
- A link or reference to the article's history
- A statement acknowledging the free content license
- A link or reference to the text of that license
That's very simple and practical. One can add some details regarding new versions and modifications, but even there I think you accomplish more by keeping it simple.
This is completely false and misleading. You simply can not practically link from a fixed media to the internets. You can tell people what to type into the browser, which will bring you the right history etc. Sure, technically that is one form of compliance, but that is going the route of "small print" stuff that one employs, when one is not too particular about the ethics of what is doing. That does not work for people who actually do the editing in chief of articles. This approach would really give them the shaft.
<snip>
I am saying that a printed URL address in dead tree media to a site that contains the appropriate information would be fine by me. Perhaps you believe that it is totally unreasonable to draw a connection between printed material and the web, but as the world becomes increasingly connected, I see no fundemental problem with this. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be broadly generalizing that this approach would be unethical and unfair to editors, and as an editor I'd have to firmly disagree with you.
Also, keep in mind that we are discussing how licensing and attribution might work. Obviously, any attempt to faithfully apply the GFDL as currently constructed will be more cumbersome. But we can't possibly get a better GFDL in the future unless we are willing to discuss what we might want from it.
I am happy to have intelligent people read what you have written, and don't feel any need to add to that.
You are free to make personal allowances as an editor which other editors might not be willing to do. That is your personal choice. But that only speaks to you, not to editors at large.
I won't discuss what I might want from the GFDL, purely because I don't like blue sky fantasies. Wikipedia isn't going to get permission from RMS to be pragmatic about what to allow the texts attribution be. Funnily enough RMS's criterions aren't even IMO founded in sensible ethical anchors. But that is completely by the by.
I categorigally refuse to engage in that game. And to underline it more emphatically, I would most strongly oppose any move to give prominence to the freedomdefined site in our negotiations with the relevant interest groups, as being representative of wikimedias interests.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2008/10/21 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
And to underline it more emphatically, I would most strongly oppose any move to give prominence to the freedomdefined site in our negotiations with the relevant interest groups, as being representative of wikimedias interests.
Which, as I noted, is fine for you personally, but claiming it's not representative of Wikimedia's interests is simply factually incorrect, given the board resolution stating that it's precisely that.
- d.
Sorry, you place the board of WM Foundation whereby they are responsible for all users on Wikimedias projects.
John
David Gerard skrev:
2008/10/21 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
And to underline it more emphatically, I would most strongly oppose any move to give prominence to the freedomdefined site in our negotiations with the relevant interest groups, as being representative of wikimedias interests.
Which, as I noted, is fine for you personally, but claiming it's not representative of Wikimedia's interests is simply factually incorrect, given the board resolution stating that it's precisely that.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/10/22 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
Sorry, you place the board of WM Foundation whereby they are responsible for all users on Wikimedias projects.
That's like saying a community can decide to repudiate the GFDL on their project. They can, but it won't be a Wikimedia project much longer.
[*] apart from Wikinews of course.
- d.
No, its not the same. WM Foundation represent the community in some aspects, but they are not responsible for the users in the community.
John
David Gerard skrev:
2008/10/22 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
Sorry, you place the board of WM Foundation whereby they are responsible for all users on Wikimedias projects.
That's like saying a community can decide to repudiate the GFDL on their project. They can, but it won't be a Wikimedia project much longer.
[*] apart from Wikinews of course.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/10/22 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
No, its not the same. WM Foundation represent the community in some aspects, but they are not responsible for the users in the community.
Then I'm completely unclear on what you mean, and/or you're completely unclear on what I mean.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org