Attribution of external content

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Edit-a-thon Trace Of Soul 2017

[Wikimedia Announcements] The...

John Erling Blad

27 Aug 2017 27 Aug '17

3:28 p.m.

In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har krav på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that is given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the page if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have provided the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way. I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or by an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry. An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision. Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing? John Erling Blad

Show replies by thread

Gnangarra

27 Aug 27 Aug

4:03 p.m.

There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content within articles On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

John Erling Blad

4:22 p.m.

Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in this case nor the author. The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text can be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct credit, as the request for credit can be pretty weird. Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not even contain this content anymore. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

krav

på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that

given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the

page

if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have

provided

the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way. I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or

an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It should also be possible to delete such an entry. An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is the description of the revision, not the source of the revision. Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing? John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gnangarra

4:31 p.m.

that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refn On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

and

> reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator

has

the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har

krav

på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that

given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the

page

if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have

provided > the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way. > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected

into

> the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor

by > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary

the description of the revision, not the source of the revision. Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another level that makes things more confusing? John Erling Blad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

John Erling Blad

6:26 p.m.

Citation and reuse is two different things. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in

this

case nor the author. The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text

can

be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct

credit,

as the request for credit can be pretty weird. Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not even contain this content anymore. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at

least

> specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by

content

within articles On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites,

and

> reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator

has > > the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har > krav > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content

that

> is > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to

the

> page > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not

the

> > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have > provided > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent

way.

> > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected

into > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or

part

> from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor

or > by > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision.

> should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary

is > > the description of the revision, not the source of the revision. > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just

another

> > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > John Erling Blad > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gnangarra

28 Aug 28 Aug

2:17 a.m.

but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license detail ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Citation and reuse is two different things. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where the text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Template:Refn On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in

this

case nor the author. The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text

can

credit, > as the request for credit can be pretty weird. > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may

not

> even contain this content anymore. > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at

least

> specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by

content > > within articles > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external

sites,

> and > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The

creator

> has > > > the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen

har

> krav > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content

that

> is > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to

the

> page > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not

the

> > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have > provided > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent

way. > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry

injected

into > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or

part > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the

editor

or > by > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision.

It > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the

summary

is > > the description of the revision, not the source of the revision. > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just

another > > > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > > > John Erling Blad > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe>

> > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Richard Farmbrough

29 Aug 29 Aug

1:39 p.m.

We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced entirely. On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Citation and reuse is two different things. On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote: > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where

the

> text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Template:Refn > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and

> this > > case nor the author. > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the

text

> can > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If

the

> > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct > credit, > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird. > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the > > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at

some

> point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may

not

> even contain this content anymore. > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at

least

> specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by

content > > within articles > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external

sites,

> and > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The

creator

> has > > > the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen

har > > > krav > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our

content

> that > > > is > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link

> the > > > page > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is

not

the

> > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have > provided > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent

way. > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry

injected > > into > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full

part > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the

editor > > or > > > by > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the

revision.

It > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the

summary

is > > the description of the revision, not the source of the revision. > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just

another > > > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > > > John Erling Blad > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

1:53 p.m.

Hoi, With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only. Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level. Thanks, GerardM On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough <richard(a)farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:

...

but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license

detail

ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Citation and reuse is two different things. > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where

the > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Template:Refn > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and

> this > > case nor the author. > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the

text > > can > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the

> > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If

the > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct > > credit, > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird. > > > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something

the

> > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at

some > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page

may

> not > > > even contain this content anymore. > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en

> > least > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by > > content > > > > within articles > > > > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external > sites, > > > and > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The > creator > > > has > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"

("Opphavsmannen

har > > > krav > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our

content

> that > > > is > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link

> the > > > page > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is

not > > the > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they

have

> > > > provided > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some

consistent

way. > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry

injected > > into > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full

part > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the

editor > > or > > > by > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the

revision. > > It > > > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > > > > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the > summary > > > is > > > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the

revision.

> > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another > > > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > > > John Erling Blad > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe>

> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gnangarra

31 Aug 31 Aug

3:35 a.m.

Kaya With all due respect if there are potential solutions already created then it doent matter which project or what language they are on they can be adapted and translated as necessary, even made global On 29 August 2017 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the refn template can include anything you need to add including license

detail

wrote: > > > > > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation

where

the > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Template:Refn > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > > > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text,

and

> in > > > this > > > > case nor the author. > > > > > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why

the

> text > > > can > > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified,

the

by > > > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough.

> the > > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give

correct

> > credit, > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird. > > > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something

the

> > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at

some > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page

may > > not > > > > even contain this content anymore. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on

at > > > least > > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed

cc-by

> > content > > > > within articles > > > > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com

> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on

external

> sites, > > > and > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The > creator > > > has > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"

("Opphavsmannen > > har > > > > > krav > > > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our > content > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a

link

> to > > > the > > > > > page > > > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it

not > > the > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they

have

> > > > provided > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some

consistent > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry > > injected > > > > into > > > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in

full

> or > > > part > > > > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by

the

editor > > or > > > by > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the

revision. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it

just

> > > another > > > > > > level that makes things more confusing? > > > > > > > > > > > > John Erling Blad > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe>

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

John Erling Blad

6 Sep 6 Sep

7:24 p.m.

Stright from the Norwegian Åndsverksloven § 3. The author is entitled to be named as good practice, as well as on copies of the intellectual property as when made available to the public. Good practice on Wikipedia is a reference in the page history. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hoi, With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia

only.

Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level. Thanks, GerardM On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough <richard(a)farmbrough.co.uk wrote: > We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for > acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic > mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is

replaced

> entirely. > > On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title -

the

> > refn template can include anything you need to add including license > detail > > ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links > > > > On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> Citation and reuse is two different things. > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > > > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation

where

the > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Template:Refn > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > > > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text,

and

> in > > > this > > > > case nor the author. > > > > > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why

the

> text > > > can > > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified,

the

by > > > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough.

> the > > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give

correct > > > > credit, > > > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird. > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily

something

> the > > > > > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that

> > some > > > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present

page

> may > > > not > > > > > even contain this content anymore. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <

gnangarra(a)gmail.com>

> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on

at > > > least > > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed

cc-by > > > > content > > > > > > within articles > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <

jeblad(a)gmail.com

> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on

external > > > sites, > > > > > and > > > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says

"The

> creator > > > has > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"

link > > to > > > > the > > > > > > page > > > > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but

is > > not > > > > the > > > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided,

they

have

> > > > provided > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some

full

> or > > > part > > > > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by

the > > > editor > > > > > or > > > > > > by > > > > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the > > revision. > > > > It > > > > > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but

the

> summary > > > is > > > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the

revision. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it

just

https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > > > unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > GN. > > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/

> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=

unsubscribe>

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

2423

days inactive

2433

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

4 participants

tags (0)

participants (4)

Gerard Meijssen
Gnangarra
John Erling Blad
Richard Farmbrough