Hola la todos.
I think I do not say nothing new:
Most files are under a free license or FUR either of which requires attribution.
I'm omitting existing of Media Viewer - it's not important in the case.
When we use file like [[File:Example.jpeg]] (with size, position, alt and so on perhaps) the attribution requirement is fulfilled by the fact that the file is being a link to it's description page where all credits are to be seen.
But we can use it like [[File:Example.jpeg|link=]] or [[File:Example.jpeg|link=Some page]] which would suppress or substitute the link with another link. We can also use images via css or scripts for some backgrounds and so on which is not about the link-parameter but has the same issue in core.
The question is how attribution requirement is being fulfilled in the latter case?
What is general community consensus and WMF position upon it?
I'm sure that I'm not the first wikimedian who notices that thing so the answer should lie on some surface just I don't know where to look for it so I'm asking it in here. This is also not so uncommon and too rare usage to be ignored, I'm sure of it.
I'm looking forward for any answers/comments.
Yours,
Base
A sentence
Most files are under a free license or FUR either of which requires attribution.
Should be read someway like this:
Most of files which are under either a free license or FUR require attribution.
--Base
27.08.2014 12:52, Bohdan Melnychuk написав(ла):
Hola la todos.
I think I do not say nothing new:
Most files are under a free license or FUR either of which requires attribution.
I'm omitting existing of Media Viewer - it's not important in the case.
When we use file like [[File:Example.jpeg]] (with size, position, alt and so on perhaps) the attribution requirement is fulfilled by the fact that the file is being a link to it's description page where all credits are to be seen.
But we can use it like [[File:Example.jpeg|link=]] or [[File:Example.jpeg|link=Some page]] which would suppress or substitute the link with another link. We can also use images via css or scripts for some backgrounds and so on which is not about the link-parameter but has the same issue in core.
The question is how attribution requirement is being fulfilled in the latter case?
What is general community consensus and WMF position upon it?
I'm sure that I'm not the first wikimedian who notices that thing so the answer should lie on some surface just I don't know where to look for it so I'm asking it in here. This is also not so uncommon and too rare usage to be ignored, I'm sure of it.
I'm looking forward for any answers/comments.
Yours,
Base
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we can use it like [[File:Example.jpeg|link=]] or [[File:Example.jpeg|link=Some page]] which would suppress or substitute the link with another link. We can also use images via css or scripts for some backgrounds and so on which is not about the link-parameter but has the same issue in core.
The question is how attribution requirement is being fulfilled in the latter case?
What is general community consensus and WMF position upon it?
<Note this reply is entirely in my personal volunteer capacity, and in no way represents anything official>
From what I've seen on enwiki, this mainly applies to images used as
navigation icons or decoration in templates.
Whenever I see an image requiring attribution or notice of license (which basically means "anything that's not public domain or CC0") that is using the "link=" parameter, I'll fix it with an appropriate edit summary. Sometimes it's possible to find or create a replacement image that's public domain or CC0 which can be used instead of the problematic image, or sometimes I just remove the "link=". In some cases the link necessary for attribution is supplied in some other way, e.g. by superimposing an "info" icon on the image with the necessary link.
A few years back I tried to make a user script that would highlight problematic images, but the plethora of licensing categories (particularly on Commons) made it too difficult to keep up with. Maybe the new Structured Data planning can make this possible.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org