Two answers and a PS,
- first you do not have to actively discourage the narcissists from
contributing. But playing to their egocentric notions of copyright, notions
where the two licenses are largely the same is damaging to our objective.
The information needs to spread out, by hook or by crook.
- When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you can ignore
this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not want the
license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want a clean
picture just as it would be when I have it printed at my local copy shop.
PS forget your crusade re top posting and use a more modern approach to
e-mail or get over it.
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>
>> I completely agree with your point, but I
think you have grasped
>> the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel
>> about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to
>> our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs.
>> Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life.
And in reply Gerrard mejsen top-posted:
>> I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do
>> because they make a difference. This
making a difference is what I
>> of paramount importance, what makes
people proud of this endeavour.
>> people use my pictures and my ,it makes a
difference how they use it.
>> essentially I do not really care as long
as my ideal of more and better
>> information or more people is realised.
I in fact agree with this. It can even be proven by the success of
such sites as Distributed Proofreaders, where people do not
edit as editors at all, but are merely faithfully reproducing works
to which they have no copyright (or even copyleft) that there is
no shortage of people willing to work without their contribution
being acknowledged in the finished product ; and yes, I count
myself among those who do that kind of work, and really will
never be credited for participating in creating an as faithful
reproduction as possible of for instance an early printing of William
Tyndale's translation of Genesis, in any lasting form.
No-one can deny that we would not lack in contributors if we
turned away everybody who wanted to see their name with the
But human nature is such, that lots of good work can be had
from people who *do* work from completely selfish motives of
pride. Not all such work is of course of good quality. To this
effect too, proofs can be had from Distributed Proofreaders.
Some there do the work hastily, and without care, just because
they want their name to shine on the list of people who do
I do disagree that those people should be actively discouraged
from helping us.
>> Obviously I like it that my picture of a
wild boar is used on a Russian
>> website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING this than
>> having my name on their website.
>> When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be
>> printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This
>> would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be
>> practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so
>> you? What are the costs and is this
feasible.. Are you not killing the
>> that lays the golden eggs ?
Now this though, I cannot understand at all. How is the image
spoiled, if we know who created it?
foundation-l mailing list