Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
The only way the high quality can be assured, and wikipedia can stay reputable (with the press penchant for negative stories) is to clearly identify what is the original source "wikimedia foundation" data/information/articles and what is not.
But the information in question *is* original source wikimedia foundation data/information/articles. However, the Wikimedia trademarks, at least in theory (IANAL), disallow someone from making that clear.
I think it's more the logo that's problematic. Factual attributions, like "This is a distribution of Wikipedia content as of [x date], selected in [y manner], packaged for the iPod" would be hard to prosecute under trademark laws, just like Brittanica hasn't sued us for having taglines at the bottom of some articles stating "This article incorporates text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, a publication in the public domain.".
-Mark