Has a final decision been made on exactly how Wikipedia content must be attributed when used in derivative works? I am the collection editor for the Linux Documentation Project, and I would like to write some scripts that will pull selected documents out of Wikipedia to be installed on users' machines along with the LDP documents. It shouldn't be too hard of a job with perl or python, although polishing it up might take some finesse, like removing links that go to documents that aren't being included.
Eventually, when the Linux documentation database, ScrollKeeper, supports online document registration, I will instead link directly to Wikipedia. I will install the initial set but use the online version if a network connection is available.
I would ask that you please do not require an html table but a plain attribution. LDP documents are formatted so they display in a console web browser (e.g., lynx and links). People who install server machines often don't install a GUI, and lynx doesn't support tables.
What I would like to do ideally is format the document similar to the way we credit FOLDOC on Wikipedia:
---EXAMPLE--- Foo Wikipedia.com
Foo (19xx - 19xx) was a bar bazzer especially noted for his skill in xyxxy. Blah blah. :-)
----
This document was created by Wikipedia.com ---EXAMPLE---
So Wikipedia.com is credited as the "author".
On top or at the bottom, I'm not sure how it will lay out until I get to doing it and looking at it. If we think that's good enough for crediting FOLDOC then we shouldn't ask more of *our* downstream users. If I weren't a Wikipedia fan, I would probably want it at the bottom, but I happen to know how powerful the community effort is. I want very much to send Linux users to Wikipedia to help improve our documentation by building that community.
Wikipedia.com would be a "live" link, of course.
Is there any particular reason you want to require a table? Just because it looks nice?