Larry wrote: [An impassioned and earnest defense of linkbacks]
I agree wholeheartedly.
The only thing is that the GFDL already requires linkbacks in pretty much every situation.
We don't need to add an invariant section unless we want to determine the look-and-feel of the linkback.
What we need to do, at a minimum, is follow the nuances of the GFDL and comply with it, and give our recommendations on how we believe (without giving official legal advice) you (Joe Q. Other) can use Wikipedia content in compliance.
We should frame it as "All you have to do to use our stuff is follow the GFDL. If you do these things [list] we (Wikipedia/Bomis/etc.) will consider that you are successfully following the GFDL. But the list is only a set of recommendations and is not legal advice."
Then we can say "This HTML table is the recommended way to link back to Wikipedia. If you put it on your site, you will not only be complying with the GFDL but also helping grow Wikipedia."
etc. etc.
But first steps is actually understanding the GFDL, which requires a close analysis. I recommend doing it.
On another note, I think it's bad policy to leave the HTML table page up as the official policy while a) it's being discussed, and b) the Wikipedia principals have unofficially distanced themselves from the requirement.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, The Cunctator wrote:
The only thing is that the GFDL already requires linkbacks in pretty much every situation.
It hasn't been established that linkbacks are required on every Wikipedia article, though, and those are the sorts of linkbacks I think would help Wikipedia most.
We don't need to add an invariant section unless we want to determine the look-and-feel of the linkback.
We also need an invariant section, according to my understanding anyway, if we want to have linkbacks to specific articles on every article, inviting people to contribute. That surely constitutes content of the linkback, if not the look-and-feel. As I intimated, we're not so concerned about the look-and-feel of the linkback as the content.
What we need to do, at a minimum, is follow the nuances of the GFDL and comply with it, and give our recommendations on how we believe (without giving official legal advice) you (Joe Q. Other) can use Wikipedia content in compliance.
We should frame it as "All you have to do to use our stuff is follow the GFDL. If you do these things [list] we (Wikipedia/Bomis/etc.) will consider that you are successfully following the GFDL. But the list is only a set of recommendations and is not legal advice."
On first glance, this looks like a nonstarter, and potentially a disaster. Unless it's quite clear we *require* linkbacks of the specified type, there are bound to be all sorts of websites that will do the absolute bare minimum in terms of directing potential contributors back to us. That is particularly true, as Jimbo said, for the likes of yahoo.com, msn.com, and other biggies who will be only to happy to use our content without contributing to the project. That's precisely what I want to avoid.
But first steps is actually understanding the GFDL, which requires a close analysis. I recommend doing it.
I've done enough of it to know that your interpretation is indeed a very contentious interpretation, not a statement of fact. But, as I said, I'm letting Jimbo address questions of license interpretation.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org