I disagree, for the following reasons: * Precedent has arguably been set with the FOLDOC materials already, but precedent doesn't really matter, so let's forget that. * If somebody uses our material on their site, we want a prominent link back. We would probably not be happy with a notice on some attached discussion page that is buried among dozens of links and rather difficult to find for the casual user of the site. So then fairness requires that we give the same prominent attributions to others. * I don't understand the "limiting our ability to edit text" part. * If you mean: we are then limited because we cannot remove the acknowledgement from the article anymore, then you are correct. Removing that notice would amount to a breach of copyright law, just like pasting in some copyrighted material would. But people check edits all the time, and these things would be noticed and reversed. The same applies to your Talk page solution, but edits on Talk pages are arguably much less scrutinized than edits in the main namespace. * If you mean we lose the ability to edit the material of the article itself: that's incorrect; we just phrase the acknowledgement properly ("This article is based on material from ...") * Talk pages are for discussion, not for credits. Nobody would look there for them, and nobody would put them there. If you want a Credits: namespace, I think I could live with that, but I still find it more polite to give the original source more prominent exposure in the article itself. If somebody prints out the article, I want them to see the acknowledgement.