Evan Prodromou wrote:
So, isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to create and distribute free information? I mean, yes, downstream publishers should -- no, *must* -- comply with the GFDL, but besides that, shouldn't we be _happy_ that someone's redistributing the encyclopedia?
The GNU FDL has a strict author credit requirement. We make things /very/ easy of downstream users by stating that a link-back to the particular article copied fullfills this requirement. Given this, and since Wikipedia is a collective work, it is not much to also ask for a mention of our project's name.
We need to make it _easier_ for people to re-publish the encyclopedia in a way that complies with the GFDL -- not punish them for doing so.
OK, how does that relate to what I said? I'm all for making it easy to use our content. But I also think that we should be properly cited since we do not ask that any /individuals/ get author credit. Again since Wikipedia articles are collective works, I think that since individuals are not credited in third party copies, that the project should.
Otherwise downstream users can state only '[This article] is licensed under the [GNU Free Documentation License]' with [This article] being a link to the Wikipedia article and [GNU Free Documentation License] being a link to the GNU FDL (with no underlines under [This article] or [GNU Free Documentation License] to indicate that those are hyperlinks).
I've seen this on at least one website and I don't like it - it does not give readable credit to the collective work and is not a proper citation - it gives the impression (just by reading the message) that the article was written at that website and that that website somehow owns the copyright.
That said, it's probably a good idea to ask for links back to xx.wikipedia.org. Not to promote the site (hell, it's plenty popular), but to make it easier for readers to contribute and fix errors in articles.
??? OK, what about the author requirement? The only alternative is for them to list 5 authors of every article.
-- mav
"DM" == Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com writes:
DM> ??? OK, what about the author requirement? The only DM> alternative is for them to list 5 authors of every article.
So, I guess I'm a little confused. Is there some kind of stipulation that download publishers don't have to credit contributors as long as they credit Wikipedia?
~ESP
Evan Prodromou wrote:
"DM" == Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com writes:
DM> ??? OK, what about the author requirement? The only DM> alternative is for them to list 5 authors of every article.
So, I guess I'm a little confused. Is there some kind of stipulation that download publishers don't have to credit contributors as long as they credit Wikipedia?
As far as I can tell, this is informal policy, but I have no idea where it stands legally. Since technically we license under the GFDL, with no additional caveats, it's quite possible a contributor could refuse to recognize crediting Wikipedia as sufficient, and instead demand that they personally be credited (if they are the only or one of five or fewer authors). So our policy seems to be more of an "if you do this, we, as Wikipedia, won't hassle you, but we can't guarantee that individuals won't hassle you". There is a possible argument that "Wikipedia" is the author itself of a collaborative work, which would be a more satisfactory solution, but would not work for GFDL's text that was originally published elsewhere and then appropriated by Wikipedia.
In any case, this discussion has gone around in circles a few times before both here and on wikilegal, and I'm not sure anything was resolved really. I'd personally try to avoid being legalistic about the whole thing, and ask people to credit us, rather than demand they credit us as a legal matter, since if we delve too deeply into the technicalities of our licensing, it's quite possible all sorts of things will start to fall apart.
-Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org