Delirium wrote:
Oh, it's certainly a good idea, and doesn't hurt anything, to mention Wikipedia as the source. But we can't *require* people to do so, and write them nasty letters if they don't, unless it actually is a legal requirement, which I don't think it is.
We may be able to argue that it is since we explicitly give people the option of providing a link-back in lieu of the more strict author requirement of the GNU FDL. Given our liberal interpretation of the GNU FDL I don't think that a mention of our project's name is much to ask (even if it is just a request, and not a mandate). As I said before this may even go beyond the GNU FDL and get into proper referencing practices.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
"DM" == Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com writes:
DM> We may be able to argue that it is since we explicitly give DM> people the option of providing a link-back in lieu of the more DM> strict author requirement of the GNU FDL. Given our liberal DM> interpretation of the GNU FDL I don't think that a mention of DM> our project's name is much to ask (even if it is just a DM> request, and not a mandate). As I said before this may even go DM> beyond the GNU FDL and get into proper referencing practices.
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?
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.
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.
~ESP
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org