Hi all.
When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History";'.
Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we combine the history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?
The only alternative would be to claim that in fact we don't need to keep a history at all, except for text imported from third parties (like Nupedia). This would have to be based on a fairly liberal interpretation of "if you do not want your text to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it here".
Now, the possible requirement to keep history causes us serious problems. For example:
* If a third party makes a derivative work, do they need to copy the complete Wikipedia site locally? * If a third party makes a verbatim copy, do they need to copy the page history? * Can we delete an article if its contents have been merged elsewhere? * Can we move pages that have been previously referenced in a "from [[X]]" page? * Where page histories get inadvertantly screwed up, do we need to delete the entire article and start again? * If I print out several copies of a Wikipedia article, do I need to print out several copies of the page history to go along with them? Is our "printable version" hence illegal? * If a vandal writes misleading text in an edit summary - eg "I am the principal author of this article", is this a problem? * Do we need to mention the publisher (Wikimedia foundation now, Bomis previously) in every line in the history? * Do we need to keep page history URLs stable? If so, how can we move articles, given that the move destroys the history?
As a result, I feel that we should seek to interpret the text "if you do not want your text to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it here" so as to void our requirement to keep a full history, if this is at all legally possible. However, we should publicise this move well, and if any current or former contributor objects then we should immediately strip Wikipedia of their contributions.
The costs of making a full and accurate history available are significant, and I would say unreasonable for a wiki-based system. I am aware that people have interpreted the current submission text in ways that release us from our obligation to keep a full history, and I think we should look for ways to make that interpretation official.
-Martin "IANAL" Harper
On 11/26/03 5:31 PM, "Martin Harper" martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Hi all.
When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History";'.
That is not true. Wikipedia is the Document, not the individual entries.
Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we combine the history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?
We don't do this because it is NOT covered by section 5.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Martin Harper wrote:
Hi all.
When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History";'.
Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we combine the history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?
It depends on what is considered history. The GNU/FDL was written for works with clear revisions, following each other. One would not note every single small change in the history, but only when a new version is actually published (and not always even then). This would naturally sweep many minor edits under the rug - rather than noting every spelling correction in the history, one would only put down a new entry in the history if one had made so many changes that the document should really be considered a new version.
Maybe we could use a philosophy like that for Wikipedia too - Wikipedia pages are working documents. We freely put them out on the Internet under the GNU/FDL license in that state, but they are not 'versions' for the sake of the GNU/FDL. That way, Wikipedia itself needs not be bothered with the History section at all (unless we include other GNU/FDL material), and people who copy from us, can start a history file with "Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia, <date>", add their own information, and also be done with it.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org