I really have to come out against putting acknowledgements on the pages themselves. It's /not/ required by the license,
Agreed.
it's /not/ what I would expect someone using our text to do,
That's the crucial point. Previously, I had interpreted the consensus on this list as asking for links back to Wikipedia on every page that uses Wikipedia material. If that's really not the case (and I could live with that), then we should phrase [[wikipedia:copyrights]] a bit clearer.
it clutters the page with information that isn't relevant to most users, it gives a sense to users of the text being a "fixed" rather than "dynamic" thing, and it will create a growing problem in the long run.
The last point, with accumulating credits over time, is a good one.
We're here to serve the readers, not the egos of writers who think writing a sentence or two is a major accomplishment forever worthy of credit. Indeed, we are changing the notion of "authorship" itself, and we shouldn't constrain ourselves to policies that fit the old paradigm.
We have however chosen a license that enshrines these authorship rights.
Another possibility I'm open to is a wiki markup specifically for endnotes and credits
This would be good, or alternatively a Credits: namespace which by default always contains a text like "Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts; you can find the contributors on the [[History page]]." and then we could credit any other outside sources there.
I would however request that the Printable Version of every article contains these Credits (in a smaller font if desired). Otherwise, printed out copies could arguably be seen as being in breach of license.
Axel
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 05:11:51AM +0200, Axel Boldt wrote:
This would be good, or alternatively a Credits: namespace which by default always contains a text like "Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts; you can find the contributors on the [[History page]]." and then we could credit any other outside sources there.
Well, if we must, then I'd also prefer a separate namespace over some special markup. It would be very similar to a Talk page, have its own color, and the link to it could be next to the Talk link.
-- Jan Hidders
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Jan Hidders wrote:
This would be good, or alternatively a Credits: namespace which by default always contains a text like "Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts; you can find the contributors on the [[History page]]." and then we could credit any other outside sources there.
Well, if we must, then I'd also prefer a separate namespace over some special markup. It would be very similar to a Talk page, have its own color, and the link to it could be next to the Talk link.
Why not put it on the article's history page somewhere?
-- Daniel
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 11:04:44AM +0200, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Jan Hidders wrote:
Well, if we must, then I'd also prefer a separate namespace over some special markup. It would be very similar to a Talk page, have its own color, and the link to it could be next to the Talk link.
Why not put it on the article's history page somewhere?
You mean in the edit summary? The problem with that is that it after a lot of edits you won't see it anymore.
-- Jan Hidders
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Jan Hidders wrote:
Why not put it on the article's history page somewhere?
You mean in the edit summary? The problem with that is that it after a lot of edits you won't see it anymore.
So? Why should my edits/contributions be any less important (and visible) than some external source?
-- Daniel
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 11:25:01AM +0200, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Jan Hidders wrote:
Why not put it on the article's history page somewhere?
You mean in the edit summary? The problem with that is that it after a lot of edits you won't see it anymore.
So? Why should my edits/contributions be any less important (and visible) than some external source?
It is not a matter of importance but of copyright-verification. (Your edits are the most important of all, of course ;-)) If somebody of us sees text on a page that is verbatim identical to something elsewhere on the web then there is the risc of copyright-infringement. The credits section would / should provide us a quick way to see if there is a problem or not. Hiding this between all the other edits wouldn't be very helpful.
-- Jan Hidders
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Jan Hidders wrote:
So? Why should my edits/contributions be any less important (and visible) than some external source?
It is not a matter of importance but of copyright-verification. (Your edits are the most important of all, of course ;-)) If somebody of us sees text on a page that is verbatim identical to something elsewhere on the web then there is the risc of copyright-infringement. The credits section would / should provide us a quick way to see if there is a problem or not. Hiding this between all the other edits wouldn't be very helpful.
I don't see the point. If there are so many edits that the source reference disappears, the content will likely not resemble the original anyway. Also, source references need not be interspersed with edit notices, but could be placed at the bottom or at the top, or something. The point is that this is the page where authorship is described, and so source references (with regards to copyright tracing) belong here.
IMO. :)
-- Daniel
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 12:04:05PM +0200, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
I don't see the point. If there are so many edits that the source reference disappears, the content will likely not resemble the original anyway.
Could be, could also not be. There may be a lot of little Wikification edits that still leave the original article largely intact.
Also, source references need not be interspersed with edit notices, but could be placed at the bottom or at the top, or something. The point is that this is the page where authorship is described, and so source references (with regards to copyright tracing) belong here.
I agree that the History would be an obvious place for the credits. However, "reusing" the Talk-page concept means that it will be easy to program and has an easy-to-understand user interface, including the possibility to re-edit the credits in case they are forgotten, too imprecise or simpy incorrect.
-- Jan Hidders
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org