I do not agree, because you have forgotten a important point : a database, even composed by texts in domain public, is not in the domain public : the work that provide contributors
is under GFDL, therefore Wikisource, as a database, is under GFDL. When one give the whole access to this database without the consent of the contributors (as the foundation did), it is
a massive violation of the contributors right. And the worst is of course this deny of credit : everybody is free to "give" his work
to an assocation that sells it without his consent, but don't count on me.
« I am not saying that it is acceptable to give incorrect credit; I am saying that the credit is *not* incorrect except for translators.
There is no authorship credit given for non-authors; this has nothing to do with Wikisource or the extension issue.
Authorship is only noted for certain types of contributions based on creativity. Not time spent making the duplication between mediums more exact.
Wikisource proofreaders have no more credit due to them for "A Christmas Carol" than the Mediawiki developers. Charles Dickens gets the credit for "A Christmas Carol".
And this has nothing to do with the fact that "A Christmas Carol" is public domain. No one ever gets named an author for proofreading and other non-creative tasks.
This is why it is not a copyright violation. Wasn't that what concerned you? The massive copyright violation you thought was going on? If your real concern is that
the law and free content licenses do not grant IP rights for
non-creative efforts, then I cannot help you. Wikisource happens to record all contributions in the history.
But re-users should only need to recognize those who have a right to be named by law and custom. That includes those re-users who are simply printing a page from Wikisource.
Birgitte SB »
So, on Wikisource, it is autorized to deny or to attribued incorrectly
credit to contributors for their work, because texts are in domain
public. That's a very great consideration for hours and days that
contributors could have spend on Wikisource to edit those textes. The
respect we gain in the process is conform to the spirit of the Foundation.
« This would only cause a copyvio problem in translations. Right now
there are few enough of those that we should be able to make notations
by hand. J'accuse is the only translation I know that use Page: Can
someone see what can be done to give the proper credit? I am barely
online this week.
Birgitte SB »
I have already pointed some problems with the collection extension (see
mediawiki.org), but now I see a new one that is less acceptable than the
others : when I ask for a pdf file on a page composed with some others
pages, the list of contributors in the end of the file could be false,
because the extension creates this list from the history of the main
page... So, if you have only made edits on the namespace "page", this
extension will deny you all credits for your work.
I think that this massive copyright violation is a good reason for
asking to suppress this extension from Wikisource.
I forward on this list a mail posted on wikitech-l.
I still have the same problem : with MediaWiki, ProofreadPage and WebStore
installed on my server, the first time I try to get an automaticcaly generated
image, I first get the 404 error status code and next I get the image file.
So, some browsers doesn't display the image. When I next try to get the
image the stuas code 404 is not in the HTTP response (it's OK, the file is
on the server, it should not be genretaed), and the image is displayed.
On the Wikimedia server, it seems that there is not the problem... Someone
could tell me what is the configuration of WebStore (or Apache?) to avoid
the problem ?