Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
More specifically, I don't know if including the attribution only in the history fulfills the license terms as well.. As far as I can tell, it requires that you link back to the original document (and specific revision) you imported/copied from..
The GFDL doesn't say that. It says you have to preserve any link to the document, but it doesn't say you have to add one if one doesn't already exist.
Really? I was sure that it required linking back to the source.. I based this on: "and must acknowledge the main authors (which some claim can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia)" found in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#License
I'd say "some claim" is the operative phrase in that sentence. In any case, even that sentence doesn't say that you must link back to the article. It says that some claim you can satisfy the acknowledgment clause by linking back to the article.
For me there are two major problems with that claim. 1) The GFDL doesn't say that; and 2) What if the original article gets deleted? I'd much rather have a convenient way to download the list of authors. Then I could just add a section at the bottom:
==History== *[url title], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, by authors
See, for instance, http://wiki.p2pedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nibart-Devouard (and if I could somehow automatically extract all the authors of a particular *section* of an article, it'd be even better).
Agreed, however, right now i don't know if its possible to pull the list of all the users.. (probably could be done.. ) but it's rather easy to implement what angela suggested per revision.. so essentialy you would have the history list.. and adding the : ==history== section is even easier (with a link back to the history page in the authors word).. the question is, which one to go for?
-Wiredtape