Some tag for attribution within the article

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikitech-l] Namespace...

MediaWiki.org syntaxhighlight and...

Strainu

13 Apr 2012 13 Apr '12

8:53 a.m.

Hi, Before posting a bug for this, I thought I should pop a question to see if somebody hasn't done this already. Some of the content partners I'm in contact with are not really happy about being attributed on the talk page and/or the history of the article. I was thinking that we could have an extension that could handle this. The solution I came up with was: * have some <attribution></attribution> tags in the article; place all the requirds attribution text between those tags in plain wikitext * when parsing these tags, don't include the result in the main article div (mw-body), but rather create a new tab below mw-body, which will contain the attributions. This new div should be visually different from the article. I am aware this solution is prone to vandalism, but it is also a simple way to include attributions without any additional knowledge from the editors. So, my questions are: 1. Has somebody done a similar extension before? If yes, is it stable enough to deploy on WMF wikis? 2. If not, would somebody on this list be willing to make it? I don't feel my PHP is strong enough for me to take on this, but I will help in any way I can. Thanks, Strainu

Show replies by date

K. Peachey

13 Apr 13 Apr

8:56 a.m.

How is this any differnt from using E:Cite (aka <ref></ref>) as is?

Strainu

9:21 a.m.

În data de 13 aprilie 2012, 11:56, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)gmail.com> a scris:

...

How is this any differnt from using E:Cite (aka <ref></ref>) as is?

<ref></ref> is appropriate for small chunks of text, maybe a paragraph, but not for whole sections or articles (because the text can change and the attributions might become mixed up). Also, the way we've been using <ref> so far implies that the statements in that paragraph are backed by that source, not that the content is copied from the source (that's how I see them, anyway). What would be needed would be some kind of section, like "Bibliography", but the AFAIK the consensus is not to put this kind of informations in the body of the article. That's why I was proposing a visually different place to put the attributions in. Strainu

Helder

11:57 a.m.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:53, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

See also bug 27629 (Collection extension needs some way to credit original authors of a work[1]) which depends on bug 28064 (Summary of page editors/authors[2]) and has links to a thread on enwiki's Village pump[3]. [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/27629 [2] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/28064 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_91…

Strainu

1:35 p.m.

În data de 13 aprilie 2012, 14:57, Helder <helder.wiki(a)gmail.com> a scris:

...

Thanks for this. My understanding from these discussion is that there is no real willingness to solve this. Actually, I find bug 27629 to be insufficient, since each author might ask for a specific way to be quoted (e.g. some disclaimer associated with the content). Strainu

...

[1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/27629 [2] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/28064 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_91… _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Carl (CBM)

14 Apr 14 Apr

1:55 p.m.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Actually, I find bug 27629 to be insufficient, since each author might ask for a specific way to be quoted (e.g. some disclaimer associated with the content).

It is understandable why they might ask for such a disclaimer, but it isn't clear why we would agree to put it on the article, unless we also give every Wikipedia editor who edits the article the ability to add their own disclaimer. The point of free content is that content incorporated from other sources is not different than content written directly for our project. Each source of content should ideally be credited in a similar way, whether the source is another free-content project or a local editor. On English Wikipedia, we often credit external authors in the article itself (see [[:en:Category:Attribution templates]]). These do show up in a PDF created from the article. If there was a way to move these into metadata for the article, that would also work, but the idea of adding a disclaimer to the article itself seems to differ from usual practice which is just to list the source. - Carl

Strainu

8:05 p.m.

În data de 14 aprilie 2012, 16:55, Carl (CBM) <cbm.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> a scris:

...

The point of free content is that content incorporated from other sources is not different than content written directly for our project.

Not really, no :) The point of free content is to allow people ([1]): * to use the content and benefit from using it, * to study the content and apply what is learned, * to make and distribute copies of the content, * to change and improve the content and distribute these derivative works. It doesn't say anything about disclaimers... I think of disclaimers as being similar to the GFDL requirement to attach a copy of the license to the work. Annoying, but if the benefits exceed the cost, why not?

...

Each source of content should ideally be credited in a similar way, whether the source is another free-content project or a local editor.

Agreed, but we don't live in an ideal world. Having an extension would allow the same data to be rendered in different ways, depending on the community consensus of the moment.

...

but the idea of adding a disclaimer to the article itself seems to differ from usual practice which is just to list the source.

At the English Wikipedia you might get way with not using free text with disclaimers because you have tons of free content in English and lots of contributors to rephrase non-free content; unfortunately, I feel this does not work for smaller languages. În data de 14 aprilie 2012, 17:22, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> a scris:

...

I think that if going with an extension for that, it should be a bit more structurate.

Would you be able to come up with a proposal please?

...

They can probably look like beig outside with the proper CSS.

Hmm... I'll try that. Mind if I poke you some time for advice? Strainu [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content

Platonides

13 Apr 13 Apr

6:15 p.m.

Such extension is very simple to make. You register a tag extension, and on parse you return something. However, you store the parsed content in page_props. You could also store it in ParserOutput, page_props seems cleaner, although it would be unstructured data, anyway. What kind of contents would the tags have? An name per line? What if there should be something besides the name (eg. a url or email)? Note that you can achieve a similar functionality right now with a (series of) template which you place at the bottom of the page.

Strainu

10:09 p.m.

În data de 13 aprilie 2012, 21:15, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> a scris:

...

What kind of contents would the tags have? An name per line? What if there should be something besides the name (eg. a url or email)?

I was thinking the tags should contain all the attributions, therefore having a single instance on a page (much like <references/>) The text between the tags would be any kind of wikitext (links, images or text).

...

Note that you can achieve a similar functionality right now with a (series of) template which you place at the bottom of the page.

There are many existing ways of doing that, but none allows one to escape the mw-body div. This means that the attributions would seem to be part of the article, which is exactly what I want to avoid (since many wikipedians are against it). Strainu

Helder

14 Apr 14 Apr

1:09 p.m.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 19:09, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

În data de 13 aprilie 2012, 21:15, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> a scris:

Note that you can achieve a similar functionality right now with a (series of) template which you place at the bottom of the page.

Besides, the current way of crediting external authors in the talk page doesn't allows the use by e.g. the Collection extension (which then generate PDFs which violates the licence terms).