Hello all,
Seeing as several of the GNU licenses and CC licenses require attribution, it would stand to reason that Special:Export should have the option to produce the article with a small attribution.. In the form of a system message or some other way..
This also makes it easier to export/import pages since you don't need to go through each imported page and add the attribution.
I've gone ahead and created a small patch for Export.php that enables the wiki admin to specify whether or not exports should be done with a license or not ($wgExportWLicense), and also to specify what that attribution would be ($wgExportLicense). The code checks whether $wgExportWLicense = True and then adds whatever is in the $wgExportLicense to the top of the latest revision. The patch is available on bugzilla as bug 14048 (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14048).
I realize of course that the best way to do this wouldn't be through a global var but rather through a system message, however, there are some questions that need answering before I do that.. that's why I am posting it to wikitech-l for a discussion on the best way to go about this, and whether the community thinks this is a good idea..
Things to consider: 1) Whether this should happen to all revisions.. or only the latest revision?
2) If this should be an admin setting (ie. localsettings) or a setting the exporting user can select on the special:export page? or both?
3) Should the attribution appear on the top of the page or on the bottom? (I don't think the attribution should go anywhere else (i.e talk page) since the GFDL requires the attribution to be on the page itself).
4) Should licensing be added to non-content namespaces? (i.e templates, talk pages, images, categories etc..) - my view on this is yes, they are all licensed under the site license anyway..
Thanks,
Ben / Wiredtape
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
- Should the attribution appear on the top of the page or on the
bottom? (I don't think the attribution should go anywhere else (i.e talk page) since the GFDL requires the attribution to be on the page itself).
Isn't the attribution only required in the "history" section, not on the page itself? If that's the case, you could simply adapt Special:Export to have a link in the page history to the author on the original wiki rather than a link to a user account that may or may not exist and may or may not be the correct person on the current wiki.
Like this, but with the links actually going to Wikipedia rather than being a pseudo-account: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Simetrical&action=histo...
Angela
Angela wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
- Should the attribution appear on the top of the page or on the
bottom? (I don't think the attribution should go anywhere else (i.e talk page) since the GFDL requires the attribution to be on the page itself).
Isn't the attribution only required in the "history" section, not on the page itself? If that's the case, you could simply adapt Special:Export to have a link in the page history to the author on the original wiki rather than a link to a user account that may or may not exist and may or may not be the correct person on the current wiki.
Like this, but with the links actually going to Wikipedia rather than being a pseudo-account: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Simetrical&action=histo...
Angela
Actually, attribution as far as I understand it talks about two things: 1) Linking back to the original document from which you took the text.. (i.e any import must contain a link back to the original document) 2) There needs to be attribution to the people who wrote the article, however, I think once you link back to the original document and the list exists there, then you have fulfilled this requirement.
Specifically about your suggestion: I'm not so sure that having a link back to the latest revision writer (in the original wiki) fulfills the requirement of attribution, especially since a current revision usually includes info from several contributors...
-Wiredtape
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically about your suggestion: I'm not so sure that having a link back to the latest revision writer (in the original wiki) fulfills the requirement of attribution, especially since a current revision usually includes info from several contributors...
She didn't say "only the latest revision writer" and if you look at the link she gave you, you can see that it includes all of the authors.
Casey Brown wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically about your suggestion: I'm not so sure that having a link back to the latest revision writer (in the original wiki) fulfills the requirement of attribution, especially since a current revision usually includes info from several contributors...
She didn't say "only the latest revision writer" and if you look at the link she gave you, you can see that it includes all of the authors.
I understand.. I was referring to what it would like on the importers wiki, and whether that complies to the license.. specifically since someone might import without the complete history (latest rev) - then if someone were looking at the history of the page, they would see only one user and link to the original history. True, once clicked, that link would take them to the history of the page, however, I'm not sure that complies with the attribution, but it might.
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..
-Wiredtape
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.
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
-Wiredtape
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).
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
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Maybe this could be part of the *import* function rather than the export function. Then the importer can decide for herself which method to use. Personally I'd prefer adding the ==History== section. It's more compact, more useful, takes up less disk space, uses less bandwidth, and in my opinion it follows more closely with the requirements of the GFDL.
Along those lines, I've been meaning to hack up an import by url feature, similar to the upload by url feature.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing as several of the GNU licenses and CC licenses require attribution, it would stand to reason that Special:Export should have the option to produce the article with a small attribution.. In the form of a system message or some other way..
Is there an example of how this would work? I like the idea a lot, but it's highly dependent on the implementation.
In any case, is there currently an easy method to get a list of all authors of a particular article? That alone would greatly simplify complying with the license during the export/import process.
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing as several of the GNU licenses and CC licenses require attribution, it would stand to reason that Special:Export should have the option to produce the article with a small attribution.. In the form of a system message or some other way..
Is there an example of how this would work? I like the idea a lot, but it's highly dependent on the implementation.
In any case, is there currently an easy method to get a list of all authors of a particular article? That alone would greatly simplify complying with the license during the export/import process.
Well, I don't know about getting a list of all authors, but my patch in bug 14048, does allow you to display an export license for any exported document... which I think fulfills the requirements of the GFDL...
-Wiredtape
Ben wrote:
Well, I don't know about getting a list of all authors, but my patch in bug 14048, does allow you to display an export license for any exported document... which I think fulfills the requirements of the GFDL...
-Wiredtape
Back to the original message, i don't like how you do it. You're modifying the latest to prepend the License. That is intrusive and breaks the attribution (latest editor appears as if he had added the license text). IMHO the right way would be to add into the XML a section like <license> <name>GFDL</name> <version>1.2</version> <url>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html</url> <text>The GNU Documentation License and so on...</text> </license>
Name: License identifier. Version: Version license. Url: A link to the license content (if you don't want the whole text to be included). Text: License content (to provide the license text, or if you're using a non-standard license).
Then the import feature would do something from it, such as storing the license along the page (for wikis where pages can have different licensing conditions, eg. Citizendium) or simply accept/reject the import based on several compatibility rules ("Sorry, this wiki is GFDL and you're trying to import Cc-by-sa content. These licenses are not compatible.").
Platonides wrote:
Ben wrote:
Well, I don't know about getting a list of all authors, but my patch in bug 14048, does allow you to display an export license for any exported document... which I think fulfills the requirements of the GFDL...
-Wiredtape
Back to the original message, i don't like how you do it. You're modifying the latest to prepend the License. That is intrusive and breaks the attribution (latest editor appears as if he had added the license text). IMHO the right way would be to add into the XML a section like
<license> <name>GFDL</name> <version>1.2</version> <url>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html</url> <text>The GNU Documentation License and so on...</text> </license>
Name: License identifier. Version: Version license. Url: A link to the license content (if you don't want the whole text to be included). Text: License content (to provide the license text, or if you're using a non-standard license).
Then the import feature would do something from it, such as storing the license along the page (for wikis where pages can have different licensing conditions, eg. Citizendium) or simply accept/reject the import based on several compatibility rules ("Sorry, this wiki is GFDL and you're trying to import Cc-by-sa content. These licenses are not compatible.").
I like your approach... I think this would be the best way to go about it.. and perhaps add a small licensing box at the end of an article (which was successfully imported) like that of categories.
The question, going back to the comments that were made, is if there should be an additional section for original content contributors..
<license> <name>GFDL</name> <version>1.2</version> <url>...</url> <text>...</text> <original>Copied from *articlelink* and was written by *link to original article history* </original> </license>
This might make it easier down the road for importing pictures as well..
-Wiredtape
Ben wrote:
The question, going back to the comments that were made, is if there should be an additional section for original content contributors..
<license> <name>GFDL</name> <version>1.2</version> <url>...</url> <text>...</text> <original>Copied from *articlelink* and was written by *link to original article history* </original> </license>
This might make it easier down the road for importing pictures as well..
-Wiredtape
The link to the original would be nice :) But i'm not sure about the best way to fit it into multiarticle exports. Probably we should restrict to the original site.
Platonides wrote:
Ben wrote:
The question, going back to the comments that were made, is if there should be an additional section for original content contributors..
<license> <name>GFDL</name> <version>1.2</version> <url>...</url> <text>...</text> <original>Copied from *articlelink* and was written by *link to original article history* </original> </license>
This might make it easier down the road for importing pictures as well..
-Wiredtape
The link to the original would be nice :) But i'm not sure about the best way to fit it into multiarticle exports. Probably we should restrict to the original site.
By multiarticle exports do you mean articles that were copied from multiple resources? or what exactly?
-Wiredtape
Ben skrev:
Hello all,
Seeing as several of the GNU licenses and CC licenses require attribution, it would stand to reason that Special:Export should have the option to produce the article with a small attribution.. In the form of a system message or some other way..
Why not stamp each article with a template, like so:
{{export attribution wpen|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{REVISIONID}}}}
At the end of the xml export list you append the template. In this way you can even "update" already existing references back to WP in the mirror database...
Different template names ("wpen", "wpsv" etc) in different wikis would point the references to the correct domain - article - revision.
The template could present a link to the (latest) article, the revision AND the history page. And whatever.
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa schreef:
Ben skrev:
Hello all,
Seeing as several of the GNU licenses and CC licenses require attribution, it would stand to reason that Special:Export should have the option to produce the article with a small attribution.. In the form of a system message or some other way..
Why not stamp each article with a template, like so:
{{export attribution wpen|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{REVISIONID}}}}
Templates are more than capable of using {{FULLPAGENAME}} and {{REVISIONID}} themselves, you don't need to pass those as parameters.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Roan Kattouw wrote:
Rolf Lampa wrote:
Why not stamp each article with a template, like so:
{{export attribution wpen|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{REVISIONID}}}}
Templates are more than capable of using {{FULLPAGENAME}} and {{REVISIONID}} themselves, you don't need to pass those as parameters.
Ah, of course yes.
// Rolf Lampa
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org