[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

Tue Oct 21 17:07:00 UTC 2008

Hoi,
The question is not what is compatible with the GFDL or CC-by-sa, the
question is what is appropriate. Those lead to different answers. I like
your approach to compare how things work in the real world and what is
stated in a license.

In the end it is about having a license that will work and that can be
enforced because it makes sense for our users.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me make a radical suggestion.  One that, for the moment, ignores
> all those overbearing legal questions.
>
> Why not assume that the appropriate amount of attribution for a
> Wikipedia article is essentially the amount that it has now?
>
> When you look at a Wikipedia article there is no list of authors
> (principal or otherwise).  There is simply a link to "history", a
> statement at the bottom of the page saying that the content is under
> the GFDL, and a link to the GFDL.  On the Wikipedia page itself, that
> is essentially the full extent of the licensing and attribution.
>
> I assume that practically all Wikipedia contributors are comfortable
> with recieving this very low level of attribution for Wikipedia
> articles.
>
> So, by extension, perhaps the goal should be finding a way to codify
> this scheme in a way that works both for us and for reusers.  Namely,
> making the requirements for redistribution of Wikipedia content to
> simply be:
>
> 1) A link or reference to the article's history
> 2) A statement acknowledging the free content license
> 3) A link or reference to the text of that license
>
> That's very simple and practical.  One can add some details regarding
> new versions and modifications, but even there I think you accomplish
> more by keeping it simple.
>
>
> Now I suspect there are about three dozen reasons why defining
> attribution as simply a link to the history page is legally impossible
> and incompatible with the GFDL.  But even so, doesn't it make some
> sense to start with:  How are Wikipedia articles being used?  and work
> backwards backwards to construct the licensing scheme that best
> resembles actual practice while still being legally rigorous?
> Wikipedia authors don't seem to want or expect prominent and overt
> acknowledgements when writing articles, so why should our licensing
> scheme require reusers to add more overt statements than even we
> ourselves have?
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > The GFDL has specific attribution requirements that were designed for
> > software manuals. What's appropriate attribution for a wiki, where a
> > page can have thousands of authors, and a collection of pages is very
> > likely to? I would like to start a broad initial discussion on this
> > topic; it's likely that the issue will need to be raised more
> > specifically in the context of possible modifications to the GFDL or a
> > migration to CC-BY-SA.
> >
> > The relevant GFDL clause states: "List on the Title Page, as authors,
> > one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the
> > modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of
> > the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors,
> > if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this
> > requirement."
> >
> > Most people have chosen to ignore the "principal authors" requirement
> > and to try to attribute every author instead because there's no
> > obvious way to determine who the principal authors are. I remember a
> > few years back that Anthony tried a completely different approach,
> > where he created a full copy of Wikipedia (under the assumption that
> > it's a single GFDL work) and attributed it to five people on the
> > frontpage. Anthony, please correct me if my recollection is incorrect.
> >
> > The community process that has developed with regard to GFDL
> > compliance on the web has generally tacitly favored a link to the
> > article and to its history as proper credit. But, for printed books,
> > publishers have generally wanted to be more in compliance with the
> > letter of the license. So, the Bertelsmann "Wikipedia in one volume"
> > includes a looong list of authors in a very tiny font.
> >
> > Is that practical? How about Wikipedia articles on passenger
> > information systems (screens on subways, airplanes)? How about small
> > booklets where there isn't a lot of room for licensing information?
> > Should a good license for wikis make a distinction between print and
> > online uses?
> >
> > I haven't heard anyone argue strongly for full inclusion of the
> > _license text_. But I'd like to hear opinions on the inclusion of
> > username lists.
> >
> > My personal preference would be a system where we have a special
> > "credits" URL for each article, something like
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/credits/World_War_II
> >
> > which would list authors and also provide full licensing information
> > for all media files. If we had a specific collection of articles, the
> > system could support this using collection IDs:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/collection_credits/Bertelsmann_One_Volume_Encyclopedia
> >
> > (These URLs are completely made up and have no basis in reality.)
> >
> > The advantage that I see of such an approach is that it would allow us
> > to standardize and continually refine the way we display authorship
> > information, and benefit the free sharing of content with a very
> > lightweight process. The disadvantage (if it is perceived as such) is
> > that if we would officially recommend such attribution in printed
> > books, individual contributors would be less likely to see their
> > username in print. But we might see more print uses because it would
> > make the attribution more manageable.
> >
> > It's also conceivable to require full author attribution for printed
> > collections of a certain length or printed in certain quantity. (The
> > GFDL has "in quantity" rules, but they do not seem to apply in any way
> > to the authorship information.)
> >
> > Aside from what the legal implications of any given approach are, the
> > first question I think that needs to be answered is what's desirable.
> > Thoughts?
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>