[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Robert Rohde wrote:
>> Let me make a radical suggestion.  One that, for the moment, ignores
>> all those overbearing legal questions.
>>
>>     

This is only radical in the fashion ("radical" is based on
the word "root"), that it is reasonable to root ones head
in the sand. That is the common metaphor for ignoring
questions of significant import.


>> Why not assume that the appropriate amount of attribution for a
>> Wikipedia article is essentially the amount that it has now?
>>     

Why not assume the moon is made of green cheese? The
significant point is that wikipedia articles will not be offered
in the same form as they are now, for very much longer.
There will be an increasing number of folks who will think
of fixed forms to market wikipedia articles, where a simple
internet link will not be a practical solution.

>> 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.
>>     
Attribution for wikipedia articles offered only in the form
that they are on the wikimedia sites, perhaps.

Do not make the mistake of extrapolating from that into
fixed media.

>> 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.
>>     

This is completely false and misleading. You simply can not
practically link from a fixed media to the internets. You can
tell people what to type into the browser, which will bring
you the right history etc. Sure, technically that is one form
of compliance, but that is going the route of "small print"
stuff that one employs, when one is not too particular about
the ethics of what is doing. That does not work for people
who actually do the editing in chief of articles. This approach
would really give them the shaft.

>>
>> 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?
>>
>>     

I will let that statement stand by itself, and let intelligent
readers draw their own conclusions...


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen