[Foundation-l] What's appropriate attribution?

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>     
>>> Robert Rohde wrote:
>>>       
> <snip>
>   
>>>> 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.
>>     
> <snip>
>
> I am saying that a printed URL address in dead tree media to a site
> that contains the appropriate information would be fine by me.
> Perhaps you believe that it is totally unreasonable to draw a
> connection between printed material and the web, but as the world
> becomes increasingly connected, I see no fundemental problem with
> this.  You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be
> broadly generalizing that this approach would be unethical and unfair
> to editors, and as an editor I'd have to firmly disagree with you.
>
> Also, keep in mind that we are discussing how licensing and
> attribution might work.  Obviously, any attempt to faithfully apply
> the GFDL as currently constructed will be more cumbersome.  But we
> can't possibly get a better GFDL in the future unless we are willing
> to discuss what we might want from it.
>   

I am happy to have intelligent people read what you
have written, and don't feel any need to add to that.

You are free to make personal allowances as an editor
which other editors might not be willing to do. That is
your personal choice. But that only speaks to you, not
to editors at large.

I won't discuss what I might want from the GFDL, purely
because I don't like blue sky fantasies. Wikipedia isn't
going to get permission from RMS to be pragmatic
about what to allow the texts attribution be. Funnily
enough RMS's criterions aren't even IMO founded in
sensible ethical anchors. But that is completely by the by.

I categorigally refuse to engage in that game. And to
underline it more emphatically, I would most strongly
oppose any move to give prominence to the freedomdefined
site in our negotiations with the relevant interest groups,
as being representative of wikimedias interests.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen