[Foundation-l] Attribution made cleaner?

[Brian]

I advocate a much more flexible attribution scheme than listing the authors
or printing a url to the history page. I think a simple (Wikipedia) is a
sufficient attribution for text. If you have the text it is trivial to find
the original author of that text. It's not so trivial with images, but a
link to the history page of an image can be embedded in its metadata.

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk>wrote:

> 2009/2/2 Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu>:
>
> > Just that I am skeptical that people realize their pseudonyms will be
> > printed on potentially any medium and that they are further aware that
> this
> > pseudonym can be linked to their real identity.
>
> I can't say I agree with your general thrust here - I think that if
> people contribute to a massively open project, well, they have to
> accept "massively open". Bending over backwards to retroactively
> provide anonymity gets impractical fast.
>
> However, this proposal could allow an effective opt-out from any form
> of downstream attribution - some kind of "NOCREDIT" magic word,
> perhaps. This would neatly sidestep the worry of people not wanting
> credited downstream...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>