[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
> >> be necessary. We traditionally favour the status quo in pretty much
> >> everything we do (except, for some reason, with the 3RR, I've never
> >> understood that... but that's a discussion for another time and
> >> place). Also, if we say 50% is all that's required and the result
> >> comes out as 50.3% or something, you should know it's going to cause
> >> massive drama (if we chose 60% and the results is 60.3% there is still
> >> going to be plenty of drama, of course, but hopefully less). I'd go
> >> with a requirement of 60%, but that's really just a number plucked out
> >> of thin air, I welcome suggestions from people with actual reasons!
> >
> >
> > I'd say 100%, because you shouldn't purport to take away someone's right
> to
> > attribution without their permission.
>
> We discussing a move to CC-****BY****-SA, attribution is still
> required.
>

Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.

I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
> whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest
> editor or all editors),


Yes, CC-BY-SA is extremely confusing on this point.  That's another reason
not to use it.

but it seems clear to me that we can require
> people to link back to Wikipedia (in particular, the history page) so
> that everyone is, at least indirectly, attributed. Given that that's
> how most people are using the GFDL anyway, I really don't see the
> problem.


There are very few offline reusers of Wikipedia content.  I know of none
that are using more than de minimis portions of my content without
attributing me.  If you know of any, please, tell me who they are, and I'll
send a cease and desist to them.

This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline
reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond listing
one or more URLs.  In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have
taken place on this list that this is the main point of making the switch.
The WMF condoning and facilitating such behavior is absolutely unacceptable,
no matter how many people "vote" to do so.

You actually seem to recognize this to some extent, in that you realize that
a 51% vote is not sufficient.  But then you randomly pick 60% as a magic
threshold to use instead.  You welcomed alternate suggestions with actual
reasons, and I gave you one.  100%, because you shouldn't purport to take
away someone's right to attribution without their permission.

Even Mike Godwin seemed to recognize this principle in his early discussions
on the topic, when he suggested that there would be a way to opt-out of the
relicensing.  But my single question which I presented for the FAQ was left
unanswered.  How can I opt out?