[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/14 Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net>:
>   
>> It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to
>> specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly
>> the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard.
>> The attribution itself would then be something like "Wikipedia 'Widgets'
>> article" which is enough in itself for a user to be able to find the article
>> and associated revision history (concise attributions are critical
>> especially for print work, on t-shirts, etc.).
>>     
>
> There are a couple of counterpoints to this:
>
> * For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
> author. If you are the photographer of a high resolution panorama that
> you've contributed to Wikipedia, I think it's a reasonable expectation
> to be named ("Photo by Sam Johnston"), as opposed to being referred to
> as "Photo from Wikipedia". This is equally true, I think, for articles
> where there is just a single author, or for pictures which have been
> subsequently edited a few times.
>   
I have no intention of in any shape or form binding myself
to the views expounded by Anthony on this or any other
list, but really, this goes beyond the pale.

*Neither* of those options are right or just.

That you are representing it as a choice between those
two options is a great travesty.

Attribution here can only be a very *minimal* requirement,
I cannot see how the whole history of alterations could be
somehow swept under the carpet...


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen