[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

Delirium delirium at hackish.org
Thu Jan 22 11:21:16 UTC 2009

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>>> Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
>>> requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
>> We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
>> would be to determine whether there's a clear and shared expectation
>> of what constitutes reasonable attribution requirements or not. It
>> would be an information gathering poll, rather than a decision-making
>> vote.
> You need to be very careful how you interpret it, since it's a
> self-selecting sample. The people sufficiently committed to the
> projects to vote (eg. not people that edited once or twice and then
> left) are more likely than the general population of editors to be
> tolerant of bending the rules for the benefit of the projects, I would
> think.
It's somewhat opposite in my experience---highly active Wikipedians are 
much more knowledgeable and pedantic about copyright and attribution, 
whereas people who've edited a few times mostly aren't. Most "normal" 
people I've introduced to Wikipedia who've made a few miscellaneous 
edits were, when I mentioned this relicensing debate, somewhat 
surprised, as they had been under the impression that Wikipedia owned 
the copyright on their edits (which is the case at most other "social 
media" or "crowdsourcing" sites people are used to participating in). 
Most also, in a brief 4-person straw poll, were entirely confused by the 
debate about attribution, with queries along the lines of "but Wikipedia 
articles don't list their authors anyway, do they?"


More information about the foundation-l mailing list