[Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps
wikimail at inbox.org
Sun Mar 8 00:53:29 UTC 2009
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers,
> > <snip>
> > Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki data):
> > 1) Link to the article must be given.
> > 2) Collective credit (e.g. Wikipedia community).
> > 3) Link to the version history must be given.
> > 4) For online use: link. For other uses: full list of authors.
> > 5) Full list of authors must always be copied.
> > 6) No credit is needed.
> > -Robert Rohde
> German data gave the same Condorcet ranking.
> -Robert Rohde
Cool. So, personally, I'd be interested in the head's up ranking of 1) vs.
4). There would be 5 possibilities: 1 beats 4, 4 beats 1, 1 not ranked, 4
not ranked, 1 and 4 both not ranked.
The reason I wonder about this particular matchup is that I find 4 and 5 to
be morally acceptable (but 4 beats 5), and 1 to be the obvious choice if
moral considerations were to be ignored, so I wonder how strongly the
preference of 1 over 4 is. Still doesn't answer the more important
question, though, which is basically "how many contributors feel like
they're being robbed if 1) gets implemented".
More information about the foundation-l