[Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps

Anthony wikimail at inbox.org
Sun Mar 8 04:52:40 UTC 2009

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
> > desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
> > could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to
> > accommodate that model after all. As it is, it's the second most
> > popular first option, but with 15.29% ranking it as their
> > second-to-last option, it's also somewhat polarizing. A link to the
> > article, on the other hand, is the first or second option for more
> > than 60% of respondents, and the last or second-to-last option for
> > only 3.47%.
> Erik, this is not relevant because two options were non-options, so in
> the opposite case third-to-last is also relevant.

If you want to draw the line at "controversial", fourth-to-last is also
relevant, since "link to history" is nearly as controversial as "link to
article".  Of course, then you have a mixture between people who intended to
rank "link to article" as third best, not fourth worst.  You really can't
draw conclusions from anything other than the pairwise results (and, like I
said, even that is potentially misleading if people want multiple forms of
attribution, such as a link to the article *and* a list of authors, or
credit to Wikipedia *and* a list of authors).

I guess it'll become more clear when the binary decision comes up for vote:
GFDL, or link to "any transparent copy that includes the same licensing and
authorship information as the Wikipedia.org" (which wasn't even one of the
choices), presumably.  My guess, looking at the heads-up results, 80/20 in
favor of the later.  If it turns out to be closer to 96/4, I'd be quite

More information about the foundation-l mailing list