[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
wikipedia at verizon.net
Mon Mar 16 03:42:58 UTC 2009
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>>>> a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
>>>> or other page that contains the authorship
>>>> information of the articles you are re-using.
>>> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all.
>> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at all" in
>> an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not
>> suddenly become devoid of meaning just because you're using a medium
>> where you can't follow a hyperlink. I could just as soon say that print
>> media aren't acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles because you can't
>> check them by following a hyperlink, it's the same logic.
> It's not the same logic at all. A reference, by the very definition of the
> term, refers to something outside the work itself.
In its own way, attribution by definition refers to something outside
the work itself. Even if you reduce me to the contents of my user page
on Wikipedia, that page is not an actual part of the Wikipedia articles
I've helped write, and that holds true regardless of what you think is
the "right" way to be doing attribution. That's even the case online,
with hyperlinks and all. I suppose it's "not the same logic at all" in
the same way that a URL is "no attribution at all" then?
More information about the foundation-l