[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

[Anthony]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > 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?
>

In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what attribution
means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors.  That
I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fails to do this in certain
situations (e.g. where that list is just a click away) does not create a
slippery slope whereby it is OK for any reuser to omit this list of names in
any situation they deem appropriate.