[WikiEN-l] BJAODN restored again

[The Cunctator]

Of course, section 4 (Modifications) only applies to modified versions of
the Document. We interpret it that its conditions apply to the original
Document as well, but such requirements are not actually required by the
GFDL.

In other words, "if we continue to publish text even after deleting the
edits through which it originated" the text being used is in violation of
Wikipedia policies, not necessarily the GFDL.

Most of the time each individual page is considered a distinct Document
under the terms of the GFDL, in which case copying text from one page to
another without indicating authorship history somehow would be a violation
of the GFDL.

However, in other cases the entire Wikipedia database is considered a single
Document for the purposes of the GFDL, in which case there's no violation.

The interpretation of the Title Page is naturally pretty flexible.

We would be better off if we added "I agree to be credited as 'a Wikipedia
contributor' (or collectively as 'various Wikipedia contributors') where
authorship must be credited under the terms of the GFDL" to the submission
statement. At least for non-logged-in contributions. Save us a lot of grief.

On 6/6/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/5/07, Angela Anuszewski <angela.anuszewski at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I'm sorta new around here, and I guess I am not really sure
> > I understand exactly what the GFDL says and why this (in some people
> > eyes) is an issue. Is there a good summary of this controversy that a
> > neophyte can understand without slogging through months' worth of talk
> > pages?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GFDL
> particularly section 4, which requires a document's edit history to be
> maintained in some form or fashion. Generally this is easy to fulfill
> because the software does it automatically. But, if we continue to
> publish text even after deleting the edits through which it
> originated, then no edit history relevant to this text could possibly
> be readable by the public. Thus the text is being used in violation of
> the GFDL, unless the edit history is preserved manually by alternative
> means. The following could be copied from the history window and be
> more than adequate:
>
> ==From [[Some deleted article]]==
> Edit history:
> *11:53, 31 May 2007 User3 (requesting zomg speedy deletion)
> *11:51, 31 May 2007 User2 m (typo fix using AWB)
> *20:13, 16 May 2007 User1 (←Created page with '// Actual text of joke.
> //')
>
> // Actual text of joke. //
>
> ==Next stupid joke==
>
> If it makes things easier, the edit histories of bad jokes tend to be
> pretty short.
>
> ―C.W.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>