[WikiEN-l] Attributing "attribution required" free images

[Steve Bennett]

On 11/12/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is the thing - even though many don't think we should have a
> caption, we all agree that if we do, "Image - Joe Smith" is a
> perfectly acceptable attribution. How do we feel about nicknames?
> Usernames? Community attributions? URLs? Any or all of the above with
> deliberately inflammatory phrases?


Oh noes - we might have to do this thing called making a policy based
on consensus.

The community is going to have quite strong differences of opinion on
> this one; I can see a lot of people strongly against attributing with
> anything that isn't a real name, for example, and that's not a
> particularly unreasonable position - but one which would make this
> very hard to implement.
>
> We already attribute images to the US Army, which personally I find much
more offensive than "Joe's Awesum Internet Arkive" for example. Yes, this
matter needs to be discussed and resolved. No, the existence of the issue
isn't a showstopper.

This really comes back to the basic issue: If we're not willing to properly
attribute images, why are we using them? If someone insists on being
attributed as "wetriffs.com" next to the image itself, and we're not willing
to do that, then we don't use the image. We don't use it and attribute them
some other way.

Steve