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

[Eugene van der Pijll]

Gregory Maxwell schreef:
> On Oct 29, 2007 8:26 PM, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> > This is the enwiki mailing list. Our first priority is to make it work
> > on the English Wikipedia, and to choose the alternative that is best
> > *for us*.
> 
> 0_o
> 
> Is a solution which no one will bother implementing really best?

All of the proposed solutions should be implemented with templates; you
cannot just replace the "thumbnail icon" with another symbol, (i) or
(C), because some of the images that do not have that icon (e.g. in
infoboxes) need attribution as well.

And creating a template does not need any special powers. It justs needs
to be accepted by the community. And to be implemented on enwiki, that
means: the enwiki community.

> > In my opinion, the (C) really gives the wrong impression. It will be
> > understood to mean: don't copy this image. Which is exactly the wrong
> > message for an encyclopedia that tries to be Free.
> 
> The RED (C) probably does, I agree.  But the pale blue icon, the
> example in the lower left corner?
> 
> The images are, in most cases, copyrighted.
> 
> When you copy them you have certain obligations.

Yes, but we don't want a pavlov reaction, that they should stay away. We
want to train re-users of our content to ask for more information about
the limits of what they want to copy. And (i) means "information". I
think it's perfectly suited for this purpose.

The hopeless cases won't click a (c) anyway, although they might be
curious enough to click the (i). (Don't ask for a {{cite}}. This is just
an argument I made up on the spot.)

> > What do you think about our practice of only crediting text from third
> > parties, then? Which was the point of my previous mail.
> 
> We don't, for the most part, provide inline credit in such cases.
> Most of the EB1911 notices have long since been removed.  They are
> useful for certain informational purposes, but it's not really a
> standard practice.

I was not aware of that.

On another subject: if Citizendium would copy one of our articles with a
reference to us in the edit summary of their first revision, and if they
would not acknowledge the source of their articles in any other way,
would you be satisfied with that? Would that satisfy the (admittedly
vague) demands of (our implementation of) the GFDL?

Currently, they add an attribution notice at the bottom of the article.
I would argue that that is necessary. I also think that this is
analogous to our attribution of contributions from outside sources.

Eugene