On Oct 29, 2007 8:58 PM, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
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.
Holy crap, so you'd propose we wrap every thumbnail/bordered image
with a template. Shoot me now.
Thats a very very bad idea.
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.)
Well, any change is okay with me. No. I shouldn't say that. Proposing
we start wraping all captioned images with a template is not okay with
me.
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.
Thats not at all in strict conformance with the GFDL. (Nor is just
mentioning at the bottom though its much better).