[Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What point, I made two.

   - the amount of attention and detail is unparaleled
   - due credit is given

I think you are of the opinion that not enough credit is given.. but I am
not aware of examples where so much attention to contributors is given then
exactly in Wikipedia. Many people have expressed a wish for something more
visible and you will agree with me that there is no consensus at all what
that should look like and how all kinds of corner cases are to be dealt
with.

I do agree that people want something.. but nobody knows what this something
is. There is a sizeable group of people who are not convinced what the added
value will be and if there will be any that is of common value.
Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/2/26 John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no>

> Well, quite a number of people (including me) do not agree with you on
> that point.
>
> Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> > Hoi,
> > Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of
> attention
> > and detail is unparalleled.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > 2009/2/26 John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no>
> >
> >> Adding authors, even if they write under pseudonyms, gives due credit as
> >> described in the copyright laws of several countries and also gives
> >> those persons added cultural capital. I guess someone can elaborate
> >> about how cultural capital and economic capital can be traded, and how
> >> this can offset the situation whereby one encyclopedia can pay its
> >> authors while an other can't. Or in fact, one of the encyclopedias both
> >> pays the authors and gives attributes them for the work they do.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> Ok let me rephrase my question, what would the benefit be to the reader
> ?
> >> In
> >>> my opinion there is no benefit. The fact that this information can be
> >> found
> >>> in the history data is sufficient. There is no obvious way who to
> include
> >>> and why. For instance there are some who do not rate the person who
> >> includes
> >>> an illustration while the person who created the illustration is
> >>> considered.. Really, you open a can of wurms and there is no clear and
> >>> obvious benefit.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>       GerardM
> >>>
> >>> 2009/2/26 Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> >>>> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>> What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our
> >> down
> >>>>> stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
> >>>> What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote
> >>>> what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems
> >>>> little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something
> >>>> extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or
> >>>> not.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>