[Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps

[Robert Rohde]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers,
>> though.
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki data):
>> >
>> > 1) Link to the article must be given.
>> > 2) Collective credit (e.g. Wikipedia community).
>> > 3) Link to the version history must be given.
>> > 4) For online use: link. For other uses: full list of authors.
>> > 5) Full list of authors must always be copied.
>> > 6) No credit is needed.
>> >
>> > -Robert Rohde
>>
>> German data gave the same Condorcet ranking.
>>
>> -Robert Rohde
>>
>
> Cool.  So, personally, I'd be interested in the head's up ranking of 1) vs.
> 4).  There would be 5 possibilities: 1 beats 4, 4 beats 1, 1 not ranked, 4
> not ranked, 1 and 4 both not ranked.
>
> The reason I wonder about this particular matchup is that I find 4 and 5 to
> be morally acceptable (but 4 beats 5), and 1 to be the obvious choice if
> moral considerations were to be ignored, so I wonder how strongly the
> preference of 1 over 4 is.  Still doesn't answer the more important
> question, though, which is basically "how many contributors feel like
> they're being robbed if 1) gets implemented".

Incidentally, of the people who ranked both 4 and 5, 88% preferred 4
over 5 which was the highest margin on any pairwise matchup.

-Robert Rohde