[Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

[Chris Down]

That is not the kind of attribution that I have in mind, either. I think
what we need are guidelines as to what links should or should not be saying,
but we need to make it so that people can style it in a manner appropriate
for the work they are using it in.

- Chris

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:

> If there are no specifics instructions as to what a link is except
> that it contains the correct url then I can argue that this is
> sufficient attribution:
>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some Article"
> rel="nofollow">source</a>
>
> This is not the kind of attribution I have in mind.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Chris Down
> <neuro.wikipedia at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Whilst I concur that we need to address more of the specifics, I would
> > disagree that the proposal should incorporate rigidity about the link
> text
> > itself. There are various contexts which this will potentially accompany,
> > and I cannot imagine that there is a one-size-fits-all link title.
> >
> > - Chris
> >
> > On
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>