[Wikipedia-l] mirror of Dutch Wikipedia

[Daniel Mayer]

Evan Prodromou wrote:
>So, isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to create and distribute free
>information? I mean, yes, downstream publishers should -- no, *must*
>-- comply with the GFDL, but besides that, shouldn't we be _happy_
>that someone's redistributing the encyclopedia?

The GNU FDL has a strict author credit requirement. We make things /very/ easy 
of downstream users by stating that a link-back to the particular article 
copied fullfills this requirement. Given this, and since Wikipedia is a 
collective work, it is not much to also ask for a mention of our project's 
name. 

>We need to make it _easier_ for people to re-publish the encyclopedia
>in a way that complies with the GFDL -- not punish them for doing so. 

OK, how does that relate to what I said? I'm all for making it easy to use our 
content. But I also think that we should be properly cited since we do not 
ask that any /individuals/ get author credit. Again since Wikipedia articles 
are collective works, I think that since individuals are not credited in 
third party copies, that the project should. 

Otherwise downstream users can state only '[This article] is licensed under 
the [GNU Free Documentation License]' with [This article] being a link to the 
Wikipedia article and [GNU Free Documentation License] being a link to the 
GNU FDL (with no underlines under [This article] or [GNU Free Documentation 
License] to indicate that those are hyperlinks). 

I've seen this on at least one website and I don't like it - it does not give 
readable credit to the collective work and is not a proper citation - it 
gives the impression (just by reading the message) that the article was 
written at that website and that that website somehow owns the copyright. 

>That said, it's probably a good idea to ask for links back to
>xx.wikipedia.org. Not to promote the site (hell, it's plenty popular),
>but to make it easier for readers to contribute and fix errors in
>articles.

??? OK, what about the author requirement? The only alternative is for them to 
list 5 authors of every article. 

-- mav