Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/1/14 Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net>: > >> It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to >> specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly >> the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard. >> The attribution itself would then be something like "Wikipedia 'Widgets' >> article" which is enough in itself for a user to be able to find the article >> and associated revision history (concise attributions are critical >> especially for print work, on t-shirts, etc.). >> > > There are a couple of counterpoints to this: > > * For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single > author. If you are the photographer of a high resolution panorama that > you've contributed to Wikipedia, I think it's a reasonable expectation > to be named ("Photo by Sam Johnston"), as opposed to being referred to > as "Photo from Wikipedia". This is equally true, I think, for articles > where there is just a single author, or for pictures which have been > subsequently edited a few times. > I have no intention of in any shape or form binding myself to the views expounded by Anthony on this or any other list, but really, this goes beyond the pale.
*Neither* of those options are right or just. That you are representing it as a choice between those two options is a great travesty. Attribution here can only be a very *minimal* requirement, I cannot see how the whole history of alterations could be somehow swept under the carpet... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l