Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/1/21 Nikola Smolenski <smole...@eunet.yu>: > >> I'm not sure that these positions should be balanced. For example, everyone >> who believes that an URL should be fine is also OK if all names are given, >> but not the other way around. >> > > That's evidently not true. Many people in this debate have said that > giving all names encumbers re-use of the work when such lists get very > long, so they are not 'fine' with listing all names, because they > recognize that there is an additional good (ease of re-use) that needs > to be served. It's true that this is not the case for a large number > of articles, but it's often the case for the most interesting ones. > The proposed attribution language - to state names when there are > fewer than six - is precisely written as a compromise. According to > your own metrics, for very many articles, this would mean that all > authors would be named. And the filtering of author names could be > continually improved to exclude irrelevant names. > > I would say that it's true that the people who have made the case > against heavy attribution requirements have been typically more > willing to accept compromise. What compromise are you willing to > accept? Saying that 'you can opt out' does not address the concerns of > the other side. Opt-in permanent attribution would be an alternative > that would probably not have huge impact, and it could be offered only > on a retroactive basis (e.g. for past edits, but not for future ones). >
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l