I advocate a much more flexible attribution scheme than listing the authors or printing a url to the history page. I think a simple (Wikipedia) is a sufficient attribution for text. If you have the text it is trivial to find the original author of that text. It's not so trivial with images, but a link to the history page of an image can be embedded in its metadata.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>wrote: > 2009/2/2 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu>: > > > Just that I am skeptical that people realize their pseudonyms will be > > printed on potentially any medium and that they are further aware that > this > > pseudonym can be linked to their real identity. > > I can't say I agree with your general thrust here - I think that if > people contribute to a massively open project, well, they have to > accept "massively open". Bending over backwards to retroactively > provide anonymity gets impractical fast. > > However, this proposal could allow an effective opt-out from any form > of downstream attribution - some kind of "NOCREDIT" magic word, > perhaps. This would neatly sidestep the worry of people not wanting > credited downstream... > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l