2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonav...@gmail.com>: > I think the practice of using summary lines for attribution > has from the start been viewed as a temporary solution, > only to be used until we figure out a better way to handle > content such as translations from other language projects. > > I think if we do go towards creating an easy link which > contains a list of editors culled from history with no > duplicates, it might include a method of externally > adding attributions into that plain text form, for just > such translations and imported content from other > sites, where the content may even have a large list > of authors itself.
That would be great, if it can be made to work. > When and if that eventually materializes (next year in Jerusalem; > yearning for Zion; by and by, lord; when the lion shall lie down > with the lamb - insert your own religious affiliations allusion > to the eternal return here) naturally the summaries should > be purged and the attributions temporarily lodged there > given their proper place. I could even imagine some > semi-automated method that would while stripping off > the summaries, simultaneously scrape off the urls and > wikilinks in them and for good measure append them > to the list of editors. Unfortunately there is no standard way of writing attribution edit summaries, so automation is going to be difficult. Semi-automation, as you say, might be possible for those summaries that include links (a person would need to determine if they are attributions, but that's easy enough - a couple of seconds a summary with a decent number of people helping out could get it done is a reasonable amount of time), but what about content taken from offline sources? Probably extremely rare, but can we risk failing to correctly attribute even one or two sources? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
