On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 3) Part 3: Is such an attribution model consistent with the past > practice under which authors have contributed to Wikipedia and other > projects? > > Answer: Yes. This is evident through the current site-wide copyright > terms, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights . Even > the earliest available version of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy > which stated re-users obligations said that users' "obligations can be > fulfilled by providing a conspicuous link back to the home of the > article here at wikipedia.com." > [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&oldid=159593 > ] > Similar terms have been stated through the history of the policy, as > well as other language versions. > That's very interesting about the original text (and had I noticed it I might have saved myself a lot of trouble contributing all those years), but your last sentence is blatantly false. By the time many of us, including myself, started contributing to Wikipedia, that's not what it said. Rather, it said [when I started editing] "The latter two obligations can be fulfilled in part by providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article hosted on this website." and also said "*The legal accuracy of the following advice is disputed*". Furthermore, that text explicitly applied only to *verbatim copying*. And finally, Wikipedia:Copyrights is just some page that a bunch of Wikipedians threw together. The official WMF position whenever I've asked how to reuse Wikipedia content has always been "follow the GFDL". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l