http://www.google.com/search?q=foundation-l+summary
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this > subject instead of discussing different external search services to the > mailing list? (No doubt one can learn a lot about the different external > possibilities not offered via the list.wikimedia.org site, yet I would > like > to learn at least as much about the answers to the actual issues posed in > the original post [even at the price of repeating previously stated > conclusions]) > > These questions have apparently been discussed before and I am confident > that they will come up again: it might be a good idea to collect the > answers > that came out of long, fast-paced and hard to follow mailing list threads. > The FAQ and the oppositional arguments pages (cited in this thread) in my > opinion don't serve the purpose and audience of the questions of this > thread > (the FAQ in my opinion is aimed at a less initiated audience, while the > oppositional arguments deal with outright refusing this change; these > questions on the other hand might stir the fantasy of those that are > "advanced" licencwise and want to make this migration work and thus have > questions that will inevitably come up in practice once the licence update > has been followed through). > > Thank you, > Bence Damokos > > 2009/4/14 Tisza Gergő <gti...@gmail.com> > > > I found a few apparent legal problems while translating the license > > update documents. Apologies if these have already been discussed to > > death - I didn't follow earlier debates, and the archives are mostly > > useless as a knowledge base. > > > > == revision not specified == > > > > The TOS says that reusers have to attribute the authors by linking to > > the article. The problem is that such a link will actually point to a > > different article after each edit (that is, the text and author list > > will have been changed). If you find a text copied from Wikipedia on > > the net, and there is no date information, it is very hard to find out > > which version of the article it is (and thus who the authors are); if > > the text is a derivative work from a Wikipedia article, then it's > > practically impossible. > > > > Even if one argues that attributing bogus authors is not a problem as > > long as the real ones all appear on the list, the author list can > > change arbitrarily when the article is renamed or deleted and > > rewritten. (Neither of which is apparent even if one looks at the page > > history.) > > > > A few possible solutions to that: > > - require reusers to permalink to the revision they used; change the > > totally unhelpful error message that is shown when one follows a link > > to a deleted version. (Probably not a very good idea as it messes up > > caching. Also, bad usability: most of the people who click such a link > > don't care about authors and original version one bit, and just want > > to see/edit the current version of the article.) > > - develop some syntax that shows the current version of the article, > > but with a little message on top saying "you have followed a link from > > a page reusing an older version of this article. You can see the most > > recent version of the article; if you want to see the original click > > here." (Maybe through some fragment id trick and javascript so it can > > go through the cache?) We would still have to address links to deleted > > versions. > > - require reusers to give date/revision of the page along with the > > url. Make some sort of search interface to find the text and/or author > > set of an article based on that information. > > > > == CC version incompatibilities == > > > > Copyright policy now says "You may import any text from other sources > > that is available under the CC-BY-SA license", which is incorrect for > > to reasons. First, CC-BY-SA-1.0 (used, for example, by Wikitravel) is > > not compatible with anything but itself (as they forgot to include the > > ("or any later version" part). Second, different versions and > > jurisdictions of CC are not quite compatible: for example if a wiki > > has an article under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, then uploading that to Wikipedia > > (which will use CC-BY-SA-3.0 unported) is actually a breach of the > > license. You could change the version or jurisdiction when you create > > an adaptation (that is, you make changes significant enough to be > > considered on of the authors), but not when you just redistribute the > > work. (I doubt anything could be done about this beyond prodding CC to > > release a saner version of their license soon.) > > > > == edit summary cannot contain links == > > > > The currently proposed editing policy says: > > > > "If you import text under the CC-BY-SA license, you must abide by the > > terms of the license; specifically, you must, in a reasonable fashion, > > credit the author(s). Where such credit is commonly given through page > > histories (such as wiki-to-wiki copying), it is sufficient to give > > attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page > > history, when importing the content." > > > > (which BTW should be rephrased more clearly - does it mean you can use > > the edit summary if you import text from another wiki, but not when > > you do it from any other web page?) > > The problem is that the edit summary does not allow external links: > > they will show as plain text, and it would be hard to argue that that > > is reasonable to the medium. (This one is easy to fix: allow them, and > > rely on rev_delete and capctha to stop edit summary spam instead.) > > Furthermore, a long link does not necessarily fit into the summary > > (which is 255 bytes long, and there are a number of web pages that use > > ugly links with loads GET parameters that are longer than that), so > > some sort of separate attribution log might be more reasonable. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l