On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 June 2011 16:08, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To be honest, when you release your work under cc-by-sa you grant a >> third party the right to reuse a (small or large) part of your work to >> make a derivative work. The license in itself is not what determines >> that the live version of a Wikipedia article is the last one, this >> happens because of Wikipedia policies. And of course, your (old) >> version is not deleted from the article history apart from a few >> cases. The point is: Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, if >> people don't accept this they can always publish somewhere else. > > > Indeed. "No ownership of articles" does not follow from the licence - > it's just the way things happen to be done on Wikipedia.
I believe this was Amir's original point - he was asking for examples from other projects where different social norms had had different (better?) results. > For comparison, I understand that Wikibooks are considered somewhat > "owned" by the person starting the book. A fair comparision, though as with Wikipedia editions I think this varies by language. Sam. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l