On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/20 Anthony :
> > That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an
> > answer from Erik or Mike anyway.
> >
> > It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works
> under
> > CC-BY-SA is allegedly t
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, geni wrote:
>
> If the change to CC-BY-SA goes through I will be proposing a new
> wikimedia project to record what authors and reuses consider
> acceptable (and what people actually do if that happens) in terms of
> attribution for every form of reuse we can thin
2009/1/20 Anthony :
> Is the question clear? Maybe I should be even more specific. How would one
> go about using content from Citizendium in Wikipedia, if Wikipedia
> relicenses content under CC-BY-SA? How would a third party go about using
> the combined work? How would the attribution rights
2009/1/20 Anthony :
>> Assuming a large number of authors on Citizendium. Use the export
>> function there to provide the file in a useful format and reactivate
>> the import function on en to export it (at a pinch is should be
>> possible to put together a script that can grab the relevant
>> info
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/20 Anthony :
> > That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an
> > answer from Erik or Mike anyway.
> >
> > It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works
> under
> > CC-BY-SA is allegedly th
2009/1/20 Anthony :
> That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an
> answer from Erik or Mike anyway.
>
> It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works under
> CC-BY-SA is allegedly the main reason for the relicensing.
>
> Is the question clear?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Anthony wrote:
> One problem with the URLs you gave me is that they don't seem to be very
> up-to-date. For instance, in
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Reusing_Citizendium_Content it says
> "After Wikipedia finalizes its decision to allow relicensing of its
Thanks Larry. That does indeed answer my questions from the point of view
of Citizendium content, at least if I'm reading those URLs correctly, in
that:
Individual Citizendium authors are not concerned about being individually
attributed, and are content to have their contributions attributed as
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > What about text works which were licensed under CC-BY-SA but were
> released
> > somewhere other than Wikipedia? Can these be incorporated into
> Wikipedia?
> > How will their right to a
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
> What about text works which were licensed under CC-BY-SA but were released
> somewhere other than Wikipedia? Can these be incorporated into Wikipedia?
> How will their right to attribution be respected? Is this allowance of
> "reference by histo
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
> > It seems though
> > that the _prospect_ of very speculative and indecisively
> > defined new ways of showing editors _on_ wikipedia
> > pages fringes (not requiring it downstream even), is
> > what is r
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> But in terms of pictures, photographs is a very very minor
> segment indeed. Discussing the matter solely in terms
> of photographs is very diversionary.
>
I certainly didn't intend to be diversionary; rather, I'm a bit confused
as to what the vast majority of non
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> In this thread, the argument has been made that these requirements are
> going too far, or not far enough. The reason they are formulated as
> they are is to be consistent with the expectations set forth by the
> GFDL itself, and the re-use guidelines implemented throughout
Delirium wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
>>> author.
>>>
>>>
>> This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
>> create the media file from your very own brain-pa
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Sam Johnston :
> > That is, you must at least reference Wikipedia and the article, but it
> may
> > be appropriate to additionally *or* alternatively refer to individual
> > contributor(s).
>
> Yes - I agree with this. The only ques
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> It seems though
> that the _prospect_ of very speculative and indecisively
> defined new ways of showing editors _on_ wikipedia
> pages fringes (not requiring it downstream even), is
> what is really concretely even hinted at...
The downstream requirement that
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> * For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
>> author.
>>
> This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
> create the media file from your very own brain-pan,
> yes, this would be accurate, but to say that
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> I must be a moron or at least functionally illiterate, since
>> I simply cannot parse the previous paragraph in a way
>> that makes logical sense.
>>
>
> :-)
>
> Imagine that:
>
>
...
> Unlikely? Perhaps - though some people
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> * For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single author. If
> you are the photographer of a high resolution panorama that you've
> contributed to Wikipedia, I think it's a reasonable expectation to be named
> ("Photo by Sam Jo
2009/1/16 Sam Johnston :
> That is, you must at least reference Wikipedia and the article, but it may
> be appropriate to additionally *or* alternatively refer to individual
> contributor(s).
Yes - I agree with this. The only question would be whether referring
to the history or to the article are
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Unlikely? Perhaps - though some people say that the evil reptilian
> kitten eater takeover has already begun. The way around this is to
> formulate attribution requirements that do not require specific
> reference to Wikipedia, but only to
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>> * The attribution terms should avoid requiring specific reference to
>>> Wikipedia, so that it's clear that there is not necessarily a tie
>>> between the project in which collaboration currently happens
Erik Moeller wrote:
> * For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
> author.
This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
create the media file from your very own brain-pan,
yes, this would be accurate, but to say that that this
is "often" the case, is somewhat quizzica
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> * The attribution terms should avoid requiring specific reference to
>> Wikipedia, so that it's clear that there is not necessarily a tie
>> between the project in which collaboration currently happens, and any
>> future use of the conte
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Attribution here can only be a very *minimal* requirement,
>> I cannot see how the whole history of alterations could be
>> somehow swept under the carpet...
>>
>
> Are you referring to indicating changes? Per CC-BY-SA, 3.b:
>
> .
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> * The attribution terms should avoid requiring specific reference to
> Wikipedia, so that it's clear that there is not necessarily a tie
> between the project in which collaboration currently happens, and any
> future use of the content. If someone creates a better alternati
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Attribution here can only be a very *minimal* requirement,
> I cannot see how the whole history of alterations could be
> somehow swept under the carpet...
Are you referring to indicating changes? Per CC-BY-SA, 3.b:
... to create and Reproduce Adaptations provi
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/14 Sam Johnston :
>
>> It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to
>> specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly
>> the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard.
>> The attr
What is an attribution-by-history-reference? How come it has to be a
url and not something like:
The term Bushism is a neologism that refers to a number of peculiar
words, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or
linguistic errors that have occurred in the public speaking of United
S
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think requiring attribution-by-history should be the best practice
>>> for heavily edited articles, at least until we more prominently point
>>> out the author credit in the article footer.
>>>
>>>
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> I think requiring attribution-by-history should be the best practice
>> for heavily edited articles, at least until we more prominently point
>> out the author credit in the article footer.
>>
>
>
> Eh? Which should it be? A requirement,
I am talking about CC-BY-SA geni.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Brian :
> > I like Sam's point.
> >
> > Do you really want to print this on a t-shirt?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history
> >
> > Also, it makes specific reference t
2009/1/16 Brian :
> I like Sam's point.
>
> Do you really want to print this on a t-shirt?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history
>
> Also, it makes specific reference to Wikipedia.
>
>
Since you would also have to include complete copies of the GFDL and
GPL I would
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I think requiring attribution-by-history should be the best practice
> for heavily edited articles, at least until we more prominently point
> out the author credit in the article footer.
>
Eh? Which should it be? A requirement, or a best practise?
You can't have it bot
I like Sam's point.
Do you really want to print this on a t-shirt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history
Also, it makes specific reference to Wikipedia.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/14 Sam Johnston :
> > It appears that it would b
2009/1/14 Sam Johnston :
> It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to
> specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly
> the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard.
> The attribution itself would then be so
Hi,
I've been following with great interest the endeavour to relicense Wikipedia
for some time, though this is my first meaningful contribution to it.
Attribution is an important and sensitive issue but I think the discussions
so far are missing a great opportunity to promote Wikipedia itself whil
37 matches
Mail list logo
