On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Same argument in > > different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing > > from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does > > not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is > also > > no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the > > authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document. > > If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate > content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We > would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list. > Not necessary - "need not be credited" does not imply "should not be credited". > > > > Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even > >> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name) > >> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is > >> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just > >> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit > >> the user *at least* with a pseudonym? > >> > > > > Is it usual to remove names from history without replacing them with > > another pseudonym? I know of no such case. > > Is this even possible? I only have the rights to do this on ro.wp and > I see no option to replace the name with a pseudonym. I just select > "Delete the username or IP address" and add a reason and the history > shows the text "username deleted" crossed. And on the pdf export, I'm > positive there is no pseudonym used. > I think changing the username has the desired effect, I am not 100% sure though. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>