On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > That may have been the intention of the author of the GFDL (though you > > haven't proven this). But the simple fact of the matter is that the > history > > section *does* provide credit to *all* the authors. > > It does so, in the context of Wikipedia.org, because change tracking > and attribution are served by the same software function. That a > listing of all authors would always be included directly (as opposed > to by reference) with any copy of a Wikipedia article is not a > reasonable inference from this fact, especially given that the > language in GFDL which clearly exists for purpose of giving credit > includes reasonable limitations (principal authors). I fail to see how you can follow the GFDL without crediting all authors. After all, even > you yourself agree that including the full change history with each > copy is overkill. I don't think you understand what I meant by that. I don't think the GFDL should require including a full change history, but I do think it should require every author to be credited directly in the document, and it should ensure that these authors are credited in a way that they are not considered responsible for modifications made by others. Hence, we are having a practical debate about what is and isn't > reasonable. I base my argument on the language of the GFDL when it > comes to author credit, which includes limitations, as well as > established guidelines and practices on Wikipedia. Why? > Your argument, on the other hand, appears to be pulled out of thin air. I assure you that the concept of the right to attribution is not something I pulled out of thin air. It is neither a > direct requirement of the GFDL, nor an established practice, nor a > reasonable expectation of a volunteer contributor. I can only conclude > that it is your personal preference. It most certainly is a requirement of the GFDL (not sure what your weasel-word of "direct" is supposed to mean). It most certainly is an established practice (it's part of the Berne Convention, though it's a part which the United States has failed to implement). And it most certainly is a reasonable expectation of a volunteer contribution (plagiarism is a violation of a natural right which even a five-year old would recognize). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
