On Thursday 22 January 2009 02:31:54 Sam Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > > > "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of > > > attribution gone mad > > > > A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me. > > I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works. > > Perhaps, but it delivers ZERO benefit to the pseudonymous individuals
I do not edit pseudonymously, and even if I would, I know it would deliver a non-zero benefit to me. > listed and exacts a non-trivial toll on the reuser. This is further Compared with all the other work that goes into typesetting and printing a book, it is indeed trivial. A list of all authors of an article could be easily extracted from a copy of the Wikipedia database with a single SQL query. > amplified for partial reuse of a resource, reuse of multiple resources, > reuse with tangible mediums (esp non-print e.g. t-shirts) and so on. The attribution should be reasonable to the medium. I don't expect to have such a list of authors if a portion of a Wikipedia article is printed on a cup. I expect it if entire article is printed in a book. > Carrying on with the France example[1], you can double the length of that > list with IP numbers (which would likely have to be included too) and Why would IP numbers have to be included? > consider that if the article has accrued 5,000 contributors over the last 5 > years or so, how many will it have in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? I think that France is an extreme example, and that most articles have far fewer authors. I can't check for English, but an average article on Serbian Wikipedia has 10 authors, and on German Wikipedia 5 authors. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
