On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <[email protected]> wrote: > If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might > be: > > Create an "authors page" associated with each page that contains: <snip>
There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could satisfy a large segment of the pro-attribution party: "Where the majority of an article is contributed by one user they must also be attributed by real name." Comments made by Mike Peel in another thread got me thinking again about the 'problem' of photographs, which has not sat well with me until now. This gives those lone contributors credit for their work even when transformed (e.g. touched up) by others. It avoids most conflicts as by definition there can only be one 'majority contributor' and this will be trivial to identify compared to, say, the 'top 5'. It's also easy for re-users to understand and could be made easier still by embedding RDF so creativecommons.org can give specific attribution instructions. It resolves my concerns about 'unprofessional' usernames (attribution is a meatspace construct and requiring real names shouldn't pose a problem for most authors). Finally, it would be trivial to implement (at least compared to some of the other proposals) - just link a user id to the articles or even use an 'author' template (or exclude collaboratively developed content from the scheme altogether). This (or something like it) could well be the happy medium we've been searching for. Even if still not palatable for the legal bigots, it should satisfy lone authors (who have the strongest claim for attribution) as well as those who fret about onerous attribution requirements in terms of lists, urls, etc. Many (most?) articles would end up being attributed as (something like) 'from Wikipedia', while others would be 'from Wikipedia by Sam Johnston'. Sam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
