One person told me that attribution of a single article and a bigger collection could be made different. That is, a single printed copy of an article could use a credit of "Wikipedia" and a mirror on a website could use a history link. We don't have to choose a "one scheme fits all" -solution.
john Erik Moeller skrev: > The author attribution survey is now closed. We have 1017 complete > responses. I've posted results of the attribution data in the > following report: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attribution_Survey_Results.pdf > > I've posted the raw data of the attribution survey here: > > Respondents from English Wikipedia: > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attsurvey-en.ods > Respondents from German Wikipedia: > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attsurvey-de.ods > Respondents from miscellaneous languages and projects: > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attsurvey-misc.ods > > (The survey was linked via the WikimediaNotifier bot, so we got quite > a bit of nicely dispersed traffic.) > > As the report shows, and as I indicated in my prior e-mail, there is > wide support for simple attribution models, and fairly strong and > visible opposition to full author attribution (as well as complete > absence of any attribution). Full author attribution is the second > least popular option, at 32.82%. Many comments pointed out the tension > between free content and attribution, such as: > > * "While the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide access to > information freely and easily, a balance must be struck between > recognising authors' contributions and the constraints on utilising > the information." (User's preferred attribution model is link to the > article.) > * "Giving credit to all authors is ridiculous! I think the 'Wikipedia > Community' is sufficient credit, this project is not about personal > gratification, its about community collaboration." > * "Full list of authors is terribly impractical." > * "Including the full list of authors on a 'NOT online' resource would > be a waste of resources, i.e. paper and ink, most of the time. But > even for online use, who would read the version history? On the other > hand, a link can't do much harm..." > * "Establishing which editors to credit would cause enormous disagreement" > * "Although requiring credit may sound noncontroversial, it actually > is a pretty big can of worms in contexts of (a) editing > wikipedia-sourced content into rather different things (for example, > the way that some wikipedia articles grew out of 1911 Britannica > articles), (b) what if the wikimedia foundation has some kind of > meltdown and it is necessary to fork the project. Therefore my > recommendation is to not think in terms of 'requirements' but > suggested practices." > > Some users commented on the fact that Wikipedia is primarily written > by people under pseudonyms, and that being suddenly visibly attributed > would actually come as a surprise: > > * "If any version of credit-sharing citing editors is made policy, all > editors should be given notice and allowed to change their monikers to > their choice. In my case, I choose a moniker I liked when I thought > the community would remain anonymous forever. If my contributions went > into print or were used similarly I would like to use my actual name." > > Community credit proved a quite popular option, second only to a > direct link to the article. Many people viewed it as a simple method > to credit their contribution both online and offline. (At least one > user suggested linking to detailed histories online, and crediting the > community collectively offline.) > > A few users felt very strongly about always giving author credit. The > strongest example I found: > > "I won't accept nothing less than what I chosed above, and I'm ready > to leave my sysop status and other wmf-related roles if WMF will > underestimate the meaning of GFDL to our projects. GFDL is what we > would have chosen if asked 8 years ago, and is what we will stand up > for." > > Some users also pointed out that our options were constrained by the > requirements set forth in the GFDL. > > I'd love to see deeper analysis of the survey. I want to restate my > original intent in running it: it's intended to be a feeler survey, to > get a rough impression of what attribution models are widely > considered acceptable by contributors to our projects, and which ones > aren't. It served this purpose, and I have no intent in running > additional surveys; we're on an aggressive timeline and have to move > forward. It's also not intended to dictate a solution. > > My preliminary conclusion is that a simple, manageable attribution > model, while causing some short-term disruption, will widely be > considered not only acceptable, but preferable to complex attribution > models, in support of our mission to disseminate free information. > That being said, we probably still have to find a compromise, as well > as language that appropriate deals with single-author multimedia > contributions. I imagine that if we a) have a more prominent "list of > authors / list of people who contributed to this revision" credit link > on article pages; b) require that a link must be given, and that the > preferred linking format is to the revision that is being copied, c) > explicitly state in our attribution terms that for images, sounds and > videos that aren't the result of extensive collaboration, credit must > be given to the creator, we're covering most cases. > > We then still have to resolve the issue of giving credit for content > imported into our projects consistently, which is a bit of a can of > worms. (We might want to set some limitations on what kinds of content > we import, to prevent "attribution pollution".) But it's secondary to > the main issue of a consistent attribution model within our projects. > > A model like the above is consistent with CC-BY-SA. There is a > question as to whether it can be reconciled with our current > practices. I believe it can, and I also think we can find mitigation > strategies for contributors who vehemently disagree. I'll work on a > revision to the currently proposed language, and will post that next > week, alongside some further thoughts. > > In terms of our timeline, I don't believe we can wrap things up prior > to the Board meeting in April, but I think we can still hit a timeline > to make a migration decision by mid-to-late April. SPI has committed > to help administer the vote as an independent third party. What still > needs to be done: > > * We need to form a little workgroup/committee to help with the usual > process of tallying the votes; > * We need to translate all relevant text (including the vote > announcements), once it's final, into as many languages as possible; > * We need to implement a modified Special:Boardvote so it can be used > for this decision. > * We also want to allow sufficient time for the actual > decision-making, ideally 3-4 weeks. > > We have a big all-staff meeting and an all-day tech meeting next week, > which will hamper us a bit in moving this forward aggressively, but > I'll see if I can move things along a bit before then. If someone > wants to create draft pages for any of the above (workgroup, > announcement, etc.), I'd be very grateful :-) > > More soon, > Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
