On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:59 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/3/16 Michael Snow <[email protected]>: >> Anthony wrote: > >>> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all. > >> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at all" in >> an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not >> suddenly become devoid of meaning just because you're using a medium >> where you can't follow a hyperlink. I could just as soon say that print >> media aren't acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles because you can't >> check them by following a hyperlink, it's the same logic. We allow >> references that adapt the conventions of other media to our context, we >> should allow people using other media the same privilege in adapting our >> conventions to their context. > > > Indeed. The claim is meaningless and querulous noise. Printed objects > commonly have a URL on them these days. Listing a source or history > short URL would do the job it's intended to.
True, but those are not URLs that contain information that they are contractually obliged to provide to you together with the object. -- André Engels, [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
