Thomas Dalton wrote: > I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. We're > talking about what forms of attribution are acceptable for > people using our content under CC-BY-SA. We're saying that > attribution by URL is acceptable for people using the content > under CC-BY-SA.
But who says it's "our" content? Maybe another wiki wrote articles about every Ukrainian action hero or all butterfly species in Zambia, under CC-BY-SA, and we imported articles from there into Wikipedia. And then someone mirrors Wikipedia. Why should that mirror get away with just crediting Wikipedia's URL for each article? And what if this mirror site is another wiki (such as Wookieepedia) that also creates new content and gets mirrored? Why should the next mirror not get away with just crediting Wookieepedia's URL for each article? Jussi-Ville used the analogy with books (the content) and libraries (the websites, or what I previously called the space between the copies [1]). Mirrors are copying the books. But is Wikipedia's website (as opposed to its content) really a book, or is it just another library? [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050824.html -- Lars Aronsson ([email protected]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
