2013/1/22 ??? <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk>: > On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds >> <richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable >>> as >>> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts: >>> >>> - Does anyone have any input on this? >>> - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? >>> - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the >>> full >>> byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink? >> >> >> If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as >> well? >> >> It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm >> not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than >> no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed. >> >> The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is >> potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to >> be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you >> import something the author has made no such agreement. >> > > Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark. > If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the > case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating > 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of > it. > That's a very simplified description of what happened. See e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/News_and_notes
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l