On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leino...@aalto.fi> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is super interesting and important discussion. One idea.
>
>> On 10 Oct 2017, at 3.44, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And for most of the sources amalgamated in this manner, if provenance
>> is indicated at all, we don't find any of the safeguards we have for
>> Wikimedia content (revisioning, participatory decision-making,
>> transparent policies, etc.). Editability, while opening the floodgate
>> to a category of problems other sources don't have, is in fact also a
>> safeguard: making it possible to fix mistakes instead of going through
>> a "feedback" form that ends up who knows where.
>
> Would it make sense to help and maybe even demand the proprietary service 
> providers and AI application (Siri, Google, etc) using the Wikimedia content 
> to include a statement if their reuse is from a "native version of live 
> Wikimedia” and also this way tell that they do not?

That is a fantastic idea! CC-BY-SA says, "You must attribute the work
in the manner specified by the author or licensor."

Is there anything preventing us from specifying attribution in a
manner that makes clear the revision date?

I would love to see the re-users have to do that. Are there any downsides?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to