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: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>