On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:51 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should interactive web, internet of things, or offline services
>> relying on Foundation encyclopedia CC-BY-SA content be required to
>> attribute authorship by specifying the revision date from which the
>> transluded content is derived?
> I don't think there's a sufficiently strong justification for
If the requirement to attribute "Through a list of all authors" when
hyperlinking isn't possible, such as with read-only displays or audio
output, were replaced with requiring to say that the content is from a
Wikipedia article with a given title and date, that would certainly
give more information about the actual authorship than a list of
> which in any case would only apply to re-use of future revisions of
> CC-BY-SA/CC-BY content that's not also exempted by "fair use".
I don't think it would be difficult to convince content reusers to go
along with that. It would protect them against liability from hoaxes,
provide actual attribution information for those who want or need it,
and 30 years down the road when free license grants start expiring....
> As a best practice, I do believe including timestamp or version
> information is helpful both for re-users themselves and for end users.
> [[Progressive disclosure]] keeps such information manageable. In my
> own re-use of CC-0 data from Wikidata, Open Library and similar
> sources, I do include timestamp information along with the source.
> Example re-use from Wikidata:
If only our brand ambassadors were as interested in best practices! I
know they are, and once fundraising season rolls around there's going
to be the usual press barrage of interviews. Let's give them something
good to say so that would-be editors know we're the kind of people who
want to protect them from unattributed hoaxes.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com