I wouldn't express it quite so bluntly, but agreed at a time when editing seems 
to have stabilised again after the 2015/16 rally, shifting the Foundation to a 
strategy of promoting compliance with both BY and SA would address a lot of 
problems. It is probably demotivating for editors to see their work used 
without attribution, and whilst a link back to Wikipedia is not as going to be 
as good as an edit button, we are greatly limiting ourselves if we rely on 
people coming directly to our sites and treat every extract from our sites as 
CC0 or Fair Use.

A few legal letters and maybe a court case a year should be easily affordable 
for the WMF and an excellent investment. 



> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:12:43 +0000
> From: James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?
> Message-ID:
>    <CAD4=uzatxxeaxuod9r_smseujrog9s-xdhjynpd9bvr6b5o...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source
> date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the
> attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to
> require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and
> Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to
> edit.
> If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a
> requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and copyleft
>> retention for derived works.
>>> --

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to