Sam Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of >>> attribution gone mad >> A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me. >> I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works. >> > > Perhaps, but it delivers ZERO benefit to the pseudonymous individuals listed > and exacts a non-trivial toll on the reuser. This is further amplified for > partial reuse of a resource, reuse of multiple resources, reuse with > tangible mediums (esp non-print e.g. t-shirts) and so on. > > While the toll can be reduced by automation it cannot be removed altogether > and this does not change the fact that the result delivers ZERO value to > anyone (authors, readers, reusers, the environment and Wikipedia as a > whole). > > Sam
And ??? So can you say about any attribution license and pretty much any free license. *I* have (co)written that article. I have given it for free, which I didn't need to. Now, *YOU* want to use *MY* article. Well, follow the terms or don't use it. If you're so concerned about not listing me, you can always ask me a commercial license for omitting it. It removes your requirement, and delivers greater than zero benefit to me. It may be enough for me to see my name on that page. What is unacceptable is to remove the attribution just because "it delivers zero benefit", when it is the *ONLY* benefit I get. I might understand many reasons not to provide attribution. But this one is completely inadmissible. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
