2009/2/2 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu>: > I advocate a much more flexible attribution scheme than listing the authors > or printing a url to the history page. I think a simple (Wikipedia) is a > sufficient attribution for text. If you have the text it is trivial to find > the original author of that text. It's not so trivial with images, but a > link to the history page of an image can be embedded in its metadata.
There's two different issues, here, really, and I think you're chasing a different one to my original suggestion. I'm certainly not saying that this method for generating names is automatically a mandate to require they be used to top and tail every article - just that if someone does attribute that way, it'll help them do it better. *However* we decide that downstream reused material should be attributed, be it heavily or as lightly as possible, there's going to be a step in the process - perhaps only an optional one - where someone takes a Wikipedia article and tries to shake out some authors. Figuring out how to make that work efficiently and cleanly and helpfully is a good thing in and of itself, whatever conclusion the main debate comes to. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
