On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > > You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be > > happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked > > "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by > > URL. But these people will also probably be happy with attribution by > > listing of authors. So you can easily draw the conclusion that a > > significant majority of the community will by happy with attribution by > > listing of authors. In fact, making your assumption you could say that > the > > survey showed that 100% of them are happy with it. > > I think it is reasonable to go with the simplest solution that a > significant majority are happy with (I'm assuming everyone is in > favour of making things as easy for reusers as possible, while > maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release *everyone's* work into the public domain? If we look at just people's first choices (assuming they ranked the > options in way compatible with my ordering, first choices are > sufficient) then: > > 12.11% would be happy with no credit > 39.48% would be happy with credit to "Wikipedia" > 69.66% would be happy with linking to the article > 80.89% would be happy with linking to the version history > > That clearly shows that a significant majority would be happy with > attribution-by-URL (you can argue over where the URL should point). Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
