Answer to the first question is very simple - C is derived from A, not vandalized B revision.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Strainu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals > to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting > the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that > deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the > contributor list. > > While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is: > is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have > version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision > C. Then version C is a work derived from version B, shouldn't it > credit the full author list of version B? > > Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even > just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name) > actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is > removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just > because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit > the user *at least* with a pseudonym? > > Thanks, > Strainu > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
