On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > Actually, following the same philosophy, one should wonder whether the person reverting from version B to version C should be kept in the contributor's list. At the end of the day, version C is an exact copy of version A (i.e. no creative input of editor C), and version B is a derivative version of version A, but versions C+1 and following are not derivative versions of B, only of A and previous. > > 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? > I guess a pseudonym is the correct way to deal with this situation Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
