-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Clements wrote:
"Simetrical"
<Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:7c2a12e20707200909l4bd76a34nf70fa31a4a6e7ad7@mail.gmail.com...
To establish the authors of an article, it would
be most sensible to
do a word-by-word blame (annotate, whatever you like: who last
modified each word -- or better, each token, given that wikisyntax can
theoretically be tokenized) and just use that as a list. If someone
contributed in the distant past and their contribution was later
totally replaced, that's nice of them and all, but they aren't really
a contributor to the present version in any real sense.
True, but that won't work on its own. If I write a new article, someone
else blanks it and a third person reverts to my original, then the third
person will get credit for my work. In practice I think you need both - a
That would be poor design :). Naturally an annotation will have to be
constructed from earliest to latest--it's the question of who
*introduced* a word or phrase into an article. Those that are not still
in the present article will not be included in the annotation. Those
that are will be elegantly marked as originating from a certain author.
There was a presentation[1] at Wikimania 06 that addressed issues of
attribution. I think it's certainly something important to revisit.
[
1]<http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00007102/02/FirstWorkshopOnWikipedia…
- --
Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com
cannon.danielc(a)gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGoPafFRAT5u/mSaMRApiQAJ9Nlr1ePOB86X5HOijo/w8numrdJgCfaYFa
QNjB7EOCSDs6YerF5hxL+PE=
=tyCS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----