Evan Prodromou wrote:
So, isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to create
and distribute free
information? I mean, yes, downstream publishers should -- no, *must*
-- comply with the GFDL, but besides that, shouldn't we be _happy_
that someone's redistributing the encyclopedia?
The GNU FDL has a strict author credit requirement. We make things /very/ easy
of downstream users by stating that a link-back to the particular article
copied fullfills this requirement. Given this, and since Wikipedia is a
collective work, it is not much to also ask for a mention of our project's
name.
We need to make it _easier_ for people to re-publish
the encyclopedia
in a way that complies with the GFDL -- not punish them for doing so.
OK, how does that relate to what I said? I'm all for making it easy to use our
content. But I also think that we should be properly cited since we do not
ask that any /individuals/ get author credit. Again since Wikipedia articles
are collective works, I think that since individuals are not credited in
third party copies, that the project should.
Otherwise downstream users can state only '[This article] is licensed under
the [GNU Free Documentation License]' with [This article] being a link to the
Wikipedia article and [GNU Free Documentation License] being a link to the
GNU FDL (with no underlines under [This article] or [GNU Free Documentation
License] to indicate that those are hyperlinks).
I've seen this on at least one website and I don't like it - it does not give
readable credit to the collective work and is not a proper citation - it
gives the impression (just by reading the message) that the article was
written at that website and that that website somehow owns the copyright.
That said, it's probably a good idea to ask for
links back to
xx.wikipedia.org. Not to promote the site (hell, it's plenty popular),
but to make it easier for readers to contribute and fix errors in
articles.
??? OK, what about the author requirement? The only alternative is for them to
list 5 authors of every article.
-- mav