Mailing List Archive

We can't use this particular tool because it includes a tracking bug.
However, I like the idea of automatically providing CC-BY-SA attribution. I
think we should hold a projects-wide vote on this, probably it would go over
well. Another area to consider automatic attribution is within EXIF data so
that images are automagically attributed. Some people might find that too
easy though, and I'm not sure if it's within the CC-BY-SA license. Can the
attribution be embedded within the image that is being embedded, or must it
be in the content that embeds the media? It seems that EXIF embedded
attribution for images ensures that the license gets propagated.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
>
> Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> them this is licensed, not PD.
>
> Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/24 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
>
> Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> them this is licensed, not PD.
>
> Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?

I vote for "a bit obnoxious". What if they are using it as fair use,
or under the GFDL? Or copy it to something which is already CC? Or
something which is entirely personal use so attribution is pointless?
Or to some large document where inline attribution is inappropriate?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/7/24 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
> > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
> >
> > Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> > pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> > them this is licensed, not PD.
> >
> > Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?
>
> I vote for "a bit obnoxious". What if they are using it as fair use,
> or under the GFDL? Or copy it to something which is already CC? Or
> something which is entirely personal use so attribution is pointless?
> Or to some large document where inline attribution is inappropriate?
>


In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/7/24 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
> > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
> >
> > Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> > pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> > them this is licensed, not PD.
> >
> > Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?
>
> I vote for "a bit obnoxious". What if they are using it as fair use,
> or under the GFDL? Or copy it to something which is already CC? Or
> something which is entirely personal use so attribution is pointless?
> Or to some large document where inline attribution is inappropriate?
>
> +1
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!

Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to
reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force
attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> > In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!
>
> Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to
> reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force
> attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.
>

I believe the alternate usability interpretation is more persuasive. That by
law they are required to provide attribution and yet many users are totally
unaware a) that they are required to provide attribution b) that a "free"
encyclopedia cares about attribution in the first place and c) of the
specifics of providing attribution. If we consider the burdens that I have
just outlined as compared with the burden of highlighting and deleting some
text its clear that automatically solving the 90% case for users is the
correct thing to do.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> I believe the alternate usability interpretation is more persuasive. That by
> law they are required to provide attribution and yet many users are totally
> unaware a) that they are required to provide attribution b) that a "free"
> encyclopedia cares about attribution in the first place and c) of the
> specifics of providing attribution. If we consider the burdens that I have
> just outlined as compared with the burden of highlighting and deleting some
> text its clear that automatically solving the 90% case for users is the
> correct thing to do.

Maybe, but not by overiding the standard behaviour of copy and paste.
A link in the sidebar to details of how to attribute this article
would be better.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/24 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
>> In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!
>
> Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to
> reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force
> attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.

(Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this, it's probably absolutely
hideous for all kinds of technical reasons)

Eh, backspace isn't much of a difficulty. It could probably also be
made to only trigger for text over some particular size. You're not
likely to have a legal obligation for a couple of words, but if you
copy several paragraphs you'll have both a legal and an ethical
obligation to provide some form of attribution.

I could see more practical issues with it complicating moving text
around in articles.

The applicable principle of usability is that the default behaviour
should be what is the usually the right behaviour and you should be
able to override it when it isn't. Attribute on copy fits that
principle.


A while back I put in a JS kludge on commons that made right clicking
on thumbnails remind you once and only once (via a cookie) that you
can save a higher resolution version from the image page. Erik
eventually removed it based on the completely reasonable complaint
that it left the same kind of bad taste as sites that totally disable
image saving. So, how does this solution avoid 'feeling' like sites
that do obnoxious things? I notice that my browser spins busy
whenever I highlight. Is that okay?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/24 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
> Eh, backspace isn't much of a difficulty.   It could probably also be
> made to only trigger for text over some particular size. You're not
> likely to have a legal obligation for a couple of words, but if you
> copy several paragraphs you'll have both a legal and an ethical
> obligation to provide some form of attribution.

I don't think it is a good idea to have a computer making judgements
on substantiality.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l