QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 3rd January 2011, 4:32pm)
QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 3rd January 2011, 10:56am)
Although, under the new CC-BY-SA license, he might be right.
The CC-by-SA that Wikipedia uses states:
QUOTE
You are free:
* to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
* to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
* Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Since Brandon indefinitely blocked the author, she or he didn't have much of a chance to specify the manner of attribution desired.
Actually, this brings up a great point, Anthony... are Wikipedia editors supposed to somewhere specify the manner of attribution that they desire, or is it implied somewhere else in the WikiWacky Free Culture pantheon of lengthy documentation?
At the bottom of every page it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." Clicking on Terms of Use, you get:
QUOTE
Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikimedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which we will strive to indicate clearly to you. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users.
Whether or not the new article satisfies a) is arguable. But it easily *could* satisfy a) without giving any actual attribution.
Lesson to be learned: if you care about your copyright, don't contribute to Wikipedia. Contribute to Wikipedia Review, in the Directory space, once the owner of Wikipedia Review fixes the damn site. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
This post has been edited by anthony: