Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks talk:Importing From Wikipedia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Attribution: clarify) |
(Attribution - No great shakes) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I agree that ''credit where credit is due'' is a good maxim and one which Wikispooks should make every effort to adhere to honestly. That said, ''every effort'' risks a descent into legalistic trivia. I'm satisfied that, to property credit a source, site/date is probably sufficient in the vast majority of cases. On the question of imported Wikipedia pages that have been or MAY be deleted, my feeling is that to preserve the editing history purely for the purposes of individual contributor attribution is not necessary. Why? As publisher a balance has to be struck. The main considerations as I see them are: | I agree that ''credit where credit is due'' is a good maxim and one which Wikispooks should make every effort to adhere to honestly. That said, ''every effort'' risks a descent into legalistic trivia. I'm satisfied that, to property credit a source, site/date is probably sufficient in the vast majority of cases. On the question of imported Wikipedia pages that have been or MAY be deleted, my feeling is that to preserve the editing history purely for the purposes of individual contributor attribution is not necessary. Why? As publisher a balance has to be struck. The main considerations as I see them are: | ||
# The number of pages likely to be involved | # The number of pages likely to be involved | ||
| − | # | + | #*likely to be small in relation to the entire site contents. |
# The sensitivity of their contributors to attribution preservation. | # The sensitivity of their contributors to attribution preservation. | ||
| − | # | + | #*Again likely to be small in relation to the entire contributor cohort |
# Available contributor recourse where he/she feels aggrieved at alleged/possible Wikispooks non-attribution | # Available contributor recourse where he/she feels aggrieved at alleged/possible Wikispooks non-attribution | ||
| − | # | + | #*Ranges from threat of legal-action (I consider such a possibility negligible) to complaint (complaints would/will be dealt with objectively and appropriate action taken if judged valid) |
# The likely size of the item 3 issue. | # The likely size of the item 3 issue. | ||
| − | # | + | #* Tiny - considering the average ratio of layout/tidying/typo edits versus substantive original work. |
So we have a tiny proportion of pages of which a tiny proportion of contributors MAY have an issue, all but a vanishingly tiny proportion of whom could be dealt with by way of a sympathetic hearing to a complaint - All that discounts malicious intent of course, but that kind of attack is not deflected by careful attention to the minutia of attribution and licensing anyway. | So we have a tiny proportion of pages of which a tiny proportion of contributors MAY have an issue, all but a vanishingly tiny proportion of whom could be dealt with by way of a sympathetic hearing to a complaint - All that discounts malicious intent of course, but that kind of attack is not deflected by careful attention to the minutia of attribution and licensing anyway. | ||
| − | There are clearly other reasons for wishing to preserve contribution history but, on balance, I feel it an unnecessary imposition to do so as a matter of policy just for attribution/licensing reasons | + | There are clearly other reasons for wishing to preserve contribution history but, on balance, I feel it an unnecessary imposition to do so as a matter of policy just for attribution/licensing reasons. |
| − | Comments anyone | + | Comments anyone? |
--[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (GMT)--[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (GMT) | --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (GMT)--[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :If page importers want to attribute stuff then putting the history in the talk page as [[user:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] has done seems fair enough, though for non-deleted pages, a link to [[Wikipedia]] achieves the same end more simply. I suspect that few contributors actually care either way whether their usernames are attached (I don't), but any that do could always request an attribution. Overall, Occam's razor inclines me to not bother importing contributor histories unless there's a special reason. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 15:39, 19 February 2014 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 19 February 2014
Attribution
Discussion started following observations by User:Geo Swan here and here.
I agree that credit where credit is due is a good maxim and one which Wikispooks should make every effort to adhere to honestly. That said, every effort risks a descent into legalistic trivia. I'm satisfied that, to property credit a source, site/date is probably sufficient in the vast majority of cases. On the question of imported Wikipedia pages that have been or MAY be deleted, my feeling is that to preserve the editing history purely for the purposes of individual contributor attribution is not necessary. Why? As publisher a balance has to be struck. The main considerations as I see them are:
- The number of pages likely to be involved
- likely to be small in relation to the entire site contents.
- The sensitivity of their contributors to attribution preservation.
- Again likely to be small in relation to the entire contributor cohort
- Available contributor recourse where he/she feels aggrieved at alleged/possible Wikispooks non-attribution
- Ranges from threat of legal-action (I consider such a possibility negligible) to complaint (complaints would/will be dealt with objectively and appropriate action taken if judged valid)
- The likely size of the item 3 issue.
- Tiny - considering the average ratio of layout/tidying/typo edits versus substantive original work.
So we have a tiny proportion of pages of which a tiny proportion of contributors MAY have an issue, all but a vanishingly tiny proportion of whom could be dealt with by way of a sympathetic hearing to a complaint - All that discounts malicious intent of course, but that kind of attack is not deflected by careful attention to the minutia of attribution and licensing anyway.
There are clearly other reasons for wishing to preserve contribution history but, on balance, I feel it an unnecessary imposition to do so as a matter of policy just for attribution/licensing reasons.
Comments anyone?
--Peter P (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (GMT)--Peter P (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (GMT)
- If page importers want to attribute stuff then putting the history in the talk page as Geo Swan has done seems fair enough, though for non-deleted pages, a link to Wikipedia achieves the same end more simply. I suspect that few contributors actually care either way whether their usernames are attached (I don't), but any that do could always request an attribution. Overall, Occam's razor inclines me to not bother importing contributor histories unless there's a special reason. Robin (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2014 (GMT)
