Re: Important: Preserve Content Attribution

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>wrote:

> +1 to Chris' suggestion.
>
> Requiring the selection of an attribution property at the time of topic
> creation--even if that is "no attribution"--and then locking down that
> property should work. We could make the property editable by an admin,
> though, for when and if it does need to change.


Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's possible to lock down a property on an
otherwise-editable page.  Other MediaWiki gurus may be able to think of a
clever workaround.

>


> I also agree that a statement of our policy around licensing and
> attribution and the reasons that this encourages and protects content
> submission would make a fine blog post.
>

+1

>
> Eliot
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Mills [mailto:cmills@opera.com]
> >Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:16 AM
> >To: Doug Schepers
> >Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
> >Subject: Re: Important: Preserve Content Attribution
> >
> >
> >Chris Mills
> >Opera Software, dev.opera.com
> >W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org Author of "Practical CSS3:
> >Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
> >
> >On 19 Jan 2013, at 06:22, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, folks-
> >>
> >> As an addendum, it may be a good idea for us to investigate how we can
> >make sure that attribution is preserved from removal by casual editors who
> >aren't familiar with our policies.
> >>
> >> There may also be other kinds of information or content that we want to
> be
> >immutable, including any legal advice or security warnings.
> >>
> >> I can think of 2 ways to manage this technically:
> >>
> >> 1) try to find a way to make certain blocks editable only by admins
> >> (with a template somehow?);
> >>
> >> 2) try to find how to make any edits to a particular block send out a
> >notification to some watcher.
> >
> >Nice overview Doug, this kind of information might be interesting as blog
> post
> >... hint hint ;-)
> >
> >We could perhaps have a system whereby when an article is first added, the
> >attribution information is a mandatory field for addition, addable by
> anyone,
> >and then when they've finished  their addition (for now), it gives them a
> >"finalise this article first draft, yes/no" meaning that the content is
> still
> >editable, but certain information is locked down and only editable by
> admins,
> >such as the attribution info...
> >
> >>
> >> I don't know how feasible either of those approaches is... I welcome
> other
> >thoughts.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, maybe we could add some instructions in the template,
> >that show up in the form, that warn people from changing the attribution
> >without careful consideration.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Regards-
> >> -Doug
> >>
> >> On 1/19/13 1:12 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> >>> Hi, folks-
> >>>
> >>> There was a recently a slip-up in which some of the attribution on
> >>> certain pages was removed; this has been corrected... no harm, no foul.
> >>> But I thought it was a good idea to remind (or inform) everyone of
> >>> the importance of attribution.
> >>>
> >>> Attribution is critical to this project, from a legal, practical, and
> >>> motivational perspective.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On the legal side, our license is CC-BY, or Creative Commons
> >>> Attribution. When we agree to the site license, we all agree to honor
> >>> this. Failing to provide attribution, or removing past attribution,
> >>> is a violation of the letter and spirit of this license. Note that
> >>> there are two exception to this:
> >>>
> >>> 1) things that only state facts, and not interpretation, are not
> >>> protected by copyright, and are thus outside the bounds of licensing .
> >>> But this line can be gray... a compilation of facts is protected by
> >>> copyright if the selection and arrangement of the material is
> >>> original; it's safer to provide and preserve attribution
> >>>
> >>> 2) if all the original material from a particular source has been
> >>> excised from the article, attribution for that source can optionally
> >>> be removed; in practice, however, we are only using this to
> >>> deliberately simplify the license the article is available under,
> >>> e.g., if the original content was under CC-BY-SA (Attribution and
> >>> Share Alike), we might remove all the old material so it can be reused
> >under CC-BY.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On the practical side, attribution is used for fame and blame. Fame
> >>> is praising the original contributor for their content, so people
> >>> know who to credit and thank when they are reusing the content. Blame
> >>> is the flip-side of the same coin... it helps users (and reusers) to
> >>> evaluate any possibly bias on the part of the original contributor.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On the motivational side, we are lucky enough to have many primary
> >>> bulk contet contributors, and we hope to have large numbers of
> >>> community contributors over time. Part of what motivates those
> >>> contributors is the aforementioned well-deserved fame... remove that
> >>> attribution, and you undermine motivation, and the project suffers;
> >>> even people who don't want notoriety per se still have a sense of
> >>> fairness, and may be discouraged if their contributions are not
> afforded
> >equal treatment.
> >>> This even affects people who are potential contributors... they see
> >>> how contributions and attributions are handled, and that may affect
> >>> their decision on whether they will start contributing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So, everyone, please remember not to remove existing attribution, and
> >>> always give credit when adding content.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Regards-
> >>> -Doug Schepers
> >>> W3C Developer Relations Lead
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>