W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Important: Preserve Content Attribution

From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:10:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPwaZpVt2mE7LfgPBzWsNAiXctP10EdKj4fJRCz6HGNd6She4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Cc: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:59 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a way to add a class to <body> (or some other container) with the
> role of the user (user, administrator, blabla)?
>

If I recall correctly, the answer is no (but I imagine we should be able to
add it easily; we've wanted to do this to change how Editorial_Note's are
displayed for different users).

If so, using CSS, I guess we could just hide that section according to the
> role, assuming -
> - The ID/class is persistent for that section.
> - There is an ID/class for a new page form (but maybe we can leverage
> #hash and :target).
>

That's not a fool proof solution, obviously, but it would prevent
accidental removals at least. We'd also want a way to* *allow non-admins to
*add *attribution (for example if they're bringing in some MDN content as
described in http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:External_Attribution) but
not remove it.

>
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 16:11:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:37 UTC