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

Re: Important: Preserve Content Attribution

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:12:23 -0500
Message-ID: <5102D917.2080508@w3.org>
To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
CC: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Great, thanks!

On 1/25/13 2:01 PM, Scott Rowe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In today's telecon I took the action item to update the
> Template:External_Attribution_Form_Section
> <http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:External_Attribution_Form_Section>
> to include an admonition against removing established external attributions.
>
> You can now see this working when you edit a page and scroll down to the
> Attribution section. For example, the AppCache API_Object page
> <http://docs.webplatform.org/w/index.php?title=apis/appcache/ApplicationCache&action=formedit>.
>
> This is how we resolved the issue, instead of trying to implement a
> locking mechanism or some such, for the time being.
>
> +Scott
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org
> <mailto:cmills@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Or perhaps just check the user's role using PHP (there must be an
>     easily query-able flag for that somewhere), and then for non-admins,
>     don't render those templates.
>
>     If we did it in the client-side, it'd be really easy to overcome
>     using an extension, UserJS or other mechanism.
>
>     Chris Mills
>     Opera Software, dev.opera.com <http://dev.opera.com>
>     W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org <http://webplatform.org>
>     Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
>
>     On 22 Jan 2013, at 15:59, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com
>     <mailto: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 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).
>      >
>      > ☆PhistucK
>      >
>      >
>      > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Alex Komoroske
>     <komoroske@google.com <mailto:komoroske@google.com>> wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Eliot Graff
>     <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com <mailto: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
>     <mailto:cmills@opera.com>]
>      > >Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:16 AM
>      > >To: Doug Schepers
>      > >Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org <mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org>
>      > >Subject: Re: Important: Preserve Content Attribution
>      > >
>      > >
>      > >Chris Mills
>      > >Opera Software, dev.opera.com <http://dev.opera.com>
>      > >W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
>     <http://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
>     <mailto: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
>      > >>>
>      > >>>
>      > >>
>      > >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>
>
>


-- 
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Developer Relations Lead
Project Coordinator for SVG, WebApps, Touch Events, and Audio
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 19:12:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:38 UTC