- From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:10:55 -0800
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAPwaZpVt2mE7LfgPBzWsNAiXctP10EdKj4fJRCz6HGNd6She4A@mail.gmail.com>
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