Attribution survey, first results

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
69 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Attribution survey, first results

Erik Moeller-4
Hello all,

as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend
to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please
note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so,
so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do
so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514

We have 570 complete responses so far, of which only 1.23% have stated
that they do not edit. On a 5 point scale where 5 represents multiple
hours of editing per week 45.79% have answered 5, 18.60% have answered
4, 19.12% have answered 3, and 13.33% have answered 2.

The key piece of data is that 80.89% of respondents have answered as
their first option that either no credit is needed (12.11%), credit
can be given to the community (27.37%), credit can be given by linking
to the article (30.18%), or by linking to the version history
(11.23%).

Most frequently ranked last is no credit (45.79%) and a full list of
authors (33.51%). Many people also left choice comments regarding the
notion of a full list of authors. Most frequently ranked
second-to-last is "link online, full list of authors offline". Only
4.38% ranked "link to the article" last or second-to-last.

IMO these results demonstrate a fairly strong and shared understanding
in the community of the tension between freedom to re-use and author
credit, while also showing that a simple solution, such as credit by
linking in all cases, would probably be acceptable to the largest
number of contributors. However, I'll leave further interpretation of
the results for later. Part of the reason that I want to run the
survey in the German Wikipedia is that I anticipate we might see
significantly different opinions there, due to a historically stronger
emphasis on author credit. But we'll see. :-)

More soon,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/3 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> Hello all,
>
> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
> publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend
> to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please
> note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so,
> so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do
> so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514

Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
of what is acceptable under the license.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/3/3 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> Hello all,
>>
>> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
>> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
>> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
>> publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend
>> to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please
>> note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so,
>> so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do
>> so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514
>>    
>
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
> of what is acceptable under the license.
>  

While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
if taken in the absolute.

Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
mission.

There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
as it can go".


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
>> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
>> of what is acceptable under the license.
>>
>
> While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
> statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
> if taken in the absolute.
>
> Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
> transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
> clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
> of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
> mission.
>
> There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
> as it can go".

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has
certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would
satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide
which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to
decide that things not on that list are acceptable.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>    
>>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
>>> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds
>>> of what is acceptable under the license.
>>>
>>>      
>> While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your
>> statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable
>> if taken in the absolute.
>>
>> Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be
>> transgressed. But there are many, many, many things
>> clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds
>> of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our
>> mission.
>>
>> There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far
>> as it can go".
>>    
>
> I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has
> certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would
> satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide
> which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to
> decide that things not on that list are acceptable.
>
>  

The source of your confusion is simple. You think I disagree
with you, when I (plainly worded and quoted by you) find
"nothing I disagree logically with in your statement".

I simply do not disagree with you. Period.

But you do introduce a very specific staement in your
confusion that can help to progress further gains in
understanding.

You say specifically that "Community opinion should be
used to decide which items on that list we consider
acceptable, it can't be used to decide that things not
on that list are acceptable."

I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
they were infact contrary to our mission.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>:
> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
> things were on that list, that would not make them
> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
> they were infact contrary to our mission.

Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable
to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that
both need to be satisfied.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
>> things were on that list, that would not make them
>> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
>> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
>> they were infact contrary to our mission.
>>    
>
> Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable
> to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that
> both need to be satisfied.
>
>  

Actually, what the CC lawyers would say, would *not*
constitute what is legal. it would just be some vague
interpretation of their intents and understandings; and
I doubt they would even confidentially let anyone know
*all* their views of possible legal ramifications.

It is not true that some concrete and definable "what
is legal" should be satisfied. In fact it would be contrary
to many of our core mission issues to satisfy many
"what is legal" criteria, in quite a few jurisdictions.

And not just in China, but quite palpably also in the UK.
(Crown Copyright for instance).

What we do want to enable though, is interoperability
within reasonable limits of concordance with our mission,
and jurisdictional issues of importing, exporting content
and keeping it generally in play within a copyleft framework.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers?

We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

geni
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>

What is their line of reasoning on that?



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Geoffrey Plourde
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.




________________________________
From: geni <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

2009/3/4 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>

What is their line of reasoning on that?



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

jokarwilis2005
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
My is my live please give some information about trafic to my blog http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
------Original Message------
From: geni
Sender: [hidden email]
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:41 AM

2009/3/4 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>

What is their line of reasoning on that?



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

jokarwilis2005
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .....http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com 
Because my blog is low trafic
------Original Message------
From: Erik Moeller
Sender: [hidden email]
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM

2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers?

We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Philippe|Wiki
Ahem.  List mods?


___________________
philippe
[hidden email]


[[en:User:Philippe]]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .....http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
> Because my blog is low trafic
> ------Original Message------
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sender: [hidden email]
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
> Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
>
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry®
> powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

jokarwilis2005
Please help me about my blog bacause I am new star making blog m...give me some idea
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

-----Original Message-----
From: philippe <[hidden email]>

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:52:58
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results


Ahem.  List mods?


___________________
philippe
[hidden email]


[[en:User:Philippe]]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .....http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
> Because my blog is low trafic
> ------Original Message------
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sender: [hidden email]
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
> Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
>
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>_______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry®
> powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
>_______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.

And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.

From: geni <[hidden email]>
What is their line of reasoning on that?

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>wrote:

> They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.


Yeah, that's why their line of reasoning is so interesting.

Specifically, I wonder under what circumstances they propose
"attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model" (quote by Erik, not
CC).  Is that dependent on the type of content, the terms of service, the
medium of distribution?  Or is it universal, and they believe that
"attribution-by-URL" is per se valid for everything distributed under
CC-BY-*?  Is there any possibility of getting a statement from them
directly, rather than playing telephone game?

It'd also be interesting to hear someone try to reconcile this fact with the
notion that the GFDL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA.  I'd also be
interested in hearing from the FSF on this issue.  What do they think the
attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA are, and has this changed since they
released GFDL 1.3?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

geni
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
2009/3/4 Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>:
> They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.

So? Their line of reasoning will still be very much based on the
questions asked and the outcomes they have considered.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
>

1) Have the numbers been released?  All I saw was a selective summary.
2) What do you think they're conclusive of?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/4 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
>> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
>> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
>>
>
> 1) Have the numbers been released?  All I saw was a selective summary.
> 2) What do you think they're conclusive of?

The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient
to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community
will be happy with attribution by URL.

My one concern with the survey is that the options were not
particularly clearly defined - I'm not sure everyone taking it would
have understood what the online/offline split was all about.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution survey, first results

Anthony-73
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/3/4 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> > 1) Have the numbers been released?  All I saw was a selective summary.
> > 2) What do you think they're conclusive of?
>
> The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient
> to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community
> will be happy with attribution by URL.


Less than half of people answering the survey ranked attribution by URL
first.

You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be
happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
"credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by
URL.  But these people will also probably be happy with attribution by
listing of authors.  So you can easily draw the conclusion that a
significant majority of the community will by happy with attribution by
listing of authors.  In fact, making your assumption you could say that the
survey showed that 100% of them are happy with it.


> My one concern with the survey is that the options were not
> particularly clearly defined - I'm not sure everyone taking it would
> have understood what the online/offline split was all about.


It was horribly designed, but this much seems true -  1 in 5 Wikipedians
surveyed expect that an offline copy of a Wikipedia article to which they
have contributed, will contain their name.  But according to Creative
Commons, CC-BY-SA does not require such attribution.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234