 |
 |
You have a point, Pat. An attribution that says not just "Wikipedia" but "Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA", with separate links to the source and the licence, would be more in line with the requirements of the licence. On 27 January 2014 11:54, Pat Lockley <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Well it gets interesting because > > CC license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, *provide a link to the > license*, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any > reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses > you or your use. > > ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material,* you > must distribute your contributions under the same license* as the > original. (my emphasis) > > However > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License(which is the license you reach by clicking on the link at the bottom of > the page) is different (no explicit requirement to link to the license, "you > may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a > compatible license." says the Wiki page, "you must distribute your > contributions under the same license<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/#> as > the original." (emphasis not mine) says CC ) > > So they don't seem to be in breach of the Wikipedia CC license, but the > equivalent CC license they do seem to be in breach of. I don't quite get > why the license is different? > > Arguing around other definitions seems to be a secondary point if the > license isn't respected (which you'd think perhaps is a reason people > contribute) > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:31 AM, David Kernohan <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> I agree with Martin – this is surely more exposure for Wikipedia, and >> allows quick queries (“who *is *Lawrence Lessig?”) to be answered >> without the user loading the page. >> >> >> >> The Register is an entertaining read, but like other tabloids it has an >> interest in the sensational… >> >> >> >> Apart from Verity Stob, who is brilliant. >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> - >> >> David Kernohan >> >> Jisc >> >> >> >> *From:* Open Educational Resources [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On >> Behalf Of *M L Poulter, ALSPAC >> *Sent:* 27 January 2014 10:52 >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Google Vs OER >> >> >> >> The difference Phil highlights is significant. CC-BY-SA, and the other >> licences used by Wikipedia and Wikimedia, mean that those sites are free >> cultural works according to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . >> CC-BY-NC-SA is not "free" by this definition. >> >> IANAL but Google's use of content from Wikipedia doesn't seem to violate >> the licence, in that they give attribution in the form of a link (pity >> about the faint text) and they don't seem to try to re-license the content. >> >> The BBC use a great deal of Wikipedia text on their own site, to flesh >> out pages about species or about musicians. Again, I take that as a win for >> OER: it's exactly the sort of thing that free-and-open enables. The BBC's >> not claiming authorship of the content, and they are adding value by >> combining the text with unique audio and video. >> >> >> >> Maybe the net effect of Google's changes for Wikipedia is that there are >> now prominent links to Wikipedia for searches where the top result is not a >> Wikipedia article. Search for "peter murray rust" for example. It makes it >> all the more odd that The Register should spin this as Google "stabbing" >> Wikipedia. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 January 2014 16:13, Pat Lockley <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> my mistake, but the point about the licence holds >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> On 24/01/2014 12:55, Pat Lockley wrote: >> >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/13/google_stabs_wikipedia_in_the_front/ >> >> Tells an interesting tale as to Google's Knowledge Graph reducing traffic >> to Wikipedia. The knowledge graph is often displayed on search results when >> extra information exists - you can see an example here >> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carreg+cennen+castle >> >> Note that this item is based on Wikipedia, on text which has been >> provided by volunteers and is, you'd assume CC-BY-NC-SA. >> >> >> Why would you assume that when the licence displayed at the bottom of >> every wikipedia page says CC-BY-SA? >> Phil >> >> -- >> <http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/> >> >> >> >> ----- Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013 >> Top in the UK for student experience >> Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey >> 2012) >> >> >> We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join >> us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please >> see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how >> to apply. >> >> Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity >> registered under charity number SC000278. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr Martin Poulter >> Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador June 2013-March 2014 >> http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/ >> > > -- Dr Martin L Poulter New Media Manager ALSPAC (Children of the 90s) School of Social and Community Medicine University of Bristol Oakfield House Oakfield Grove Bristol BS8 2BN UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 3394 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac Follow us on Twitter: @CO90s