Wikipedia talk:Attribution does not require blame

"Blame" term

As mentioned in the Glossary section, Git's command is blame. Apache Subversion (SVN) uses blame also, while Concurrent Versions System (CVS) and Mercurial use annotate.

I am open to another term, but "blame" has widespread adoption. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Also Version control#Blame, which Cryptic linked. Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

RD1 discussions

I searched for and found many discussions about WP:Revision deletion#1 and attribution requirements.

• WT:Revision deletion/Archive 1#Community consultation (2009)
  • WT:Revision deletion/Archive 1#Some questions
• WP:Copying within Wikipedia promoted to guideline WT:Copying within Wikipedia/Archive 1#Guideline proposal (November 2009)
• WT:Copying within Wikipedia/Archive 1#Article history cleanup, future Revision deletions (2009)
• Revision deletion enabled for admins WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 76#Activated Single-Revision Deletion (May 2010)
• WT:Revision deletion/Archive 2#Update on limitations required / clarification of policy (2010)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Revision deletion needed (2010)
  • Notified WT:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Archive 4#Category:Requested RD1 redactions
• WP:Copyright problems/2011 November 11
• WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording (2014)
  • Started after WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Breach of copyright in a locked article
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Revdel requests (RD1) (2014)
• WT:Revision deletion#RfC on Change RD1-wording (2017)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Inappropriate revision deletion at Beating of Ken Tsang (2017)
• WP:Copyright problems/2017 April 28
  • Mentioned Talk:Female child molesters#Copyright problem removed
• WT:Copyrights/Archive 16#RD1 in case of old edits (2020)
  • Talk:Pinsk#CCI review
  • WT:Copyright problems/Archive 21#30 appreciated for whether this deletion revision is justified
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Copyvio that persisted for 13 years (2021)
  • User_talk:Diannaa/Archive 75#Reasoning about RD1
• WT:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits (2021–, continuing)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh (2022)
  • WMF Legal's response: Special:Diff/1068782406

Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I added two more discussions and two key dates: when WP:Copying within Wikipedia was promoted to guideline and when revision deletion was enabled for administrators. WP:CWW is relevant because there had been a lack of documentation for attribution. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• I added WMF Legal's response and indicated that a recent discussion is continuing. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• One discussion was archived. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit by Uanfala

Uanfala edited this essay to be more favorable to their interpretation, and I reverted. This page is cited by WT:Revision deletion#Attribution does not require blame to provide background, and the related WT:Revision deletion#RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1 is still open. I am organizing specific objections to the changes. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there any specifically in my changes that you disagree with? – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the license requirements has been a recurring problem in the many discussions linked above. This essay's aim is addressing that, and restricting its context is key. Your out-of-scope additions undermine that.

1. "Attribution" is defined in the Glossary section, and your expanded interpretation is a distraction. It has very little support: I don't recall anyone agreeing with it at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh or WT:Revision deletion#"Attribution" in RD1.
2. Filtering the list of authors is called out by the Terms of Use, but I believe that it is rarely worth the effort in practice. For example, Talk:A Girl Asleep/Attribution (from Category:Pages used to preserve attribution) clearly includes bots. Mentioning it is trivia.
3. The essay's focus is what the license allows us to do, without taking a stance on what we should do. The previous criticisms also apply here.

Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

But all the additional issues were discussed there and I don't remember anyone objecting to those points when they were made. And it was exactly in those discussions that it came to light that some licences, like CC 4.0, do require "blame". But anyway, I realise that I shouldn't be interfering here: this is your own personal essay and you should be free to have the final say over it. I still believe that any discussion of "attribution" should set things in their wider content, but for that end I'd best take my efforts elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)