On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 19:21 -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 08:03:59AM +0900, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 15:34 -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
> > At SELF I spoke with Spot about attribution in docs. The CC license does
> > not specify the means in which we provide attribution for work we use in
> > our documentation. I'm specifically concerned about how to attribute work
> > that originates on the wiki that makes it into formal documentation.
> > I'd like to establish a standard for doing this. Does anyone have any
> Specifically with regard to wiki additions, it would not be impossible
> for either a plugin to assemble a list of names who contributed to beats
> that became guides -- but there would need to be a set of rules so that
> minor proofing edits (punctuation, spelling, rephrasing, etc.) were
> identified in a different class from the main content contributions.
I think this could *easily* be done by the use of the "minor edit" switch when
you commit a change. Of course I have no idea how consistent people have been
with using this.
I was thinking this, but the consistency issue you point out is why I
said nothing of it. Someone is going to think their addition of a few
critical sentences of truly fresh information is a minor edit while
another is going to think that their accumulated punctuation corrections
constitute a major contribution.
So... automating this process with the diff function built in to
Wikipedia is where I would go with things. And herein lies the creeping
complexity. The alternative is to just not classify any wiki edits and
provide an un-classed list of names of people who have touched the beat
page. The complexity lies in deciding the threshold for classification,
not in the mechanic of gathering names.
> Anyway, the basic idea I have to simplify things is have a
> generates a back-page on the wiki, say on a tab next to the "discussion"
> back page (or drops a file somewhere, or whatever), that contains a list
> of names with contribution category tags (edit, proofing, writer, etc.)
> if possible. That list would be folded into the attribution page/section
> of the formal documentation and we'd at least know who was involved in
> writing what.
I like the idea and it would be very helpful with the initial gathering of
information. Now how do we display that information in the formal guides?
Appendix? Footnote? Author listing?
In the interest of simplicity, adding an Appendix E or an additional
section to D (Appendix D is usually "Revision History" in the final
documentation it seems) which just contained a list of contributors
would at least be a standard way of doing this. In any case, they should
be at the end, not the beginning, of the document. Consider that some
beats accumulate a lot of edits from a lot of people -- a ten-screen
list of names is not something I want to scroll through every time I
open a new guide on docs.rh.c or docs.fp.o.
Of course, a completely different solution could be to lock the beat
page that became an official guide (sort of how rawhide is forever, but
Fedora versions get frozen at a certain point) and place a link to the
history page of the wiki beat in the final guide document. This would
require that the URL never changes, of course. Not sure how well this
would sit with people, either -- but its an alternative idea.