A way to make crediting authors slightly more palatable

[Larry Sanger]

One thing that would make it much more palatable to me that we give credit to authors is that they get credit only if some minimum benchmark number of people have contributed.  If you're the only person who has worked on the article, you get no credit.  In fact, we might say that you can get credit only if, say, five people have worked on the article.

Moreover, if ContribBot is sophisticated enough, moreover, it might make the rules sophisticated.  E.g., two people can be credited, but only if one of them has done at least 30% of the article.  Five people can be credited only if all five have made substantive edits (defined somehow...).

This would remove my main objection to the scheme, which is that people will start creating large numbers of articles, and then essentially shoo away other people because the articles are "their" articles.

Moreover, there would have to be a notice, right where the names are visible, stating that no single person or set group of people is responsible for the article--or the fact that someone is listed does not give the person special rights over the article--or something like that.

I think some of you still may not fully realize how crucially important it is, psychologically, that we feel entirely free to edit any page.  Remove that, and you've removed the engine that drives the wiki.

[Robert_W_King]

One thing that would make it much more palatable to me that we give credit to authors is that they get credit only if some minimum benchmark number of people have contributed.  If you're the only person who has worked on the article, you get no credit.  In fact, we might say that you can get credit only if, say, five people have worked on the article.

Moreover, if ContribBot is sophisticated enough, moreover, it might make the rules sophisticated.  E.g., two people can be credited, but only if one of them has done at least 30% of the article.  Five people can be credited only if all five have made substantive edits (defined somehow...).

This would remove my main objection to the scheme, which is that people will start creating large numbers of articles, and then essentially shoo away other people because the articles are "their" articles.

Moreover, there would have to be a notice, right where the names are visible, stating that no single person or set group of people is responsible for the article--or the fact that someone is listed does not give the person special rights over the article--or something like that.

I think some of you still may not fully realize how crucially important it is, psychologically, that we feel entirely free to edit any page.  Remove that, and you've removed the engine that drives the wiki.

I assumed that articles would have more than one contributor on a wiki.  To have only one individual dominate the entire work implies an element of "ownership" which is a shared anti-sentiment.

[Stephen Ewen]

One thing that would make it much more palatable to me that we give credit to authors is that they get credit only if some minimum benchmark number of people have contributed.  If you're the only person who has worked on the article, you get no credit.  In fact, we might say that you can get credit only if, say, five people have worked on the article.

This figure of five provides a terrible disincentive for one to three authors to collaborate to craft an outstanding article.  This figure of five is not even the way a lot of articles work at WP, where a great deal (even most) of the better quality articles are the result of one to three people, with others performing only minor roles.

Moreover, there would have to be a notice, right where the names are visible, stating that no single person or set group of people is responsible for the article--or the fact that someone is listed does not give the person special rights over the article--or something like that.

Depends on what you mean by "responsible."  Fact is, if Person X wrote 90% of an article, he's responsible for it existing on the wiki.  If by "responsible" you mean "Person X has no special rights over Version 1.2 of the approved article, or the inputs and outputs that will be responsible for it, point conceded.

On the sum, you just have to make sure the message is very clear: you don't own the article, even if you wrote it 100%.  No one owns the articles.  Version 1.2 of the approved article may look very different, and it may see your placement in the author stream look very differently.  If you do not want to see your text mercilessly edited by others, then don't submit it. 

As for crediting being off-putting to new contributors of approved articles, I very seriously doubt it.  Please help this article improve further on the draft page, already placed atop the page, is about as plain and inviting as one can make it.
 

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I disagree about the minimum number of contributors, and completely agree about the openness of article authorship. To take an example, of our latest article of the week on the symphony, I doubt that anyone will find the need to make as much as 30% changes. If individual authors write first-rate articles, as they do on EB, and they are approved, where is the problem? You are not going to get enough expert participation without some acknoweldgement, other than as editors. This debate goes to the heart of a vision about what CZ should be..

[Larry Sanger]

I'm not committed to the number five; it's just a number I picked out of thin air.  Depending on how it works, I would be happy with two, as I said.  However, Steve, I disagree that "most of the best work will be the result from less than five."  Our very best articles involve usually more than five people.  If you can find a single counterexample among our approved articles, I'll be impressed.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree--strongly, in fact--with the notion that we must or should credit people at all.  Credit implies ownership and exclusive control, and control is directly contradictory to the collaborative nature of our project.  Just think of how people are.  They see their name on something, and then it becomes theirs.  Even without names on an article, the sense of exclusive ownership is already a serious problem on Wikipedia, and from time to time it has been on CZ.  Giving credit will only feed this monster.

For this same reason, I'd be very uncomfortable distinguishing people based on how much they have contributed.  Official categories or measures of "how much I've contributed" would, again, be something that people would use to compete, to bash each over the head with, and that would, in the long run, undermine the project.

I have been keenly aware, since early in the days of Wikipedia, that there is a very sharp tension between collaboration, on the one hand, and competition, on the other.  They don't go well together.  This is ultimately the source of a lot of Wikipedia's problems: they have made number of edits and number of articles created into a competition, with the (unofficial) prize being epistemic authority, i.e., the authority to make decisions about article content.  They may deny this, but if you're familiar with Wikipedia, you know it's true.  On CZ, we know, however, that such authority should be conferred based on real knowledge, or expertise, which is not at all correlated with quantity of work on Wikipedia.  (Might be slightly negatively correlated.)

Anyway, however that may be, as long as I am Editor-in-Chief, I will veto any proposal that says we will give credit to a single author, on a regular article page, when in fact there has just been one author, so far, of that article.  I draw a line there.

As to the minimum number needed, five might not be a bad idea, actually.  It would encourage people to get other people involved in their articles.  "Come here and help me with the article, and we'll both get credit."

[Joe Quick]

For one, I don't see any need to actually list how much of an article someone is responsible for.  And I would set the threshold much lower than 30% for a person to be credited explicitly rather than be included among the ever-present "et al."  5% might even be too high.  This means that even if a person did write 89% of an article, she'll still be sharing credit with "et al." and one or two other people who are listed individually.  But we have no need to advertise how much each of those three added.  In fact, we could list names alphabetically if we want to.  Or we could make it a practice to list the original contributor first and then list everyone else alphabetically (so there is an incentive to start an article and get it on its way to approval).

I think we can use credit in this way to underline the fact that all of our very best articles are collaborative efforts, and if you want to see your name on an approved article some day, then you're going to have to be open to input from others.  We can even push this a step farther by giving credit only on approved articles, where there will inevitably be more than one name included.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Larry, you are quite wrong that crediting implies ownership or control. You are confusing this with copyright. It is therefore vital that CZ simultaneously resolves the copyright issues and credits. It is normal for authors to transfer copyright to publishers; I do not know if people will accept this in the case of CZ, but they might if there is proper acknowledgement of their work.

I am rather disturbed that you insist on the right of veto, even over any potential Editorial Council resolution. At some point, CZ will need to "grow up" and exist on its own terms, without an individual guiding it. Admittedly, at the moment we are nowhere near that point and we need your dynamism and ideas to make things work. On the other hand, you will not get much support from academics by laying down rules which nobody else supports. Personally, I have no real problem because I have not written much on CZ. I think you should consult with people who have, and get their opinions. I am pretty sure I know what their position is.

[Hayford Peirce]

I think Larry is talking about *emotional* ownership of the article, not copyright stuff. Someone who has worked on an article off and on for months, done a lot of research, did most of the writing, etc. tends to feel a certain proprietary interest about that article. It's human nature. That's Larry's concern.

As for: "Or we could make it a practice to list the original contributor first and then list everyone else alphabetically (so there is an incentive to start an article and get it on its way to approval)."

I think this opens another can of worms. There is at least one present author who has created a large number of article with nothing more than a single sentence, then disappears entirely. (Aren't these stubs supposed to be quickly deleted? I don't think they are....) Is s/he to get Number One mention for this?  It will only incite a bunch of other people to create thousands of one-liners....

[Aleta Curry]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

I think we're going to need that clear restating of the ideas on the table soon, because the conversation keeps getting cluttered.

I think Larry is talking about *emotional* ownership of the article, not copyright stuff. Someone who has worked on an article off and on for months, done a lot of research, did most of the writing, etc. tends to feel a certain proprietary interest about that article. It's human nature. That's Larry's concern.

Yes, I've always understood that to be Larry's concern here.  But that is just how we humans are, it occurs regardless, and that needs to be separated from the idea of crediting authors.  We're responsible, thinking adults, not children.

Are we all talking about approved articles only?  Is that a good point of departure?  Because if we are, a lot of these other issues go away, like

1.

there is at least one present author who has created a large number of article with nothing more than a single sentence, then disappears entirely. (Aren't these stubs supposed to be quickly deleted? I don't think they are....) Is s/he to get Number One mention for this?  It will only incite a bunch of other people to create thousands of one-liners....

Yeah, I agree, but different issue altogether.  Let's not mix it in here.

and

2.

I think some of you still may not fully realize how crucially important it is, psychologically, that we feel entirely free to edit any page.

I do, too, realise that.  If an article is approved, we're not free to edit it, we go to D-R-A-F-T.  Next!

3.

when in fact there has just been one author, so far, of that article.  I draw a line there.

 
"So far"?  Again, that is moot for approved articles.

Or we could make it a practice to list the original contributor first and then list everyone else alphabetically (so there is an incentive to start an article and get it on its way to approval).

I still agree with you that there's room for some form of acknowledging the OA (at least, the OA for articles developed past stub), but Lee is right, this is in addition to, not instead of.  It does not take the place of crediting authors for legitimate work.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree--strongly, in fact--with the notion that we must or should credit people at all. 

Yes, we know you disagree.  You're outnumbered.  Actually, "and he's not only merely outnumbered, he's  really, most sincerely outnumbered."

Credit implies ownership and exclusive control,

No, it doesn't.  Why do you keep harping on that?

If people start acting as if they think it does, they need to be educated by a strong, united, focussed community.

Anyway, however that may be, as long as I am Editor-in-Chief, I will veto any proposal that says we will give credit to a single author, on a regular article page, when in fact there has just been one author, so far, of that article.  I draw a line there.

 

Okay, that's really upsetting.  And again, in any case, it's probably unnecessary.

[Stephen Ewen]

Anyway, however that may be, as long as I am Editor-in-Chief, I will veto any proposal that says we will give credit to a single author, on a regular article page, when in fact there has just been one author, so far, of that article.  I draw a line there.

No need to leave things up to the role of the dice of someone else not showing up.  In that case, T will take his fantastic article on A to competitor Y (e.g., the EoE) where he will be credited.  Simple as that. 

[Stephen Ewen]

Credit implies ownership and exclusive control, and control is directly contradictory to the collaborative nature of our project.  Just think of how people are.  They see their name on something, and then it becomes theirs.  Even without names on an article, the sense of exclusive ownership is already a serious problem on Wikipedia, and from time to time it has been on CZ.  Giving credit will only feed this monster.

I think that's actually kinda silly although I appreciate the concern. 1) this would only be done for approved articles and they will ALWAYS be an author of THAT version of the approved article, and since it would be citable it should always be always linkable; 2) the info will be placed on a subpage; 3) people come and go anyway, as you've noted before; 4) we just make it clear in the policy that credit does not mean special rights and that the draft will be edited by others mercilessly, and you can't and do not want to stop it.

Try a three month pilot.  Each article brought to approval during that period gets credited.   

[Stephen Ewen]

I'm not committed to the number five; it's just a number I picked out of thin air.  Depending on how it works, I would be happy with two, as Steve, I disagree that "most of the best work will be the result from less than five."  Our very best articles involve usually more than five people.  If you can find a single counterexample among our approved articles, I'll be impressed.

Subjective, obviously, based on a quick run through of edit histories:

One major contributor
--Jane Addams
--Ancient Celtic music
--Barnardius zonarius
--Crystal Palace
--Demographic transition
--Dog
--Edward I
--Fertility (demography)
--Frederick Twort
--Gaius Iulius Caesar (name)
--John Franklin
--Literature
--Nathanael Greene
--Pittsburgh, History to 1800
--Pittsburgh, History since 1800
--Shirley Chisholm

One, maybe two
--Northwest Passage
--Telephone newspaper
--Terrorism

Two major contributors
--Butler
--Felix d'Herelle (one CZ contributor and one Wikipedian I could name)
--Horizontal gene transfer
--Infant colic
--Joan of Arc

Three or more
--Barbara McClintock (based on WP article; several major CZ contributors
--Biology
--Chemistry
--Chiropractic
--Life
--Metabolism
--Prime number
--RNA interference
--Theodor Lohmann (based on a WP German article; two major CZ contributors took it from there)
--Vertebral subluxation
--Wheat

[Larry Sanger]

One major contributor

Well, of course you could find examples where there have been only one major contributor.  I meant where there had been only one (or even two or three) contributors, period.

I think that's actually kinda silly although I appreciate the concern.

If you think that an avowedly serious concern of the person who is more responsible than any other for the success of Wikipedia is "kinda silly"--a concern about something that would effect our long-term viability--well, I find that kinda funny, Steve.  And not worth a serious reply.

Try a three month pilot.  Each article brought to approval during that period gets credited.  

If we do a pilot at all, it will be of a program such as I suggest.  If.

[Joe Quick]

As for: "Or we could make it a practice to list the original contributor first and then list everyone else alphabetically (so there is an incentive to start an article and get it on its way to approval)."

I think this opens another can of worms. There is at least one present author who has created a large number of article with nothing more than a single sentence, then disappears entirely. (Aren't these stubs supposed to be quickly deleted? I don't think they are....) Is s/he to get Number One mention for this?  It will only incite a bunch of other people to create thousands of one-liners....

I agree, actually.  I'm just trying to find some sort of middle ground where we can get started with something.  I'd rather see us come to a compromise than have nothing at all.  So here's where I think we should start:

(1) No credit except on approved articles - By then, there will be more than one person who made a major contribution.  This means that we don't have to deal with "ownership" issues, since no one person can claim the article.

(2) Simple 3% threshold - We end up crediting a lot of people.  Which reinforces the benefits from (1) in that it is very clear that no article is the work of a single person.  We can adjust this number as needed, but I think it should start low for the reasons above.

(3) Contributors are listed alphabetically - There is no hierarchy that suggests that one person 'owns' the article any more than any of the others.

(3b) No numbers related to a person's level of contribution are listed in the credit - Someone who really cares could figure this out, but it won't be any easier than it is now.  No numbers means the credit makes no statements regarding "ownership." Numbers are used by the calculator only, which happens behind the scenes and is not released.

Simple, right? Is there a specific issue that you disagree with?

If I have to keep listening to everyone continue to dismiss each other out of hand and reject whole plans on a single minor point, I'm going to vomit and then give up.  Please, let's search for a middle ground.  It doesn't help the project to continually get hung up on issues like this.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Well, I don't  reject (and I hope, haven't ever done so) any proposals out of hand. However, there is a very big issue which has emerged in this thread, which is "who makes CZ policy?" I doubt that any progress will be made in this area of crediting authors without making progress in the policy area, since certain statements have been made here concerning not the ownership of articles [which I think we all reject] but actually about the ownership of CZ.