is a generalization of DocumentMode by allowing
	* '''a nonempty signed''' list of contributors.
	* '''several Document Mode contributions''' on different pages, covering the same base contributions
	* short author tags (for example, '''<PK>''') at the beginning of a contribution to denote the source. These tags are for feedback, but are to be deleted if somebody else modifies the text. They are ''not'' signs of ownership. Usage is optional.

-- FridemarPache, PanuKalliokoski
-----
'''Discussion::'''

AuthorIsContent
----
This page could give a self describing example.

I put at the top a signed intro that could be expanded to a SignedDocument by incorporating the following contributions (hopefully not empty).

Other FriendlyPeerContributor''s'' could enrich it by EditHint''s''.
If the primary author accepts them he incorporates them.

As each contributor is inherently biased by his own interests and view filters, this SignedDocument in DocumentMode may not reflect the discussion in the sense of some participants appropriately.

'''Solution::''' Another author presents his/her SignedDocument to distill the discussion. ''(Even the Gospel has four Signed Views. We call them the Gospel according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, John)''

-- FridemarPache
----
Is the intent that the signature stakes a claim to the opening statement?
	 :	The author's motivation is given in AddressedAndSignedMessage. -- fp

Do you think you now "own" this page? If so, do you really think this is the best way to enhance Wiki?
	 :	It is an experimental option, nobody is forced to select it, if it runs counter their feelings, reasoning, interests. Besides that, it's a test, if opinions and suggestions can be expressed freely in this Wikiforum. -- fp
----
''Do you think you now "own" this page?''

	 :	Each contributor has copyright. If no contributor signs, WardCunningham has the copyright. That wouldn't be a problem. But what if somebody else we don't know (with a lower integrity level than Ward) buys/gets the wiki? Then all our work might be lost or transformed to its contrary. -- fp

Above statement WRT copyright is not accurate. Anonymous works belong to their authors, not the publishing entity. Ward may have some form of CollectiveWork copyright over the entirety, but short, original contributions (such as this one), remain copyrighted, despite their anonymity. US law, reasonably standard across Berne signatories. -- anon.

Is anyone aware of actual cases involving copyright disputes over collections of unsigned works? Is "fair use" relevant?

More to the point, who could establish their right to sue without proof that they were the editor?

'''''Hmm.''' Perhaps we are asking the wrong question here. Is it not better to ask whether a particular contributor wishes his entry to remain undisturbed rather than to receive "publishing" credit for it? I have had to sign entries on this Wiki to keep them from being deleted or altered into something I did not wish to say. Only secondarily was I concerned with attribution. -- MartySchrader, heh''
----
See: WikiCopyRights

CategoryMode