I guess Wikimedia has to sue them.

Wikipedia doesn't *ask* for an attribution, the GFDL licence all its content is published under *requires* an attribution to permit re-use, and every single article page has "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) " at the bottom, so difficult to see how AFP can deny any knowledge of the requirement!

Or maybe it's Wikipedia which copies AFP.... Or maybe the man who wrote the story added information to wikipedia from AFP article.
You should be careful with this kind of articles ;)

Tadeusz: Thats the job of the original authors, not Wikimedia (at least under German law).

TOMHTML: You can check out the history. It is pretty obvious that AFP took parts from the evolved article and tranformed it.

"so difficult to see how AFP can deny any knowledge of the requirement" ??

Be'coz by acknowledgment that would infer that a major part of their article was plagiarised!!

Tom : Wiki history can be checked in revserve chronlogical order to see page variance .. and who changed what..

Alison:
> Wikipedia doesn't *ask* for an attribution, the GFDL
> licence all its content is published under *requires* an
> attribution to permit re-use

ask (ăsk)
v., asked, ask·ing, asks.
...
5. To require or call for as a price or condition: *asked ten dollars for the book.*
http://www.answers.com/ask&r=67

AFP caved in and issued a statement asking news publishers to retract the article...