Maintain an appropriate level of attribution when editing Wiki pages.
It is a fundamental quality of Wiki that anyone can edit any part of any page at any time. However, special care must be given to refactoring the signed works of others. Deliberately changing the meaning of a contribution, whether directly or through making changes to the context, while preserving the signature, is lying. Adding a signature to an unsigned work, deleting a signature, or changing the name in a signature are also unethical Wiki practices.
Some refactorings can be so drastic that keeping the signatures doesn't seem appropriate, as when replacing a long fact-finding conversation with its conclusions. At the other end of the spectrum, refactorings that simply correct spelling, punctuation or grammar, can improve the reputation of the signatory and benefit the whole Wiki Community.
A signature attaches a name to a piece of writing. This associates opinions with people and gives credit where work has been done. When we edit other peoples work we are responsible for keeping associations correct and giving credit when it is due.
Therefore: Don't delete signatures from opinion pieces or original work and don't change the meaning of a signed work. Signed works can be moved, split up (if the meaning is not distorted), or deleted (if the author's view is accurately represented in some other way). Derivative works can be created using attributed quotes from the original.
Sometimes an editor will want to replace several signed contributions with a summary. There are two main approaches to this:
Refactor By Condensing Conversation through Liberal Distillation Of Thread Mode, in which case you'll maintain attributions throughout the text
paraphrase the points made in those contributions in which case you can maintain attributions through an extended signature (multiple names after the "--") or a "Contributors:" section.
The former is probably preferable to the latter since the "contributors" rarely feel as fully represented if their opinions are paraphrased rather than quoted. In either case you may want to Refactor And Archive the section in case the original works are needed later.
Dialogs that are preserved generally look best if the authors are deliniated by signatures (even an empty signature: "--" will do). Sometimes italics are also used to show changes in authorship but that scheme can only serve a two author conversation.
There are other approaches. Some people believe that Thread Mode itself is bad (Thread Mode Considered Harmful) and that it has lead us to a Tragedy Of The Commons. Others believe that there are cases of Thread Mode Falsely Blamed and that the deeper problem is that Thread Mode is not written well - a problem that is addressed in How To Write And Edit Thread Mode. Of course Document Mode contributions can also be signed but that brings up the sticky issue of Wiki Copy Rights, is generally against the Wiki spirit of collaborative authorship and should probably be avoided.
Is Refactor While Respecting Signatures the wrong approach?
Refactor While Respecting Signatures is wrong. A lot of pages would be better off if Thread Mode and all the signatures were eliminated. People are too hung up on signatures. This is a wiki, not a newsgroup. See Tragedy Of The Commons. -
I think that eliminating signatures entirely would make Wiki an oddity among publishing mediums. Most written materials have a recognized author. I agree that Thread Mode is not the most desirable form for most information but I also value the notion of authorship. -- Phil Goodwin Presumably that was written before Wiki Pedia became popular and respectable. -- Jason Grossman [Wiki Is Not Wikipedia]
I think of signatures like a Christmas tree: Wonderful at first, but you want to throw them out eventually.
Signatures are quite useful at first when you're in hot-and-heavy thread-mode and you may want to single out other conversants to ask them for specific clarifications. But ultimately we are writing to add knowledge, collectively, to the Wiki (see Our Words Not Mine).
Meanwhile we have the (following two phenomena Creative Commmons and Wiki Nomics not yet reflected in Wards Wiki):
www.google.com 
and enter the age of
www.google.com (where "Masscommunication changes everything")
so a claim of some orignal "spirit of wiki" might not have the consensus of all engaged wikizens. To rip of Attribution i.e. Author Credit could be seen as theft of Alternative Community Currency. -- Fridemar Pache
<-> www.usemod.com .
See original on c2.com