So long as humans are the content creators however, I think it’s better to credit the people involved — up until artificial intelligence starts writing pieces.
Vikram, thank you for raising a very vital issue here. I was reading the fine print of Medium and there too, it is quite obvious that the ownership of the “idea” should remain with the producer or creator of the idea, not with Medium. Therefore, citing Medium as the source is clearly mis-attribution.
This then brings up another point. Medium being a platform within a publishing framework of the web, if you will is like a recursive publishing platform. First, you have the web. Then, nested within web, we have a publishing platform where we are producing our work. Here too, are layers. The first, on the surface is the layer of individual creator who writes, shoots photos and videos, writes codes and shares the work or output in his or her own page. Then on the top of this is another layer. This layer is with the publication where the piece appears. Then, Medium as the container provides a holding place, and renders it visible. Medium’s contribution becomes important when Medium plays a role in increasing the visibility of the creative piece as they pay some creators to produce the contents which are preferably voted up to appear into the reading streams of all subscribers of Medium (staff picks publication by default). Where that does not happen, there is no real reason to attribute Medium for this credit any more than thanking the Web, the super container for that matter.
This issue will be increasingly important as we continue to experiment with Medium and learn to use Medium for different outputs such as scholarly publishing. Here, attribution is a major issue; this clarification of the granularity of publishing is very important.
So, thanks Vikram