[Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Saluton ĉiuj,

I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous
Wiktionary User Group talk page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,
because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on this
point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided or that I
might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested to know it,
so please be bold.

Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind that I
stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I wish it a
bright future full of even more amazing things than what it already
brung so far. My sole concern is really a license issue.

Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:

Thank you Lydia Pintscher
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for
taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0>
miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised.

Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the
decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as this
inquiry on the topic
<https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive>
advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice
toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it
short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth
noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work.
Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation,
established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft
co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1]
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>.
To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet
trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of
Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the
research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough
shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some proofs that this
claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact
that was the community that was the driving force behind this single
license choice and that it is the best choice for its future, not the
future of giant tech companies. This would be a great contribution to
bring such a happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue
alone and go back contributing in more interesting topics.

Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.

Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.
    So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal.
This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.
    Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in /Our strategic
    direction: Service and //*Equity*/
    <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>.
    Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That
    is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under
    this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others.
CC-0 is one step towards that.
    That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to
    agree without some convincing proof.
Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in that
it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more
extensively.
    No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is
    data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational database
    or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect. Whether it's
    a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset or some encoded
    prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from this point of view,
    no, what Wikidata store is not different from what is produced
    anywhere else in Wikimedia projects.
    Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things. But
    this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be no
    data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that ease
    aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on.

Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of
statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on a
map and much more.
    Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2]
    <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2>
    of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of
    random bytes.
This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases
attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and
sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only
helped to get the result).
    No, it doesn't mean that.
    First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer makes
    confusion between attribution and distribution of contributions
    under the same license as the original. Attribution is crucial for
    traceability and so for reliable and trusted knowledge that we are
    targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the
    sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted
    knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement
    goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this
    goals.
    Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in
    Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the
    "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So
    attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of
    your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to
    history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok. It's also
    have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it doesn't have
    to be included in all computations, it just need to be retrievable
    on demand.
    What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each item
    based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might help,
    but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it might
    comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. Now for
    letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their
    work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous
    weight when balanced with equity concerns it resolves.
    Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually
    the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want to act
    equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same condition"
    is fine.
This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on
where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with hundreds
of data points in a mobile app).
    OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do
    exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item
    would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is
    currently impossible due to the CC0 single license policy of the
    project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have this data accessible
    for Wikimedia projects, but who cares?
This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them.
    Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would
    care first of re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal,
    so surely needs of Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre
    Culture in general should be considered. Do this re-users would be
    penalized by a copyleft license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it
    extensively as they do. So who are this re-users for who it's
    thought preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy
    with questions of equity and traceability?
It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in
direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
    No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on a
    computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct conflict
    with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 community
    consultation is going against equity and traceability. You propose
    to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next
    to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our
    community.
Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the
jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database
rights <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for
more details.
    It says basically that it's applicable in United States and Europe
    on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world,
    it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing.
So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be
enforceable in some jurisdictions.
    What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in some
    country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have.
Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often
means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal
repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading
knowledge.
    Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might also
    refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical
    repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by
    enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight
    against the growing asymmetry that social structures are
    concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is in direct
    conflict with our goal of *equitably* spreading knowledge.
    Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our
    contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish legal
    doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job
    regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So
    while associate a clear license to each data item might indeed
    diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for
    enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors.
    Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does not
    ensure that the person who made the association was legally allowed
    to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of a
    statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once
    again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently
    include many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia
    versions, and claim that the derived work obtained – a set of items
    and statements – is under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement
    and it alarmingly looks like license laundering
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is true for
    Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large scale
    extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd
    sourcing.
    So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give
    lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and
    the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny.
Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make
it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources.
    No there are not. They are used as /a way to try to make it harder
    for big companies to profit from openly available resources/ *in
    inequitable manners*. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses
    give the same rights to big companies and individuals in a manner
    that lower socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally
    advantage the former.
The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.
    Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course
    it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that copyleft
    licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it works.
Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle both
the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.
    There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy
    is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with
    some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but
    that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even
    individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on
    legal considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is
    an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the
    Lesser GPL for your next library
    <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is stated
    /proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
    software developers need to make advantages for each other/. This
    might be generalised as /big companies have the advantage of money;
    free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each
    other/. So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against
    copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical
    hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, let's
    recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors
    which are related to big companies.
Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or hacker
who can not deal with it.
    If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just
    plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual
    benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters.
With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world available
for everyone.
    And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be
    achieved.
We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have
access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build
something amazing.
    And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license.
    Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as
    it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added
    value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an
    hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed solution.
    And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just like Google
    did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought
    the company that was running it, and after they imported it under
    CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of
    free curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of
    all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import,
    Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits
    more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial
    support and no hegemonic position.
Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more
places than just the few big ones.
    No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to reinforce
    their position in which they can distribute information manipulated
    as they wish, without consideration for traceability and equity
    considerations. Allowing contributors to also use copyleft licenses
    would be far more effective to /collect and use different forms of
    free, trusted knowledge/ that /focus efforts on the knowledge and
    communities that have been left out by structures of power and
    privilege/, as stated in /Our strategic direction: Service and Equity/.

CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
    Just like economic inequality
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that is not
    what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement.
Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy
with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the
National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts.
    Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have
    their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily
    meet what our community can follow. Different contexts require
    different means. States and their institutions can count on tax
    revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public domain works, that's
    great and seems fair. States are rarely threatened by companies,
    they have legal lever to pressure that kind of entity, although
    conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate this
    statement.
    Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license is
    fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an
    argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw
    of all their rights as single option to contribute.
All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give
attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all
parties involved.
    That's it, zero legal hope of equity.
And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to
Wikidata even if they are not forced to.
    Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google won't
    credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating directly
    answer based on, inter alia, information coming from Wikidata, which
    is itself performing license laundering of Wikipedia data.
Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose not
to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do not
attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for Wikidata
and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them.
    This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it had a
    positive impact in term of audience and contribution in Wikimedia
    project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a
    positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or
    maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it
    is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active
    contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal
    feelings of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine
    included of course.
    Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with
    a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses
    its contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to
    state anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are
    some people satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean
    they would not be even more satisfied with a more equitable solution
    that allows contributors to chose a free license set for their
    publications. All the more this is all about the sustainability and
    fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate
    feeling of satisfaction for some people.

  *

    [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed>


  *

    [2] according to the next statement of Lydia

Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The
motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might
participate in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and
traceability that is granted in other Wikimedia projects.

Kun multe da vikiamo,
mathieu

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

James Hare-4
On November 29, 2017 at 3:33:47 PM, Scott MacLeod (
[hidden email]) wrote:

Dear Lydia, Mathieu, Nicolas and All,

I'm seeking a clarification here to "An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding
its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0" re the implications of CC-0
licensing for Wikidata say in comparison with CC-4 licensing.

If CC-0 licensing allows for commercial use -
"Once the creator or a subsequent owner of a work applies CC0 to a work,
the work is no longer his or hers in any meaningful sense under copyright
law. Anyone can then use the work in any way and for any purpose, including
commercial purposes, subject to other laws and the rights others may have
in the work or how the work is used. Think of CC0 as the "no rights
reserved" option " (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ ) ...

... and, by contrast, CC-4 licensing (say by MIT OpenCourseWare in its 7
languages, for example, - where its CC-4 licensing allows for "sharing"
"adapting" but "non-commercially"), what would CC-0 Wikidata licensed
databases allow for commercially? Since Wikidata, or Wikisource or Project
Wikicite in particular, for example, are licensed CC-0 licensing option,
could (CC) Bookstores, for example, use this CC-0 licensing, in all 295 of
Wikipedia's languages, for the books in their (online) bookstores? (Also
are there any data, or sister projects, affiliated with Wikidata that are
not CC-0 re <a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%
29/CC-0 ? )

Thanks,
Scott



CC-0 is functionally equivalent to the public domain. Anything released
under CC-0 can be used by anyone for any reason with no conditions
whatsoever. For more information see <
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/>. Since
Wikidata’s data is released under CC-0, it can be used by anyone for any
reason with no conditions.


Cheers,
James Hare
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
2017-11-29 23:45 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Stumpf Guntz <
[hidden email]>:
>     Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in
>     Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the
>     "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So
>     attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of
>     your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to
>     history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok.

It's not the central point of this discussion, but I have to chime in here
a bit: It's OK for me, and I guess that it's OK for you given that you're
writing this, and I guess that it's OK for a lot of current Wikipedia
editors because otherwise they probably wouldn't be editing. But it's not
necessary OK for people who could be writing on Wikipedia and aren't
writing.

I specifically heard from several people who live in different countries
and speak different languages that the absence of easily visilbe
attribution is one reason why they don't want to contribute. Should this be
changed?—that's a big and completely separate question. I just wanted to
point out that it's not something that should be easily dismissed with
"it's OK". It's not OK for everybody.

I will also note, like some other people in this thread, that it's far
better to discuss ideas than discuss people. In particular, there are no
reasons to assume any bad intentions on Denny's part; Denny's involvement
with Wikimedia began long before his move to Google, and his current Google
affiliation is not a problem either.

Other than that, I kind of agree with Mathieu's general point: CC-0 may be
good for some things, but it's legitimate to question whether it should be
forced as the ONLY license for all of Wikidata. The whole point of licenses
is that they are enforceable and don't rely on the good will of any person,
organization, or company. It's comparable to the current discussion about
net neutrality in the U.S. (it is about U.S. law, but it's an issue that
will likely affect the rest of the web): U.S. telecom companies commit to
not use the lack of net neutrality to censor or throttle content, but
sometimes it's better to have an enforceable law than a commitment that can
be broken.

CC-0 can be abused by other entities to hurt Wikimedia's goals—by omitting
credit, by re-licensing to something restrictive and non-free, by copying
to a more accessible medium (e.g. Google search results page) and
censoring, etc. Copyleft can help prevent abuse, and it shouldn't actually
make information considerably less accessible to anybody.

(And the very necessary disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I am a bit of a
Free Software and Copyleft fanboy.)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Saluton Nicolas,

Le 30/11/2017 à 00:23, Nicolas VIGNERON a écrit :

> Mathieu,
>
> I know you and like you personally, that why I can say that this mail
> is clearly not your best argument.
>
> Despite saying multiple times this is not a manifesto nor against
> Wikidata, your mail seems clearly fuelled with biases and
> misjudgements (especially Wikidata can't be « discontinued quietly »
> not now that it's so widely used in Wikimedia projects, even the
> wiktionaries are *already* using Wikidata).
That's perfectly plausible that my view is fuelled with biases and
misjudgements, and that's why I'm looking for feedback that might help
in correcting them if needed. I prefer to expose my errors blatantly and
seize opportunities to correct them rather than confine myself in my
possibly misguided views.

Of course, the statement that Wikidata can't be « discontinued quietly »
is shocking. Surely I'm a little provocative here. But one have to put
that in perspective with the fact that my previous attempts to get
feedback on this were far less provocative, or at least were aiming at
being as unprovocative as I could do. So I recognize you are right to
point this, all the more as I made my previous more cordial demands in
less visible canals.

> Dissecting each single phrase point by point is violent, borderline
> mean and definitely not constructive ; cross-posting this mail on
> multiple places doesn't help either. This is not the good way to
> debate peacefully.
First, if people felt personally assaulted by my message, I apologize. I
wasn't aware that treating a topic point by point extensively could be
perceived as such a violent behaviour. I don't want to harass anyone, I
want to get constructive feedback on this topic from as many people of
our community that I can get. If there are better way to achieve this
through documented peaceful process, I would welcome references to this
kind of documentation. And if we don't have that kind of documentation,
I think it would be interesting that we build one.
>
> For better or worse, Wikidata choose CC0 and it will be quite
> difficult to change the licence now (the example of licence change on
> OpenStreetMap illustrate it quite painfully).
Actually, with CC0 – if it appeared that all the data contained in
Wikidata really can be published under CC0 – we could switch the whole
database to whatever license we want. That was even explicitly stated as
is at the start of the project that:

    So do I understand it correctly that during development and testing,
    we can can go with CC-0, and later relicense to whatever seems
    suitable, which is possible with CC-0?, Denny Vrandečić,
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata//2012-April/000185.html

But as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't suggest for such a unilateral
move. For me, just allowing a tracking of license for each item would be
enough.

> We have to get approval of the community, there was multiple lengthy
> and non-conclusive discussions, it's not something that will be done
> with a ranting mail.
I'm interested with links to this community discussions and clear
approval of the community.
>
> For me, the situation is quite simple, Wikidata needs lexiographical
> data and the Wikimedia projects needs Wikidata to have these data.
I agree with that, or at least that it would be very positive for our
community to have this kind of tools.
> Nobody suggest in no way to do license laundering nor to violates
> Wiktionaries licence,
It's not suggestion, it's what Wikidata is already doing with Wikipedia,
despite the initial statement of Wikidata team[1] that it wouldn't do
that because it's illegal :

    /"Alexrk2, it is true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed
    to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
    plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will
    provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias./"
    – Denny Vrandečić
    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_right_license_for_data.3F

I think that the extent to which massive import without respecting
license of the source  should be investigated properly by the Wikimedia
legal team, or some qualified consultants.

In the mid time, based on its previous practises, it's clear that
promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be
trusted. So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import
won't be done, it wouldn't be enough.

> in fact we could simply import Public Domain sources (in the same way
> the wiktionaries did, in frwikt a big chunk of entries come from the
> /Littré/ and the /Dictionnaire de l’Académie française/, and there is
> enough dictionaries waiting in the Wikisources to keep us busy for
> years) but it would be a shame for Wikidata to not profits from
> wiktionarists expertise.
I agree with that. All the more, all this material we imported helped
much in populating the project, but it often includes heavy biases,
outdated definitions which are not marked as is, completely sexists and
racists definitions that we are improving with the goals and values of
our movement in mind. So it's not just expertise of contributors, but
also all the work they already achieved that should be mergeable in the
Wikidata solution. Only allowing CC0 will make that impossible.
> Let's get over the petty and unsolvable issues and work intelligently
> and pragmatically to improve Wikidata.
>
> You entitled to disagree with the way that has been chosen and not
> take part in it (and from your editcount, I see that you don't) but
> please don't destroy others efforts and try to be more aligned with
> the wiki-spirit.
I'm not trying to destroy the work of any part of our community, but on
the contrary I'm aiming at protect its sustainability. If my concerns
are only mere delusions, that's great. But if it's not, I would feel
ashamed in the future that I suspected possible avoidable bad scenario
and did nothing about that.

All the more, Wikidata aims at being ubiquitous under all Wikimedia
projects, even if some integration are moderated through community
consensus. So there is no way I might avoid it completely while
continuing to contribute in Wikimedia projects. Actually I have recently
learn that there are already data which are automatically inserted in
Wikidata when publishing contributions on others mediawiki projects, but
so far I'm not aware of what is cover exactly. All the more, I am in
fact very favourable to a more ubiquitous integration of Wikidata in our
ecosystem. But not with the current license conditions.

I hope my answer wasn't too point by point so that it wont fall in the
problems you mentioned.

Amike,
mathieu

>
> A galon, ~nicolas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Xavier Combelle-2
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Hi,

Did not read your whole argument, but as a collection of brute facts, it
is hard to see how the content of wikidata could
be in something else than public domain.

As a whole, the database could present a Sui generis database right
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right) , but
individual contributors
would not have rights in this scheme as they have in wikipedia use case.

Xavier Combelle


Le 29/11/2017 à 22:45, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz a écrit :

> Saluton ĉiuj,
>
> I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous
> Wiktionary User Group talk page
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,
> because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on this
> point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided or that I
> might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested to know it,
> so please be bold.
>
> Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind that I
> stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I wish it a
> bright future full of even more amazing things than what it already
> brung so far. My sole concern is really a license issue.
>
> Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:
>
> Thank you Lydia Pintscher
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for
> taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer
> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0>
> miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised.
>
> Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the
> decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as this
> inquiry on the topic
> <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive>
> advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice
> toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it
> short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth
> noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work.
> Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation,
> established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft
> co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1]
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>.
> To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet
> trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of
> Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the
> research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough
> shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some proofs that this
> claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact
> that was the community that was the driving force behind this single
> license choice and that it is the best choice for its future, not the
> future of giant tech companies. This would be a great contribution to
> bring such a happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue
> alone and go back contributing in more interesting topics.
>
> Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.
>
> Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.
>     So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal.
> This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.
>     Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in /Our strategic
>     direction: Service and //*Equity*/
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>.
>     Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That
>     is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under
>     this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others.
> CC-0 is one step towards that.
>     That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to
>     agree without some convincing proof.
> Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in that
> it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more
> extensively.
>     No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is
>     data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational database
>     or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect. Whether it's
>     a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset or some encoded
>     prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from this point of view,
>     no, what Wikidata store is not different from what is produced
>     anywhere else in Wikimedia projects.
>     Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things. But
>     this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be no
>     data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that ease
>     aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on.
>
> Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of
> statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on a
> map and much more.
>     Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2]
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2>
>     of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of
>     random bytes.
> This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases
> attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and
> sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only
> helped to get the result).
>     No, it doesn't mean that.
>     First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer makes
>     confusion between attribution and distribution of contributions
>     under the same license as the original. Attribution is crucial for
>     traceability and so for reliable and trusted knowledge that we are
>     targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the
>     sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted
>     knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement
>     goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this
>     goals.
>     Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in
>     Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the
>     "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So
>     attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of
>     your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to
>     history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok. It's also
>     have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it doesn't have
>     to be included in all computations, it just need to be retrievable
>     on demand.
>     What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each item
>     based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might help,
>     but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it might
>     comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. Now for
>     letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their
>     work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous
>     weight when balanced with equity concerns it resolves.
>     Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually
>     the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want to act
>     equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same condition"
>     is fine.
> This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on
> where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with hundreds
> of data points in a mobile app).
>     OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do
>     exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item
>     would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is
>     currently impossible due to the CC0 single license policy of the
>     project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have this data accessible
>     for Wikimedia projects, but who cares?
> This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them.
>     Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would
>     care first of re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal,
>     so surely needs of Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre
>     Culture in general should be considered. Do this re-users would be
>     penalized by a copyleft license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it
>     extensively as they do. So who are this re-users for who it's
>     thought preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy
>     with questions of equity and traceability?
> It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in
> direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
>     No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on a
>     computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct conflict
>     with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 community
>     consultation is going against equity and traceability. You propose
>     to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next
>     to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our
>     community.
> Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the
> jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database
> rights <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for
> more details.
>     It says basically that it's applicable in United States and Europe
>     on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world,
>     it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing.
> So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be
> enforceable in some jurisdictions.
>     What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in some
>     country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have.
> Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often
> means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal
> repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading
> knowledge.
>     Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might also
>     refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical
>     repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by
>     enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight
>     against the growing asymmetry that social structures are
>     concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is in direct
>     conflict with our goal of *equitably* spreading knowledge.
>     Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our
>     contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish legal
>     doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job
>     regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So
>     while associate a clear license to each data item might indeed
>     diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for
>     enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors.
>     Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does not
>     ensure that the person who made the association was legally allowed
>     to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of a
>     statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once
>     again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently
>     include many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia
>     versions, and claim that the derived work obtained – a set of items
>     and statements – is under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement
>     and it alarmingly looks like license laundering
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is true for
>     Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large scale
>     extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd
>     sourcing.
>     So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give
>     lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and
>     the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny.
> Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make
> it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources.
>     No there are not. They are used as /a way to try to make it harder
>     for big companies to profit from openly available resources/ *in
>     inequitable manners*. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses
>     give the same rights to big companies and individuals in a manner
>     that lower socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally
>     advantage the former.
> The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.
>     Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course
>     it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that copyleft
>     licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it works.
> Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle both
> the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.
>     There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy
>     is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with
>     some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but
>     that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even
>     individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on
>     legal considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is
>     an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the
>     Lesser GPL for your next library
>     <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is stated
>     /proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
>     software developers need to make advantages for each other/. This
>     might be generalised as /big companies have the advantage of money;
>     free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each
>     other/. So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against
>     copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical
>     hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, let's
>     recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors
>     which are related to big companies.
> Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or hacker
> who can not deal with it.
>     If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just
>     plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual
>     benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters.
> With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world available
> for everyone.
>     And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be
>     achieved.
> We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have
> access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build
> something amazing.
>     And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license.
>     Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as
>     it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added
>     value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an
>     hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed solution.
>     And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just like Google
>     did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought
>     the company that was running it, and after they imported it under
>     CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of
>     free curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of
>     all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import,
>     Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits
>     more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial
>     support and no hegemonic position.
> Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more
> places than just the few big ones.
>     No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to reinforce
>     their position in which they can distribute information manipulated
>     as they wish, without consideration for traceability and equity
>     considerations. Allowing contributors to also use copyleft licenses
>     would be far more effective to /collect and use different forms of
>     free, trusted knowledge/ that /focus efforts on the knowledge and
>     communities that have been left out by structures of power and
>     privilege/, as stated in /Our strategic direction: Service and Equity/.
>
> CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
>     Just like economic inequality
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that is not
>     what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement.
> Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy
> with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the
> National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts.
>     Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have
>     their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily
>     meet what our community can follow. Different contexts require
>     different means. States and their institutions can count on tax
>     revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public domain works, that's
>     great and seems fair. States are rarely threatened by companies,
>     they have legal lever to pressure that kind of entity, although
>     conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate this
>     statement.
>     Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license is
>     fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an
>     argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw
>     of all their rights as single option to contribute.
> All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give
> attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all
> parties involved.
>     That's it, zero legal hope of equity.
> And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to
> Wikidata even if they are not forced to.
>     Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google won't
>     credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating directly
>     answer based on, inter alia, information coming from Wikidata, which
>     is itself performing license laundering of Wikipedia data.
> Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose not
> to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do not
> attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for Wikidata
> and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them.
>     This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it had a
>     positive impact in term of audience and contribution in Wikimedia
>     project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a
>     positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or
>     maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it
>     is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active
>     contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal
>     feelings of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine
>     included of course.
>     Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with
>     a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses
>     its contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to
>     state anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are
>     some people satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean
>     they would not be even more satisfied with a more equitable solution
>     that allows contributors to chose a free license set for their
>     publications. All the more this is all about the sustainability and
>     fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate
>     feeling of satisfaction for some people.
>
>   *
>
>     [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed>
>
>
>   *
>
>     [2] according to the next statement of Lydia
>
> Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The
> motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might
> participate in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and
> traceability that is granted in other Wikimedia projects.
>
> Kun multe da vikiamo,
> mathieu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
[hidden email]>:
>> Nobody suggest in no way to do license laundering nor to violates
Wiktionaries licence,
>
> It's not suggestion, it's what Wikidata is already doing with Wikipedia,
despite the initial statement of Wikidata team[1] that it wouldn't do that
because it's illegal :
>
>    /"Alexrk2, it is true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed
>    to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
>    plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will
>    provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias./"
>    – Denny Vrandečić
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_right_license_for_data.3F
>
> I think that the extent to which massive import without respecting
license of the source  should be investigated properly by the Wikimedia
legal team, or some qualified consultants.
>
> In the mid time, based on its previous practises, it's clear that
promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted.
So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done,
it wouldn't be enough.

This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.

The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by
Wikidata team.

It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible
scenarios:

1. Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing
data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a
reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from
Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I
remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.

2. Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could
happen, but it didn't.

3. Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like
it or not, this happened.

Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you
would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are
likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.

Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from
Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people
will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger
questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what
licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free
Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0
will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz


Le 30/11/2017 à 08:57, Luca Martinelli a écrit :
> I basically stopped reading this email after the first attack to Denny.
That's sad to read, but I guess I must mostly blame my unfortunate
formulations.
>
> I was there since the beginning, and I do recall the *extensive*
> discussion about what license to use. CC0 was chosen, among other
> things, because of the moronic EU rule about database rights, that CC
> 3.0 licenses didn't allow us to counter - please remember that 4.0
> were still under discussion, and we couldn't afford the luxury of
> waiting for 4.0 to come out before publishing Wikidata.
I welcome any reference to this discussions.
>
> And possibly next time provide a TL;DR version of your email at the top.
Ok, thank you for this suggestion, I'll do that.

>
> Cheers,
>
> L.
>
>
> Il 29 nov 2017 22:46, "Mathieu Stumpf Guntz"
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> ha scritto:
>
>     Saluton ĉiuj,
>
>     I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta
>     Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,
>     because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community
>     on this point. Whether you think that my view is completely
>     misguided or that I might have a few relevant points, I'm
>     extremely interested to know it, so please be bold.
>
>     Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind
>     that I stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I
>     wish it a bright future full of even more amazing things than what
>     it already brung so far. My sole concern is really a license issue.
>
>     Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:
>
>     Thank you Lydia Pintscher
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29>
>     for taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer
>     <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0>
>     miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have
>     been raised.
>
>     Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the
>     decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as
>     this inquiry on the topic
>     <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive>
>     advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata
>     choice toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who –
>     to make it short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph
>     team. Also it worth noting that Google funded a quarter of the
>     initial development work. Another quarter came from the Gordon and
>     Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel co-founder. And half
>     the money came from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Institute
>     for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1]
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>.
>     To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the
>     puppet trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm
>     of Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version,
>     please see the research project (work in progress, only chapter 1
>     is in good enough shape, and it's only available in French so
>     far). Some proofs that this claim is completely wrong are welcome,
>     as it would be great that in fact that was the community that was
>     the driving force behind this single license choice and that it is
>     the best choice for its future, not the future of giant tech
>     companies. This would be a great contribution to bring such a
>     happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue alone
>     and go back contributing in more interesting topics.
>
>     Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.
>
>     Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.
>         So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal.
>     This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.
>         Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in /Our strategic
>         direction: Service and //*Equity*/
>         <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>.
>         Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible.
>         That is, starting where it confirms each others freedom.
>         Because under this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery
>         of others.
>     CC-0 is one step towards that.
>         That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have
>         to agree without some convincing proof.
>     Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia
>     in that it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on
>     much more extensively.
>         No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything
>         is data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational
>         database or engraved in stone only have a commodity side
>         effect. Whether it's a random stream of bit generated by a
>         dumb chipset or some encoded prose of Shakespeare make no
>         difference. So from this point of view, no, what Wikidata
>         store is not different from what is produced anywhere else in
>         Wikimedia projects.
>         Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things.
>         But this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would
>         be no data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way
>         that ease aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and
>         so on.
>
>     Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of
>     statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it
>     on a map and much more.
>         Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2]
>         <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2>
>         of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile
>         of random bytes.
>     This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases
>     attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of
>     editors and sources (even if that data is not visible in the end
>     result but only helped to get the result).
>         No, it doesn't mean that.
>         First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer
>         makes confusion between attribution and distribution of
>         contributions under the same license as the original.
>         Attribution is crucial for traceability and so for reliable
>         and trusted knowledge that we are targeting within the
>         Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the sole legal
>         guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted
>         knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia
>         movement goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is
>         withdrawing this goals.
>         Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in
>         Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the
>         "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure.
>         So attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in
>         front of your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article:
>         until you go to history, you have zero attribution visible,
>         and it's ok. It's also have probably zero or negligible
>         computing cost, as it doesn't have to be included in all
>         computations, it just need to be retrievable on demand.
>         What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each
>         item based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute
>         might help, but actually if your reference is a work item, I
>         guess it might comes with a "license" statement, so zero
>         additional cost. Now for letting user specify under which free
>         licenses they publish their work, that would just require an
>         additional attribute, a ridiculous weight when balanced with
>         equity concerns it resolves.
>         Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's
>         actually the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want
>         to act equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under
>         same condition" is fine.
>     This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending
>     on where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with
>     hundreds of data points in a mobile app).
>         OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license,
>         do exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a
>         license by item would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in
>         WikiData, which is currently impossible due to the CC0 single
>         license policy of the project. Too bad, it could be so useful
>         to have this data accessible for Wikimedia projects, but who
>         cares?
>     This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on
>     them.
>         Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata
>         would care first of re-users which are in the phase with
>         Wikimedia goal, so surely needs of Wikimedia community in
>         particular and Free/Libre Culture in general should be
>         considered. Do this re-users would be penalized by a copyleft
>         license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it extensively as
>         they do. So who are this re-users for who it's thought
>         preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy
>         with questions of equity and traceability?
>     It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in
>     direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
>         No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button
>         on a computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct
>         conflict with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017
>         community consultation is going against equity and
>         traceability. You propose to discard both to satisfy exogenous
>         demands which should have next to no weight in decision
>         impacting so deeply the future of our community.
>     Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on
>     the jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on
>     database rights
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for
>     more details.
>         It says basically that it's applicable in United States and
>         Europe on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest
>         of the world, it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply,
>         it states nothing.
>     So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would
>     only be enforceable in some jurisdictions.
>         What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable
>         in some country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have.
>     Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately
>     often means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear
>     of legal repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal
>     of spreading knowledge.
>         Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might
>         also refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear
>         practical repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination
>         factors by enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they
>         have to weight against the growing asymmetry that social
>         structures are concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique
>         license choice is in direct conflict with our goal of
>         *equitably* spreading knowledge.
>         Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our
>         contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish
>         legal doubts. Actually any well written license would do an
>         equal job regarding this point, including many copyleft
>         licenses out there. So while associate a clear license to each
>         data item might indeed diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an
>         argument at all for enforcing CC0 as sole license available to
>         contributors.
>         Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does
>         not ensure that the person who made the association was
>         legally allowed to do so. To have a better confidence in the
>         legitimacy of a statement that a work is covered by a certain
>         license, there is once again a traceability requirement. For
>         example, Wikidata currently include many items which were
>         imported from misc. Wikipedia versions, and claim that the
>         derived work obtained – a set of items and statements – is
>         under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement and it
>         alarmingly looks like license laundering
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is
>         true for Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which
>         a large scale extraction and import are operated, whether
>         through bots or crowd sourcing.
>         So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to
>         give lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with
>         legal blur and the hope that its shady practises won't fall
>         under too much scrutiny.
>     Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try
>     to make it harder for big companies to profit from openly
>     available resources.
>         No there are not. They are used as /a way to try to make it
>         harder for big companies to profit from openly available
>         resources/ *in inequitable manners*. That's completely
>         different. Copyleft licenses give the same rights to big
>         companies and individuals in a manner that lower
>         socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally advantage
>         the former.
>     The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.
>         Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of
>         course it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that
>         copyleft licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes
>         it works.
>     Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle
>     both the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.
>         There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material
>         analogy is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses
>         might come with some constraints that non-copyleft free
>         licenses don't have, but that the price for fostering equity.
>         And it's a low price, that even individuals can manage, it
>         might require a very little extra time on legal
>         considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is
>         an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use
>         the Lesser GPL for your next library
>         <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is stated
>         /proprietary software developers have the advantage of money;
>         free software developers need to make advantages for each
>         other/. This might be generalised as /big companies have the
>         advantage of money; free/libre culture contributors need to
>         make advantages for each other/. So at odd with what pretend
>         this fallacious claims against copyleft licenses, they are not
>         a "minefield and the technical hurdles" that only big
>         companies can handle. All the more, let's recall who financed
>         the initial development of Wikidata: only actors which are
>         related to big companies.
>     Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or
>     hacker who can not deal with it.
>         If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is
>         just plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in
>         preserving mutual benefit of the common ecosystem that a
>         copyleft license fosters.
>     With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world
>     available for everyone.
>         And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license
>         to be achieved.
>     We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently
>     don’t have access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a
>     chance to build something amazing.
>         And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole
>         license. Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on
>         this point, as it allows unfair actors to take it all, add
>         some interesting added value that our community can not
>         afford, reach/reinforce an hegemonic position in the ecosystem
>         with their own closed solution. And, ta ta, Wikidata can be
>         discontinued quietly, just like Google did with the defunct
>         Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought the company
>         that was running it, and after they imported it under CC0 in
>         Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of free
>         curators. And when it will have performed license laundering
>         of all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and
>         import, Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big
>         companies benefits more of this possibilities than actors with
>         smaller financial support and no hegemonic position.
>     Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from
>     more places than just the few big ones.
>         No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to
>         reinforce their position in which they can distribute
>         information manipulated as they wish, without consideration
>         for traceability and equity considerations. Allowing
>         contributors to also use copyleft licenses would be far more
>         effective to /collect and use different forms of free, trusted
>         knowledge/ that /focus efforts on the knowledge and
>         communities that have been left out by structures of power and
>         privilege/, as stated in /Our strategic direction: Service and
>         Equity/.
>
>     CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
>         Just like economic inequality
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that
>         is not what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement.
>     Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are
>     happy with the experience. Among them are the European Union,
>     Europeana, the National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan
>     Museum of Modern Arts.
>         Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they
>         have their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not
>         necessarily meet what our community can follow. Different
>         contexts require different means. States and their
>         institutions can count on tax revenue, and if taxpayers ends
>         up in public domain works, that's great and seems fair. States
>         are rarely threatened by companies, they have legal lever to
>         pressure that kind of entity, although conflict of interest
>         and lobbying can of course mitigate this statement.
>         Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and
>         license is fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But
>         that's not an argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a
>         systematic withdraw of all their rights as single option to
>         contribute.
>     All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to
>     give attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the
>     interest of all parties involved.
>         That's it, zero legal hope of equity.
>     And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit
>     to Wikidata even if they are not forced to.
>         Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google
>         won't credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating
>         directly answer based on, inter alia, information coming from
>         Wikidata, which is itself performing license laundering of
>         Wikipedia data.
>     Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people
>     chose not to participate, some data can't be imported and some
>     re-users do not attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over
>     the years for Wikidata and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far
>     outweigh them.
>         This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it
>         had a positive impact in term of audience and contribution in
>         Wikimedia project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of
>         Wikidata did have a positive effect on the evolution of total
>         number of contributors, or maybe so far it has no significant
>         correlative effect, or maybe it is correlative with a decrease
>         of the total number of active contributors. Some plots would
>         be interesting here. Mere personal feelings of benefits and
>         hindrances means nothing here, mine included of course.
>         Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B
>         test with a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select
>         which licenses its contributions are released under, so there
>         is no possible way to state anything backed on relevant
>         comparison. The fact that they are some people satisfied with
>         the current state of things doesn't mean they would not be
>         even more satisfied with a more equitable solution that allows
>         contributors to chose a free license set for their
>         publications. All the more this is all about the
>         sustainability and fostering of our community and reaching its
>         goals, not immediate feeling of satisfaction for some people.
>
>      *
>
>         [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed>
>
>
>      *
>
>         [2] according to the next statement of Lydia
>
>     Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The
>     motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might
>     participate in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and
>     traceability that is granted in other Wikimedia projects.
>
>     Kun multe da vikiamo,
>     mathieu
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wikidata mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>     <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Natacha Rault
In reply to this post by James Hare-4

> Le 30 nov. 2017 à 00:50, James Hare <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> On November 29, 2017 at 3:33:47 PM, Scott MacLeod (
> [hidden email]) wrote:
>
> Dear Lydia, Mathieu, Nicolas and All,
>
> I'm seeking a clarification here to "An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding
> its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0" re the implications of CC-0
> licensing for Wikidata say in comparison with CC-4 licensing.
>
> If CC-0 licensing allows for commercial use -
> "Once the creator or a subsequent owner of a work applies CC0 to a work,
> the work is no longer his or hers in any meaningful sense under copyright
> law. Anyone can then use the work in any way and for any purpose, including
> commercial purposes, subject to other laws and the rights others may have
> in the work or how the work is used. Think of CC0 as the "no rights
> reserved" option " (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ ) ...
>
> ... and, by contrast, CC-4 licensing (say by MIT OpenCourseWare in its 7
> languages, for example, - where its CC-4 licensing allows for "sharing"
> "adapting" but "non-commercially"), what would CC-0 Wikidata licensed
> databases allow for commercially? Since Wikidata, or Wikisource or Project
> Wikicite in particular, for example, are licensed CC-0 licensing option,
> could (CC) Bookstores, for example, use this CC-0 licensing, in all 295 of
> Wikipedia's languages, for the books in their (online) bookstores? (Also
> are there any data, or sister projects, affiliated with Wikidata that are
> not CC-0 re <a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%">https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%
> 29/CC-0 ? )
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
>
> CC-0 is functionally equivalent to the public domain. Anything released
> under CC-0 can be used by anyone for any reason with no conditions
> whatsoever. For more information see <
> https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/>. Since
> Wikidata’s data is released under CC-0, it can be used by anyone for any
> reason with no conditions.
>
>
> Cheers,
> James Hare
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Maybe, instead of thinking about CC0 vs CC-BY-SA,
we should try to think at the goal: how can we, as a movement,
"fight" the exploitation from over-the-top players of community-generated
content?

Of course, license is the primary tool every one of us thinks about.
But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that things changed
much from when Wikidata was not here and Google just scraped/crawled
Wikipedia for their own knowledge base. Players like Google have resources
and skill to basically do what they want, and if I recall correctly they
didn't really stop with CC-BY-SA content. So license is not an obstacle for
them.

As much as I don't personally like this, my question is: Is this a real
problem?
I don't like the idea of Wikimedia communities giving content for free to
players so big that can actually profit hugely from this,
(huge profits always translates to huge power), but I really don't know
what we could do about this.

Aubrey



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> [hidden email]>:
> >> Nobody suggest in no way to do license laundering nor to violates
> Wiktionaries licence,
> >
> > It's not suggestion, it's what Wikidata is already doing with Wikipedia,
> despite the initial statement of Wikidata team[1] that it wouldn't do that
> because it's illegal :
> >
> >    /"Alexrk2, it is true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed
> >    to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
> >    plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will
> >    provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias./"
> >    – Denny Vrandečić
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_
> right_license_for_data.3F
> >
> > I think that the extent to which massive import without respecting
> license of the source  should be investigated properly by the Wikimedia
> legal team, or some qualified consultants.
> >
> > In the mid time, based on its previous practises, it's clear that
> promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted.
> So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done,
> it wouldn't be enough.
>
> This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.
>
> The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by
> Wikidata team.
>
> It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible
> scenarios:
>
> 1. Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
> English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing
> data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a
> reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from
> Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I
> remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.
>
> 2. Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
> object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could
> happen, but it didn't.
>
> 3. Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
> love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like
> it or not, this happened.
>
> Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you
> would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are
> likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.
>
> Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from
> Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people
> will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger
> questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what
> licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free
> Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0
> will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Lydia Pintscher
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Hi Mathieu,

I understand you care a lot about this topic and are posting about it
in many places but I have a personal rule that a lot of the people in
Wikidata know. I am willing to discuss and explain basically anything
on a calm and rational basis. (And I did this on-wiki I believe.) The
rule is simple: The more loud, aggressive and pushy someone gets about
a topic the less likely I am to engage. This rule has a simple reason:
I don't want Wikidata to get into a spiral of shouting. If we do this
people get into the mode where only if they shout they get heard so
they shout all the time. This is toxic for a community.
So I fear I can't contribute to this thread beyond this message.


Cheers
Lydia

--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by Xavier Combelle-2
You can copyright an expression about facts, but you can't copyright the
facts. In some jurisdictions a collection of facts can be given a special
protection, but still the individual facts are not protected.

>>A single property licensing scheme would allow storage of data,
>>it might or might not allow reuse of the licensed data together with
>>other data. Remember that all entries in the servers might be part
>of an mashup with all other entries.

>That's a very interesting point. Does anyone know a clear extensive report
of what is legal or not regarding massive import of data >extracted from
some source?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Xavier Combelle <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Did not read your whole argument, but as a collection of brute facts, it
> is hard to see how the content of wikidata could
> be in something else than public domain.
>
> As a whole, the database could present a Sui generis database right
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right) , but
> individual contributors
> would not have rights in this scheme as they have in wikipedia use case.
>
> Xavier Combelle
>
>
> Le 29/11/2017 à 22:45, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz a écrit :
> > Saluton ĉiuj,
> >
> > I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous
> > Wiktionary User Group talk page
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/
> Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_
> general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,
> > because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on this
> > point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided or that I
> > might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested to know it,
> > so please be bold.
> >
> > Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind that I
> > stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I wish it a
> > bright future full of even more amazing things than what it already
> > brung so far. My sole concern is really a license issue.
> >
> > Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:
> >
> > Thank you Lydia Pintscher
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for
> > taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer
> > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0>
> > miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been
> raised.
> >
> > Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the
> > decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as this
> > inquiry on the topic
> > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_
> CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_
> prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_
> et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive>
> > advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice
> > toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it
> > short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth
> > noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work.
> > Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation,
> > established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft
> > co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1]
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/
> Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>.
> > To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet
> > trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of
> > Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the
> > research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough
> > shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some proofs that this
> > claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact
> > that was the community that was the driving force behind this single
> > license choice and that it is the best choice for its future, not the
> > future of giant tech companies. This would be a great contribution to
> > bring such a happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue
> > alone and go back contributing in more interesting topics.
> >
> > Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.
> >
> > Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.
> >     So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal.
> > This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.
> >     Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in /Our strategic
> >     direction: Service and //*Equity*/
> >     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_
> direction:_Service_and_Equity>.
> >     Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That
> >     is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under
> >     this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others.
> > CC-0 is one step towards that.
> >     That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to
> >     agree without some convincing proof.
> > Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in that
> > it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more
> > extensively.
> >     No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is
> >     data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational database
> >     or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect. Whether it's
> >     a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset or some encoded
> >     prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from this point of view,
> >     no, what Wikidata store is not different from what is produced
> >     anywhere else in Wikimedia projects.
> >     Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things. But
> >     this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be no
> >     data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that ease
> >     aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on.
> >
> > Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of
> > statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on a
> > map and much more.
> >     Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2]
> >     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/
> Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2>
> >     of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of
> >     random bytes.
> > This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases
> > attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and
> > sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only
> > helped to get the result).
> >     No, it doesn't mean that.
> >     First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer makes
> >     confusion between attribution and distribution of contributions
> >     under the same license as the original. Attribution is crucial for
> >     traceability and so for reliable and trusted knowledge that we are
> >     targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the
> >     sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted
> >     knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement
> >     goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this
> >     goals.
> >     Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in
> >     Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the
> >     "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So
> >     attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of
> >     your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to
> >     history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok. It's also
> >     have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it doesn't have
> >     to be included in all computations, it just need to be retrievable
> >     on demand.
> >     What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each item
> >     based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might help,
> >     but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it might
> >     comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. Now for
> >     letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their
> >     work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous
> >     weight when balanced with equity concerns it resolves.
> >     Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually
> >     the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want to act
> >     equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same condition"
> >     is fine.
> > This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on
> > where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with hundreds
> > of data points in a mobile app).
> >     OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do
> >     exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item
> >     would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is
> >     currently impossible due to the CC0 single license policy of the
> >     project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have this data accessible
> >     for Wikimedia projects, but who cares?
> > This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them.
> >     Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would
> >     care first of re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal,
> >     so surely needs of Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre
> >     Culture in general should be considered. Do this re-users would be
> >     penalized by a copyleft license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it
> >     extensively as they do. So who are this re-users for who it's
> >     thought preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy
> >     with questions of equity and traceability?
> > It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in
> > direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
> >     No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on a
> >     computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct conflict
> >     with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 community
> >     consultation is going against equity and traceability. You propose
> >     to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next
> >     to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our
> >     community.
> > Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the
> > jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database
> > rights <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for
> > more details.
> >     It says basically that it's applicable in United States and Europe
> >     on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world,
> >     it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing.
> > So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be
> > enforceable in some jurisdictions.
> >     What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in some
> >     country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have.
> > Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often
> > means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal
> > repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading
> > knowledge.
> >     Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might also
> >     refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical
> >     repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by
> >     enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight
> >     against the growing asymmetry that social structures are
> >     concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is in direct
> >     conflict with our goal of *equitably* spreading knowledge.
> >     Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our
> >     contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish legal
> >     doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job
> >     regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So
> >     while associate a clear license to each data item might indeed
> >     diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for
> >     enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors.
> >     Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does not
> >     ensure that the person who made the association was legally allowed
> >     to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of a
> >     statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once
> >     again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently
> >     include many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia
> >     versions, and claim that the derived work obtained – a set of items
> >     and statements – is under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement
> >     and it alarmingly looks like license laundering
> >     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is true for
> >     Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large scale
> >     extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd
> >     sourcing.
> >     So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give
> >     lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and
> >     the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny.
> > Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make
> > it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources.
> >     No there are not. They are used as /a way to try to make it harder
> >     for big companies to profit from openly available resources/ *in
> >     inequitable manners*. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses
> >     give the same rights to big companies and individuals in a manner
> >     that lower socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally
> >     advantage the former.
> > The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.
> >     Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course
> >     it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that copyleft
> >     licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it works.
> > Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle both
> > the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.
> >     There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy
> >     is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with
> >     some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but
> >     that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even
> >     individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on
> >     legal considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is
> >     an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the
> >     Lesser GPL for your next library
> >     <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is stated
> >     /proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
> >     software developers need to make advantages for each other/. This
> >     might be generalised as /big companies have the advantage of money;
> >     free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each
> >     other/. So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against
> >     copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical
> >     hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, let's
> >     recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors
> >     which are related to big companies.
> > Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or hacker
> > who can not deal with it.
> >     If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just
> >     plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual
> >     benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters.
> > With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world available
> > for everyone.
> >     And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be
> >     achieved.
> > We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have
> > access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build
> > something amazing.
> >     And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license.
> >     Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as
> >     it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added
> >     value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an
> >     hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed solution.
> >     And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just like Google
> >     did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought
> >     the company that was running it, and after they imported it under
> >     CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of
> >     free curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of
> >     all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import,
> >     Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits
> >     more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial
> >     support and no hegemonic position.
> > Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more
> > places than just the few big ones.
> >     No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to reinforce
> >     their position in which they can distribute information manipulated
> >     as they wish, without consideration for traceability and equity
> >     considerations. Allowing contributors to also use copyleft licenses
> >     would be far more effective to /collect and use different forms of
> >     free, trusted knowledge/ that /focus efforts on the knowledge and
> >     communities that have been left out by structures of power and
> >     privilege/, as stated in /Our strategic direction: Service and
> Equity/.
> >
> > CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
> >     Just like economic inequality
> >     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that is not
> >     what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement.
> > Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy
> > with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the
> > National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts.
> >     Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have
> >     their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily
> >     meet what our community can follow. Different contexts require
> >     different means. States and their institutions can count on tax
> >     revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public domain works, that's
> >     great and seems fair. States are rarely threatened by companies,
> >     they have legal lever to pressure that kind of entity, although
> >     conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate this
> >     statement.
> >     Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license is
> >     fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an
> >     argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw
> >     of all their rights as single option to contribute.
> > All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give
> > attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all
> > parties involved.
> >     That's it, zero legal hope of equity.
> > And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to
> > Wikidata even if they are not forced to.
> >     Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google won't
> >     credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating directly
> >     answer based on, inter alia, information coming from Wikidata, which
> >     is itself performing license laundering of Wikipedia data.
> > Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose not
> > to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do not
> > attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for Wikidata
> > and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them.
> >     This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it had a
> >     positive impact in term of audience and contribution in Wikimedia
> >     project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a
> >     positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or
> >     maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it
> >     is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active
> >     contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal
> >     feelings of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine
> >     included of course.
> >     Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with
> >     a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses
> >     its contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to
> >     state anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are
> >     some people satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean
> >     they would not be even more satisfied with a more equitable solution
> >     that allows contributors to chose a free license set for their
> >     publications. All the more this is all about the sustainability and
> >     fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate
> >     feeling of satisfaction for some people.
> >
> >   *
> >
> >     [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december
> >     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_
> Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed>
> >
> >
> >   *
> >
> >     [2] according to the next statement of Lydia
> >
> > Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The
> > motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might
> > participate in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and
> > traceability that is granted in other Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Kun multe da vikiamo,
> > mathieu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz


Le 30/11/2017 à 10:13, Egon Willighagen a écrit :

> Dear Mathieu,
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
>     I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta
>     Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page
>     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,
>     because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community
>     on this point. Whether you think that my view is completely
>     misguided or that I might have a few relevant points, I'm
>     extremely interested to know it, so please be bold.
>
> As having contributed to many open database and as user of many open
> database, the CCZero is my default choice for making data open.
> Adoption of this license is, IMHO, the prime reason Wikidata is
> growing so fast, and integrated so fast in many use cases.
Well, that would indeed be a huge point in favor of CC0 then.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any way to turn that into a measurable
analyze, as too many factors might come coincidentally to this. However,
since you are contributor of many open database, maybe you are aware of
some studies on the subject which can back your opinion.

> License incompatibilities have been a major concern in open source
> development and academic research. Yes, there too, there is a
> continuous almost-religious and unsolved discussion about copylefting,
> but the plain experience there is that the closer to the idea of
> public domain, the easier it is to use. The advantages of CCZero have
> been widely discussed in the life sciences, and while not everyone
> choice, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for many.
Well, surely my message don't help to make it obvious, but I'm not
radically against CC0, and don't deny it does have huge advantages in
reuse. As an example I already gave the CC0/public domain for works
publishd by State institutions. This is something that I am completely
favorable to and will defend and promote anytime I can.

> I also note that public domain (which CCZero formalizes across
> jurisdictions) is still the "ideal" license when uploading images to
> Wikimedia, suggesting more of Wikimedia actually finds the CCZero idea
> very welcome.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about things like
pictures that the NASA release, I think it falls in the case exposed
above. If you are speaking of the most used license on Wikimedia by
benevolent contributors, I'm not aware of the statistics on this topic,
but would be interested to have some.

> Also stress that in no way I recognize myself in your comments about
> Denny and Google.
I guess it's all  in your honour.
> And your comment that "freedom of one is murder and slavery of others"
> needs some refinement, IMHO; my definition of "freedom" is quite
> different and I experience your definition as abusive and offensive.
If you mean "freedom of one begins where it confirms freedom of others",
it's not "my" definition, however I could not give proper credit to it.
Maybe Joseph Déjacque was among the first to publish this with some
variation in the exact formulation. But really this not "mine
definition". Also it is of course not the ultimate definition of freedom
that everybody have to agree with.

If you are talking about the more dramatic example of "freedom abuse" I
provided next to this definition, as far as I'm aware it's more or less
my forgery. Although it probably was somewhat influenced by a comment of
Teofilo[1].

Suggestion of less dramatic examples which enlighten the point just as
well are welcome.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Teofilo

>
> The CCZero license of Wikidata is essential to my contributions and
> use of Wikimedia products. The chemistry knowledge in Wikidata is 100x
> more useful (to me) than that in Wikipedia etc. That is in part
> because of the machine readability, but also to a large part by the
> choice of CCZero.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> with kind regards,
>
> Egon
>
> --
> E.L. Willighagen
> Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
> Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
> ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286
> ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/u/egonwillighagen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Le 30/11/2017 à 10:19, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :

> It's not the central point of this discussion, but I have to chime in
> here
> a bit: It's OK for me, and I guess that it's OK for you given that you're
> writing this, and I guess that it's OK for a lot of current Wikipedia
> editors because otherwise they probably wouldn't be editing. But it's not
> necessary OK for people who could be writing on Wikipedia and aren't
> writing.
>
> I specifically heard from several people who live in different countries
> and speak different languages that the absence of easily visilbe
> attribution is one reason why they don't want to contribute. Should this be
> changed?—that's a big and completely separate question. I just wanted to
> point out that it's not something that should be easily dismissed with
> "it's OK". It's not OK for everybody.
Thank you, that's indeed a very interesting feedback, and probably not
the least significant bias I showed in my message.

Is it a really local phenomena, that might be significantly matched with
a lake of contributions in some linguistic versions? I mean, would it
worth an A/B testing on some wiki to measure if showing credits
somewhere on the article page itself does have an impact on number of
contributors? (should this question be developed, forking the thread
would be relevant)

> I will also note, like some other people in this thread, that it's far
> better to discuss ideas than discuss people. In particular, there are no
> reasons to assume any bad intentions on Denny's part; Denny's involvement
> with Wikimedia began long before his move to Google, and his current Google
> affiliation is not a problem either.
I don't think that you need bad intentions for being in a position of
conflict of interest. You might even defend that such a position make a
person a victim of some social structure.

Maybe it's also not clear from my messages, but I'm not against Google
or any company which is in hegemonic position, which is not a problem
per se, at least this is my opinion. The problem is of course, the
easiness of badly abusing an hegemonic position, even in total good faith.

In recent weeks someone posted on wikimedia-l an adage like "power
corrupt but absolute power looks rather cool". I don't agree with that.
In the best situations, absolute power miraculously ends up in quite
dissolution, but must likely it's a good point of departure for a whole
society mess. But maybe it just me being ignorant of some enlightened
absolute monarch/dictator/party which led to a wonderful flourishing
society full of mutual human respect and sane sustainable economic
development, references are welcome. :)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Le 30/11/2017 à 11:04, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
> 2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> [hidden email]>:
> promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted.
> So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done,
> it wouldn't be enough.
>
> This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.
Well, I don't know on this one, I'm talking about "Wikidata team". Maybe
the statement might be considered incorrect, but is it personal attack
to mention who said what with a precise source? Or is it the way I
formulated that was needlessly aggressive? What would be a more proper
way to formulate that there was a stated promise which wasn't hold?

Once again, my goal is not to offence anyone, be it an individual or a
group of people. On the other hand, when there are decisions which are
taken by some entity which clearly identify itself as responsible for
the decision, then isn't it fair to consider this entity as also
responsible for consequences of this decision. At least to some extent
which don't include reasonably unpredictable consequences.
> The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by
> Wikidata team.
Sure, and I think that here the responsibility is shared between the
Wikidata community and the team which promised it would not happen.
Hopefully, Wikisource community would no allow anyone to publish a work
like Harry Potter in it's repository. Or even less legally problematic
some works available under a CC-by-sa-nc license or some equivalent. And
would the Wikisource community be lenient enough for allowing that, I
would expect the foundation to remove this works, especially if authors
of this works would complain about this license laundering.

Also I wonder why Wikipedia community didn't react to this massive
extraction, if indeed it didn't, so maybe there are also some convincing
arguments that was presented to him that I'm not aware of. Once again,
references are welcome.

So, maybe I'll proven completely wrong here too, with some point I'm not
aware of, which would be fine. Otherwise Wikidata team did indeed let
the community go in too lenient behaviours.

By the way, arguments proposed here will be used in further evolution of
the project research on this topic. Plus it's on Wikiversity, so if you
speak French, your contributions are welcome.

> It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible scenarios:
Well, the easiest way to go is to blindly follow anywhere the majority
goes. Anything else is more difficult. Building scenarios is good, and
trying to falsify them with available data is even better.

> 1. Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
> English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing
> data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a
> reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from
> Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I
> remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.
Yes, I came across some document on that matter, which fed my thoughts
on traceability. Actually, from document I went through it's probably
the most recurring concern that I found expressed by the community. And
the most usual answer is (in spirit) that "it will improve in the
future, this is a useful transition state, later more external sources
will supersed Wikipedia for the same statements". Apart from the
usefulness from a Wikipedia perspective, that are arguments that all
sound rather consistent to my mind.

I'm not sure of the current state of use of Wikidata within the
miscellaneous Wikipedia projects, and what community discussions
occurred in each. References are welcome here too.

> 2. Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
> object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could
> happen, but it didn't.
>
> 3. Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
> love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like
> it or not, this happened.
>
> Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you
> would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are
> likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.
The problem is not so much predictions, which is always difficult,
especially about future.

The problem is the will of Wikidata team to intervene when the community
is crossing the line that they themselves previously identified as not
legally negotiable.
> Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from
> Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people
> will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger
> questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what
> licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free
> Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0
> will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
Actually, I dug in all this research because I'm very interested with
all that Wikibase could bring to lexicological works in Wikimedia, but
that I wasn't very enthusiast with CC0 and I wanted to see if I could
change my mind through studying why it was chose for Wikidata in the
first place.

> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Just to make it clear; the discussions at the dev-project was in April-May
2012, linking of wd-items on site late in 29 October 2012 (actually 29.
October), Danny told us about his new Google job in January 2013.

I believe someone must have gotten this backwards.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2


Le 30/11/2017 à 12:14, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
> Maybe, instead of thinking about CC0 vs CC-BY-SA,
> we should try to think at the goal: how can we, as a movement,
> "fight" the exploitation from over-the-top players of community-generated
> content?
Thank you for enlightening this surely far better way to investigate the
topic.
Stand back is often very helpful, but also often difficult when you have
your nose in the data.
> Of course, license is the primary tool every one of us thinks about.
> But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that things changed
> much from when Wikidata was not here and Google just scraped/crawled
> Wikipedia for their own knowledge base. Players like Google have resources
> and skill to basically do what they want, and if I recall correctly they
> didn't really stop with CC-BY-SA content. So license is not an obstacle for
> them. As much as I don't personally like this, my question is: Is this a real
> problem?
I miss clear data on that, but I came across some documents making a
parallel between a shrink of audience in Wikipedia and the arrival of
Google Knowledg Graph. So the basic argument was, less traffic, less
people know our movement, less potential contributors and less donors.
But I didn't deepen this topic yet. Any reference which confirm/infirm
or simply speak about this corollary is welcome.
> I don't like the idea of Wikimedia communities giving content for free to
> players so big that can actually profit hugely from this,
> (huge profits always translates to huge power), but I really don't know
> what we could do about this.
Well, I'm far less concerned with other actors making little, medium or
huge profit by using work of our community. Per se, I don't see it as a
threat for our community, and even this actors might give back in some
way if they wish. And in fact, some do. Google does provide to our
community some useful resources, not only money but they also organize
events like summer of code which benefits our community.

What raises my concern is that this actors can have a negative effect on
our community liveliness, even if it's not their goal at all and that
they are fine with the idea of helping us where it doesn't directly
conflict with their business model.

I say Google, but other prominent actors which makes the sun shine or
make it rain as regards of web audience are equally replaceable in
previous sentences.

So to my point of view, despite all the controversies it raised
"knowledge engine" as a general search open engine would be an
interesting idea to explore. That could avoid being left without
visibility due to main actors of the field moving to a new paradigm
where our community is no longer useful for them, or even in direct
competition with what they are targeting but under a closed garden paradigm.

>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
>> [hidden email]>:
>>>> Nobody suggest in no way to do license laundering nor to violates
>> Wiktionaries licence,
>>> It's not suggestion, it's what Wikidata is already doing with Wikipedia,
>> despite the initial statement of Wikidata team[1] that it wouldn't do that
>> because it's illegal :
>>>     /"Alexrk2, it is true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed
>>>     to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
>>>     plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will
>>>     provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias./"
>>>     – Denny Vrandečić
>>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_
>> right_license_for_data.3F
>>> I think that the extent to which massive import without respecting
>> license of the source  should be investigated properly by the Wikimedia
>> legal team, or some qualified consultants.
>>> In the mid time, based on its previous practises, it's clear that
>> promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted.
>> So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done,
>> it wouldn't be enough.
>>
>> This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.
>>
>> The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by
>> Wikidata team.
>>
>> It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible
>> scenarios:
>>
>> 1. Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
>> English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing
>> data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a
>> reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from
>> Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I
>> remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.
>>
>> 2. Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
>> object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could
>> happen, but it didn't.
>>
>> 3. Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
>> love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like
>> it or not, this happened.
>>
>> Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you
>> would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are
>> likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.
>>
>> Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from
>> Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people
>> will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger
>> questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what
>> licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free
>> Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0
>> will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Hello Markus,

First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in the
research project on the topic with proper references, including this
email. It might not come before beginning of next week however, as I'm
already more than fully booked until then. But once again it's on a
wiki, be bold.

Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :

> Dear Mathieu,
>
> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first
> chosen (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims
> here -- the discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this,
> and I agree with Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>
> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his
> earlier message (quote included below this email for reference): it
> was not Denny's decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a
> discussion among several people who had worked with open data for some
> time before Wikidata was born. I have personally supported this choice
> and still do. I have never received any money directly or indirectly
> from Google, though -- full disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for
> supervising in Summer of Code projects.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem is
not money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it
wherever wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.

But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance and
future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, communication
must be extensive, and taking into account community feedback is
extremely preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, so its all the
more important to listen to external feedback. I said earlier that I
found the knowledge engine was a good idea, but for what I red it seems
that transparency didn't reach expectation of the community.

So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I would
prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No mistrust
intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in perspective
with sources and think critically.

For completeness, was this discussion online or – to bring bag the
earlier stated testimony – around a pizza? If possible, could you
provide a list of involved people? Did a single person took the final
decision, or was it a show of hands, or some consensus emerged from
discussion? Or maybe the community was consulted with a vote, and if
yes, where can I find the archive?

Also archives show that lawyers were consulted on the topic, could we
have a copy of their report?

> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our
> discussions in the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From
> what I can see on their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds
> of different license terms in the data they display.
Because they are more and more moving to a business model of providing
themselves what people are looking for to keep users in their sphere of
tracking and influence, probably with the sole idea of generating more
revenue I guess.
> Also, I can tell you that we would have reacted in a very allergic way
> to such attempts, so if any company had approached us, this would
> quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or not, when we started
> it was all but clear that this would become a relevant project at all,
> and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still mostly a few
> hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin. There was a
> lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of Wikidata
> (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
Please situate that in time so we can place that in a timeline. In March
2012 Wikimedia DE announced the initial funding of 1.3 million Euros by
Google, Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation.
>
> So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events
> that you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is
> no substitute for methodology and rigour).
But that's all the problem here, no one should have to carry the pain of
trying to reconstruct what happened through such a research. Process of
this kind of decision should have been documented and should be easily
be found in archives. If you have suggestion in methods, please provide
them. Just denigrating the work don't help in any way to improve it. If
there are additional sources that I missed, please provide them. If
there are methodologies that would help improve the work, references are
welcome.

> Putting unsourced personal attacks against community members before
> all other arguments is a reckless way of maximising effect, and such
> rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this thread or topic.
All this is built on references. If the analyze is wrong, for example
because it missed crucial undocumented information this must be
corrected with additional sources. Wikidata team, as far as I can tell,
was perfectly aware of this project for weeks. So if there was some
sources that the team considered that it merited my attention to
complete my thoughts on the topic, there was plenty of time to provide
them before I posted this message.

> Our main strength is not our content but our community, and I am glad
> to see that many have already responded to you in such a measured and
> polite way.
We completely agree on that. This is a wonderful community. And that's
concerns for future of this very community which fueled this project.

I only can reiterate all apologies to anyone that might have felt
personally attacked. I can go back to reformulate my message.

I hope you will help me to improve the research, or call it as you like,
with more relevant feedback and references.

Peace

>
> Peace,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
> > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
> > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
> > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
> > Google.
> >
> > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
> > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
> > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as
> the
> > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0
> convinced me.
> >
> > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
> > Jens did too.
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open meetings
with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus usually attended.
As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a discussion in the office,
there was a reference to an earlier meeting. It is although easy to mix up
old memories, so what happen first and what happen next should not be taken
to be facts. If Markus also says the same it is although a reasonable
chance we have got it right.

As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the community.
This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there were only
concerned individuals. The community started to emerge in August with the
first attempts to go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some
posts from 15. August 2012,[1] while first post on the subject page is from
30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
Meta.[3] Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published under a
free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different scenarios."
but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is published under [
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ a free license], allowing
the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.",[4] and at that point
there were a community on an open site and had been for a week. When
Whittylama did his post it was the 4504th post on the site, so it was
hardly the first! The license was initially a CC-SA.[8] I'm not quite sure
when it was changed to CC0 in the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen
before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October
2012,[5] this is one of several items updated this evening.

It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] and stepping forward. You
will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012. So much
for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions before 25th
October does not make sense, there were no site, and the only people
involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for example that the page
Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.[7]

[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
[2]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&oldid=2677
[3]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction&diff=133569705&oldid=128154617
[4]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&diff=next&oldid=4504
[5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1&oldid=103
[6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction&oldid=4030743
[8]
https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
[9]
https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Mathieu,
>
> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
> (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here -- the
> discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
> Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>
> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
> message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not Denny's
> decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
> people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
> born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
> received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
> disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
> projects.
>
> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions in
> the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
> their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
> terms in the data they display. Also, I can tell you that we would have
> reacted in a very allergic way to such attempts, so if any company had
> approached us, this would quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or
> not, when we started it was all but clear that this would become a relevant
> project at all, and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still
> mostly a few hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin. There
> was a lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of Wikidata
> (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
>
> So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events that
> you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no
> substitute for methodology and rigour). Putting unsourced personal attacks
> against community members before all other arguments is a reckless way of
> maximising effect, and such rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this
> thread or topic. Our main strength is not our content but our community,
> and I am glad to see that many have already responded to you in such a
> measured and polite way.
>
> Peace,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
> > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
> > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
> > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
> > Google.
> >
> > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
> > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
> > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as the
> > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced me.
> >
> > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
> > Jens did too.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
Hoi,
I would not call it research. You have an opinion and you are dead set on
hearing yourself talk, making your current opinion prevail. Fine. You start
from assumptions that are not proven.. "this is a wonderful community"
there are plenty of arguments possible why there is a dictatorship of the
mob. All kinds of arguments are possible; one of mine is that there is no
interest in investigating how Wikidata can help Wikipedia achieve a higher
level of quality (and yes, that would work both ways). Your argument is
based in BIG Wikipedia and does not consider at all what it is that
generated text can bring where our wonderful community did not have the
room to be interested or where it did not have the bandwidth.

When you mean by research that you will endeavour to find arguments to
support your position then I understand you well. When you mean actual
research, you have to reflect on your assumptions, you have to come up with
a hypothesis and seek out what it takes to find the arguments to support
it. When your research is only to establish a timeline, I would not be
interested really as I have been there done that. I do not research but do
have an objective: share the sum of all knowledge with everyone. I have
become more humble, practically it is more like share the sum of the
knowledge that is available to us with everyone. In my blog [1] you find
many of the arguments, observations that developed over time. Maybe it is
of interest to your research; it spans a period of twelve years.
Thanks,
        GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/

On 1 December 2017 at 03:43, mathieu stumpf guntz <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Markus,
>
> First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in the
> research project on the topic with proper references, including this email.
> It might not come before beginning of next week however, as I'm already
> more than fully booked until then. But once again it's on a wiki, be bold.
>
> Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :
>
>> Dear Mathieu,
>>
>> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
>> (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here -- the
>> discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
>> Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
>> message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not Denny's
>> decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
>> people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
>> born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
>> received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
>> disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
>> projects.
>>
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem is not
> money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it wherever
> wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.
>
> But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance and
> future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, communication
> must be extensive, and taking into account community feedback is extremely
> preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, so its all the more
> important to listen to external feedback. I said earlier that I found the
> knowledge engine was a good idea, but for what I red it seems that
> transparency didn't reach expectation of the community.
>
> So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I would
> prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No mistrust
> intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in perspective
> with sources and think critically.
>
> For completeness, was this discussion online or – to bring bag the earlier
> stated testimony – around a pizza? If possible, could you provide a list of
> involved people? Did a single person took the final decision, or was it a
> show of hands, or some consensus emerged from discussion? Or maybe the
> community was consulted with a vote, and if yes, where can I find the
> archive?
>
> Also archives show that lawyers were consulted on the topic, could we have
> a copy of their report?
>
> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions in
>> the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
>> their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
>> terms in the data they display.
>>
> Because they are more and more moving to a business model of providing
> themselves what people are looking for to keep users in their sphere of
> tracking and influence, probably with the sole idea of generating more
> revenue I guess.
>
>> Also, I can tell you that we would have reacted in a very allergic way to
>> such attempts, so if any company had approached us, this would quite likely
>> have backfired. But, believe it or not, when we started it was all but
>> clear that this would become a relevant project at all, and no major
>> company even cared to lobby us. It was still mostly a few hackers getting
>> together in varying locations in Berlin. There was a lot of fun, optimism,
>> and excitement in this early phase of Wikidata (well, I guess we are still
>> in this phase).
>>
> Please situate that in time so we can place that in a timeline. In March
> 2012 Wikimedia DE announced the initial funding of 1.3 million Euros by
> Google, Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Gordon and
> Betty Moore Foundation.
>
>>
>> So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events
>> that you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no
>> substitute for methodology and rigour).
>>
> But that's all the problem here, no one should have to carry the pain of
> trying to reconstruct what happened through such a research. Process of
> this kind of decision should have been documented and should be easily be
> found in archives. If you have suggestion in methods, please provide them.
> Just denigrating the work don't help in any way to improve it. If there are
> additional sources that I missed, please provide them. If there are
> methodologies that would help improve the work, references are welcome.
>
> Putting unsourced personal attacks against community members before all
>> other arguments is a reckless way of maximising effect, and such rhetoric
>> can damage our movement beyond this thread or topic.
>>
> All this is built on references. If the analyze is wrong, for example
> because it missed crucial undocumented information this must be corrected
> with additional sources. Wikidata team, as far as I can tell, was perfectly
> aware of this project for weeks. So if there was some sources that the team
> considered that it merited my attention to complete my thoughts on the
> topic, there was plenty of time to provide them before I posted this
> message.
>
> Our main strength is not our content but our community, and I am glad to
>> see that many have already responded to you in such a measured and polite
>> way.
>>
> We completely agree on that. This is a wonderful community. And that's
> concerns for future of this very community which fueled this project.
>
> I only can reiterate all apologies to anyone that might have felt
> personally attacked. I can go back to reformulate my message.
>
> I hope you will help me to improve the research, or call it as you like,
> with more relevant feedback and references.
>
> Peace
>
>
>> Peace,
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
>> > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
>> > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
>> > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
>> > Google.
>> >
>> > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
>> > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
>> > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as the
>> > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
>> > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced
>> me.
>> >
>> > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
>> > Jens did too.
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Denny Vrandečić-2
In reply to this post by John Erling Blad
Scott,

The NC license clause is problematic in a number of jurisdictions. For
example, at least in Germany, as I remember from my law classes, it also
would definitively include not-for-profits, NGOs, and even say bloggers,
with or without ads on their sites. One must always be careful in the
choice of a license in order to avoid unintended consequences.

Just food for thought
Denny

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 20:51 John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open meetings
> with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus usually attended.
> As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a discussion in the office,
> there was a reference to an earlier meeting. It is although easy to mix up
> old memories, so what happen first and what happen next should not be taken
> to be facts. If Markus also says the same it is although a reasonable
> chance we have got it right.
>
> As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the community.
> This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there were only
> concerned individuals. The community started to emerge in August with the
> first attempts to go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some
> posts from 15. August 2012,[1] while first post on the subject page is from
> 30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
> Meta.[3] Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published under a
> free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different scenarios."
> but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is published under [
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ a free license],
> allowing
> the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.",[4] and at that point
> there were a community on an open site and had been for a week. When
> Whittylama did his post it was the 4504th post on the site, so it was
> hardly the first! The license was initially a CC-SA.[8] I'm not quite sure
> when it was changed to CC0 in the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen
> before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October
> 2012,[5] this is one of several items updated this evening.
>
> It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] and stepping forward. You
> will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012. So much
> for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions before 25th
> October does not make sense, there were no site, and the only people
> involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for example that the page
> Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.[7]
>
> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
> [2]
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&oldid=2677
> [3]
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction&diff=133569705&oldid=128154617
> [4]
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&diff=next&oldid=4504
> [5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1&oldid=103
> [6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
> [7]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction&oldid=4030743
> [8]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
> [9]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Mathieu,
> >
> > Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
> > (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here --
> the
> > discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
> > Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
> > message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not
> Denny's
> > decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
> > people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
> > born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
> > received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
> > disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
> > projects.
> >
> > At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions
> in
> > the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
> > their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
> > terms in the data they display. Also, I can tell you that we would have
> > reacted in a very allergic way to such attempts, so if any company had
> > approached us, this would quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or
> > not, when we started it was all but clear that this would become a
> relevant
> > project at all, and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still
> > mostly a few hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin.
> There
> > was a lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of
> Wikidata
> > (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
> >
> > So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events
> that
> > you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no
> > substitute for methodology and rigour). Putting unsourced personal
> attacks
> > against community members before all other arguments is a reckless way of
> > maximising effect, and such rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this
> > thread or topic. Our main strength is not our content but our community,
> > and I am glad to see that many have already responded to you in such a
> > measured and polite way.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> > On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
> > > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
> > > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
> > > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
> > > Google.
> > >
> > > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
> > > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
> > > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as
> the
> > > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced
> me.
> > >
> > > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
> > > Jens did too.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikidata mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12