[Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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

[Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
Hello everybody,

There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be interested
to look at and participate in.

As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
discussion on the Wikidata chat
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.

Cheers

_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Rob Speer-2
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!

On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be interested
> to look at and participate in.
>
> As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
> discussion on the Wikidata chat
> <
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
>
> I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
>
> Cheers
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.

In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
well as "we" do it.

When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.

As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
as a tool for disambiguation.

About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
the copyright held on databases.

I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
Thanks,
       GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html

On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that
> change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea
> that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
> violation is coming from inside the house!
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be interested
> > to look at and participate in.
> >
> > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
> > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > <
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> >
> > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Rob Speer-2
> As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge

Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.

I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
by CC-By-SA.

Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
us follow it", etc.

The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?

On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
>
> In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia,
> it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> well as "we" do it.
>
> When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded
> (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright
> holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> annoying.
>
> As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there
> is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it
> is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> as a tool for disambiguation.
>
> About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is
> corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the
> data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion
> that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> the copyright held on databases.
>
> I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our
> attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be
> used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> [1]
>
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> that
> > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> idea
> > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
> > violation is coming from inside the house!
> >
> > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> interested
> > > to look at and participate in.
> > >
> > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
> > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > <
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > >
> > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Denny Vrandečić-2
Rob Speer wrote:
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?

The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
"Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If
live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint

So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.

What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
original source of the extraction.

(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)

My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
different attribution) is legally sound.

If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
followed on Wikidata.

For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
project chat and in Phabricator:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects


I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.

Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.

Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
you like to ask instead?


On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> be
> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > that
> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> > idea
> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> Commons
> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > interested
> > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> the
> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > <
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Rob Speer-2
Hoi,
When you imply that I do not support Creative Commons and its work on
licenses, you are explicitly wrong. It is because of the CC that a
harmonisation has taken place. It it thanks to this harmonisation that a
lot of material gained a license, becoming accessible. This does not mean
that the practice of copyright is not evil, it means that thanks to CC
copyright became less open to abuse.

I am old school Wikipedia. I strongly believe that our mission is to "share
the sum of all knowledge". When people like you aim to claim copyright on
Wikipedia articles, you do not argue how this would play. You do not
consider how this is a knife that cuts both ways and most prominently will
hinder our quest to share the sum of all knowledge to all people. When a
company abuses our content by ignoring the license, they gain a public for
our content. When this is done right, we benefit; there is a symbiotic
relation with Google for instance. The only disadvantage happens when
because of a lack of attribution people do not come to Wikipedia or
Wikidata to curate the data. Practically the whole license issue of
Wikipedia is a mess because it is not enforced and because there are too
many copyright warriors claiming that things should be different, never
stop arguing  and never coming to a practical point.

What I am saying is that when multiple sources claim the same thing, it
follows that any and all of them can not claim exclusive copyright to it.
For me the databus that DBpeida will show how little is original in
databases. On the one hand this is cool because it will indicate that such
things are likely correct on the other hand it is cool because it will
indicate what to curate in order to gain a better understanding. It also
follows that in order to bring things into doubt, you must publish facts
and strongly support the underlying data in order to be noticed. This is
why the work on the gender gap is so important. This is why work needs to
be done where all of us / all the databases are weak. This is why fake news
is so easy, there is nothing that easily finds where the data goes off the
rails.

<grin> so then we get to </grin> This is why we need the databus of
DBpedia, this is why we should stop mocking DBpedia and collaborate with
them in stead of what some say: "everything you can do, we can do better".
The fact of the matter is that they do what we might do and we have to
learn to collaborate.

Now why would you use Wikidata when DBpedia by definition can include all
of Wikidata and is better equipped to bring all the data together? You
would because it is not the copyright, it is superior functionality.
Thanks,
         GerardM

On 17 May 2018 at 17:39, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> be
> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-
> copyright-and-linked-data.html
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > that
> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> > idea
> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> Commons
> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > interested
> > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> the
> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > <
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Rob Speer-2
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić-2
I would like to not limit the discussion to interwiki links; it also
applies to Wikipedia infoboxes and Wiktionary tables, for example.

On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 20:55 Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Rob Speer wrote:
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
> "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
> through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If
> live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
> blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
> http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
>
> So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
> entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
>
> What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
> Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
> own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
> original source of the extraction.
>
> (A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
> whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
>
> My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
> non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
> different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
> different attribution) is legally sound.
>
> If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
> exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
> followed on Wikidata.
>
> For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
> project chat and in Phabricator:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects
>
>
> I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
>
> Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
> need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
> for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
> interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
> quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
> Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
> you like to ask instead?
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
> the
> > enemy of science and knowledge
> >
> > Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
> >
> > I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> > which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
> multiple
> > Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> > by CC-By-SA.
> >
> > Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
> CC-By-SA.
> > I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
> attitude
> > toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
> us
> > back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> > us follow it", etc.
> >
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
> >
> > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
> is
> > > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
> everywhere
> > > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> > >
> > > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> > Wikipedia,
> > > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I
> still
> > > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
> as
> > > well as "we" do it.
> > >
> > > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
> things
> > > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> > uploaded
> > > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED
> and
> > > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as
> a
> > > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> > copyright
> > > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > > annoying.
> > >
> > > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data
> from
> > > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of
> data
> > > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> > there
> > > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
> because
> > it
> > > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
> superior
> > > as a tool for disambiguation.
> > >
> > > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
> you
> > > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> > is
> > > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> > the
> > > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> > notion
> > > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
> attention.
> > > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
> negating
> > > the copyright held on databases.
> > >
> > > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> > our
> > > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the
> place
> > > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> > be
> > > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html
> > >
> > > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > > that
> > > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had
> no
> > > idea
> > > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> > Commons
> > > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello everybody,
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of
> Wikidata
> > > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > > interested
> > > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> > the
> > > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > > <
> > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Info WorldUniversity
In reply to this post by Rob Speer-2
Hi Mathieu, Rob, Denny, and Wikidatans,

I'm writing to inquire about further Wikidata CC licensing clarifications.


Wikidata may be heading to
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting and even c) commercially

MIT OCW uses, by way of comparison,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting but c) non-commercially


At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of
Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed
with CC-0?

Thanks.

Cheers, Scott


On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> be
> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-
> copyright-and-linked-data.html
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > that
> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> > idea
> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> Commons
> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > interested
> > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> the
> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > <
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--

--
- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
- World University and School
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- http://scottmacleod.com

- CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Denny Vrandečić-2
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić-2
Thank you for your answer, Sebastian.

Publishing the Gutachten would be fantastic! That would be very helpful and
deeply appreciated.

Regarding the relicensing, I agree with you. You can just go and do that,
and given that you ask for attribution to DBpedia, and not to Wikipedia, I
would claim that's what you're doing. And I think that's fine.

Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect it
transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY sucks
so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow very
quickly. It is the same as with modified images and collages: it is not
sufficient to attribute the last author, but all contributors have to be
attributed.

This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large federation of
data on the web, should publish under CC0.

That is very different from licensing texts or images. But for data
anything else is just weird and will bite is in the long run more than we
might ever benefit.

So, just to say it again: if the Gutachten you mentioned could be made
available, that would be very very awesome!

Thank you, Denny



On Thu, May 17, 2018, 23:06 Sebastian Hellmann <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Denny,
>
> On 18.05.2018 02:54, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>
> Rob Speer wrote:
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
> "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
> through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If
> live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
> blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
> http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
>
> So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it
> is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
>
> What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
> Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
> own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
> original source of the extraction.
>
> (A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
> whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
>
>
> My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
> non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
> different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
> different attribution) is legally sound.
>
>
> In the SmartDataWeb project https://www.smartdataweb.de/ we hired lawyers
> to write a legal review about the extraction situation. Facts can be
> extracted and republished under CC-0 without problem as is the case of
> infoboxes.. Copying a whole database is a different because database rights
> hold. If you only extract ~ two sentences it falls under citation, which is
> also easy. If it is more than two sentence, then copyright applies.
>
> I can check whether it is ready and shareable. The legal review
> (Gutachten) is quite a big thing as it has some legal relevancy and can be
> cited in court.
>
> Hence we can switch to ODC-BY with facts as CC-0 and the text as
> share-alike. However the attribution mentioned in the imprint is still
> fine, since it is under database and not the content/facts.
> I am still uncertain about the attribution. If you remix and publish you
> need to cite the direct sources. But if somebody takes from you, does he
> only attribute to you or to everybody you used in a transitive way.
>
> Anyhow, we are sharpening the whole model towards technology, not
> data/content. So the databus will be a transparent layer and it is much
> easier to find the source like Wikipedia and Wikidata and do contributions
> there, which is actually one of the intentions of share-alike (getting work
> pushed back/upstream).
>
> All the best,
> Sebastian
>
>
> If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
> exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
> followed on Wikidata.
>
> For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
> project chat and in Phabricator:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects
>
>
> I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
>
> Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but
> we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
> for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
> interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
> quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
> Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
> you like to ask instead?
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
>> enemy of science and knowledge
>>
>> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>>
>> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
>> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
>> multiple
>> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
>> by CC-By-SA.
>>
>> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
>> CC-By-SA.
>> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
>> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
>> us
>> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
>> us follow it", etc.
>>
>> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
>> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
>> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
>> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
>> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
>> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
>> is
>> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
>> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
>> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
>> everywhere
>> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
>> >
>> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
>> Wikipedia,
>> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
>> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
>> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
>> as
>> > well as "we" do it.
>> >
>> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
>> things
>> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
>> uploaded
>> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
>> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
>> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
>> copyright
>> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
>> > annoying.
>> >
>> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
>> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
>> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
>> there
>> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
>> because it
>> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
>> superior
>> > as a tool for disambiguation.
>> >
>> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
>> you
>> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
>> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
>> is
>> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
>> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
>> the
>> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
>> notion
>> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
>> attention.
>> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
>> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
>> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
>> negating
>> > the copyright held on databases.
>> >
>> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
>> our
>> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
>> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
>> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
>> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
>> be
>> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
>> > Thanks,
>> >        GerardM
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> >
>> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html
>> >
>> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
>> > that
>> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
>> > idea
>> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
>> Commons
>> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello everybody,
>> > > >
>> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
>> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
>> > interested
>> > > > to look at and participate in.
>> > > >
>> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
>> the
>> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
>> > > > <
>> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
>> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
>> > > >
>> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > 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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing [hidden email]://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
> --
> All the best,
> Sebastian Hellmann
>
> Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT)
> Competence Center
> at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig University
> Executive Director of the DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org,
> http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt
> <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt>
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
>
_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
In reply to this post by Info WorldUniversity
Hi,


Le 18/05/2018 à 19:45, Info WorldUniversity a écrit :

> At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
> think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
> languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
> - https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
> - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
> data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of
> Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed
> with CC-0?
>
I am not sure what you mean here. Regarding citations, our movement
already faced copyright issues with Wikiquote, see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/28_fr.Wikiquote_brief

Cheers

_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić-2
Hi,

Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
>
> Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect
> it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY
> sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements
> grow very quickly. It is the same as with modified images and
> collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last author, but all
> contributors have to be attributed.
If we want our data to be trustable, then we need traceability. That is
reporting this chain of sources as extensively as possible, whatever the
license require or not as attribution. CC-0 allow to break this
traceability, which make an aweful license to whoever is concerned with
obtaining reliable data.
>
> This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large
> federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data banks,
that's perfect. ;)

_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Maarten Dammers
Hi Mathieu,

On 04-07-18 11:07, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
>>
>> Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to
>> respect it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that
>> requires BY sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution
>> requirements grow very quickly. It is the same as with modified
>> images and collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last
>> author, but all contributors have to be attributed.
> If we want our data to be trustable, then we need traceability. That
> is reporting this chain of sources as extensively as possible,
> whatever the license require or not as attribution. CC-0 allow to
> break this traceability, which make an aweful license to whoever is
> concerned with obtaining reliable data.
A license is not the way to achieve this. We have references for that.
>>
>> This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large
>> federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
> As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data banks,
> that's perfect. ;)
So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l
people in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's
usually a good indication a thread is going nowhere.

No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only
person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you
in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this
to go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful
comments over there.

Maarten

_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić-2
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
> need to come up with the questions that we want to ask.
>
>

In the Phabricator discussion, Denny and others spent some considerable
effort to come up with the following questions (I am quoting below from
Denny's last post on Phabricator, dated May 26th):

---o0o---

Denny wrote on Phabricator:

So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following
questions sound good to everyone:

   1. Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk
   extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA,
   and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?


   1. Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be:
   a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts
   extracted from prose through natural language processing.


   1. What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like
   OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?

If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these
as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered.

---o0o---

Given that more than a month has passed, have these questions actually been
answered?






>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
> the
> > enemy of science and knowledge
> >
> > Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
> >
> > I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> > which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
> multiple
> > Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> > by CC-By-SA.
> >
> > Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
> CC-By-SA.
> > I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
> attitude
> > toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
> us
> > back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> > us follow it", etc.
> >
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
> >
> > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
> is
> > > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
> everywhere
> > > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> > >
> > > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> > Wikipedia,
> > > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I
> still
> > > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
> as
> > > well as "we" do it.
> > >
> > > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
> things
> > > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> > uploaded
> > > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED
> and
> > > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as
> a
> > > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> > copyright
> > > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > > annoying.
> > >
> > > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data
> from
> > > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of
> data
> > > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> > there
> > > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
> because
> > it
> > > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
> superior
> > > as a tool for disambiguation.
> > >
> > > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
> you
> > > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> > is
> > > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> > the
> > > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> > notion
> > > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
> attention.
> > > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
> negating
> > > the copyright held on databases.
> > >
> > > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> > our
> > > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the
> place
> > > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> > be
> > > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-
> copyright-and-linked-data.html
> > >
> > > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > > that
> > > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had
> no
> > > idea
> > > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> > Commons
> > > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello everybody,
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of
> Wikidata
> > > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > > interested
> > > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> > the
> > > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > > <
> > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Martijn Hoekstra
I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright
protection.

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 17:11 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but
> we
> > need to come up with the questions that we want to ask.
> >
> >
>
> In the Phabricator discussion, Denny and others spent some considerable
> effort to come up with the following questions (I am quoting below from
> Denny's last post on Phabricator, dated May 26th):
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Denny wrote on Phabricator:
>
> So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following
> questions sound good to everyone:
>
>    1. Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk
>    extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under
> CC-BY-SA,
>    and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?
>
>
>    1. Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be:
>    a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts
>    extracted from prose through natural language processing.
>
>
>    1. What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like
>    OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?
>
> If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these
> as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Given that more than a month has passed, have these questions actually been
> answered?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
> > the
> > > enemy of science and knowledge
> > >
> > > Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
> > >
> > > I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> > > which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
> > multiple
> > > Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be
> protected
> > > by CC-By-SA.
> > >
> > > Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
> > CC-By-SA.
> > > I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
> > attitude
> > > toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's
> holding
> > us
> > > back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't
> make
> > > us follow it", etc.
> > >
> > > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell
> modified
> > > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> > DBPedia
> > > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always,
> copyright
> > is
> > > > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > > > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > > > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
> > everywhere
> > > > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> > > >
> > > > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> > > Wikipedia,
> > > > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I
> > still
> > > > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > > > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to
> do
> > as
> > > > well as "we" do it.
> > > >
> > > > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
> > things
> > > > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> > > uploaded
> > > > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED
> > and
> > > > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and
> as
> > a
> > > > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> > > copyright
> > > > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > > > annoying.
> > > >
> > > > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data
> > from
> > > > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of
> > data
> > > > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> > > there
> > > > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
> > because
> > > it
> > > > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
> > superior
> > > > as a tool for disambiguation.
> > > >
> > > > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
> > you
> > > > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > > > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data
> that
> > > is
> > > > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > > > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much
> of
> > > the
> > > > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> > > notion
> > > > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
> > attention.
> > > > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > > > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of
> copyright
> > > > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
> > negating
> > > > the copyright held on databases.
> > > >
> > > > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata.
> However
> > > our
> > > > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > > > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > > > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the
> > place
> > > > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together
> to
> > > be
> > > > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >        GerardM
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-
> > copyright-and-linked-data.html
> > > >
> > > > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about
> projects
> > > > that
> > > > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had
> > no
> > > > idea
> > > > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> > > Commons
> > > > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello everybody,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of
> > Wikidata
> > > > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > > > interested
> > > > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility
> through
> > > the
> > > > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright
> protection.
>
>
Martijn, individual facts aren't eligible for copyright, but substantial
compilations of facts are.

The concept you are missing is "database rights":

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights

'Databases may be protected by US copyright law as "compilations." In the
EU, databases are protected by the Database Directive
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive>, which defines a
database as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials
arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by
electronic or other means."'

That page (including the above quote) was written by WMF Legal.
_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Maarten Dammers
Hi,

2018-07-04 12:50 GMT+02:00 Maarten Dammers <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Mathieu,
>


> So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l people
> in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's usually a
> good indication a thread is going nowhere.
>
> No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only
> person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you in
> your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this to go
> to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful comments
> over there.


I concur totally with analysis.

Regards,

Yann Forget
_______________________________________________
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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Alphos OGame
Hello,

Mathieu, not only are you forum-shopping here as Maarten pointed out, you
are also consecutively trying one "what if" after the other instead of
providing an actual formal case against the CC0 license currently in effect
on Wikidata.
So far each of your individual arguments has been debunked :
- incompatibly licensed database imports (Nemo_bis [1] and Denny [2][3]
replied to that concern on May 14th on Phabricator ; same applies to
CC-BY-SA on Wikipedia : we get rid of incompatible stuff all the time)
- provenance and traceability of data (Maarten Dammers replied to that
concern on this email thread on July 4th ; licenses have nothing to do with
either of those things : references are there for that, and edit history
can help too)
- conflation of licensing of an entire text and facts stated within it -
which is pretty much one of the main purposes of Wikidata, or am I mistaken
? - (Martijn Hoekstra replied to that concern on this email thread on July
4th ; facts aren't long blobs of complicated text that are works of the
mind, although it could be a tad more complex when it comes to large
compilations of facts - but the definition of "large" is nowhere properly
determined)
On May 25th, you mentionned on Phabricator "discussing face to face with a
professional lawyer specialized on free licenses" [4]. She was supposed to
forward you "more information later". Has she done that ? Barring anything
new from her or any other lawyer, I see no reason whatsoever to keep going
on with that discussion which, so far, seems to only be able to determine
the morals and ethos of sticking to CC0, and not the actual legality of it.

However, I'd like to point out as an aside that in the process of your - so
far it seems purely intellectual - exercice, you have pushed Karima out of
a mailing list, which culminated in you asking from Wikimedia France that
all messages from all their mailing lists be immediately and irrevocably
made public "for total and absolute transparency and openness" as I recall
it, for the measly sake of this very argument. Your request was thankfully
denied on the basis of, if anything, privacy protection of their members.
Her message on May 4th on Phabricator [5] doesn't leave much to the
imagination that her leaving the Wikimedia France Wikidata mailing list and
your actions are directly related.

I suggest you either provide a strong legal argument (which is more than
"this thing and that stuff could happen", I mean something with actual
legal babble, including law and case law, with help from an actual lawyer)
or drop the splintered stick you hit that long-since dead horse with. And
whichever you choose, if you could stop bullying people to get your point
across, that'd be swell.

Thank you.

Roger / Alphos

[1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4204583
[2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4204771
[3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4204779
[4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4231434
[5] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4182444



2018-07-05 20:30 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> 2018-07-04 12:50 GMT+02:00 Maarten Dammers <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi Mathieu,
> >
>
>
> > So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l people
> > in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's usually a
> > good indication a thread is going nowhere.
> >
> > No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only
> > person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you in
> > your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this to go
> > to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful comments
> > over there.
>
>
> I concur totally with analysis.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann Forget
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|

[Wikimedia-l] On traceability and reliability of data we publish [was Re: [Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata]

Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
In reply to this post by Maarten Dammers
Hi Andra,

I agree this is misconception that a copyright license make any direct
change to data reliability. But attribution requirement does somewhat
indirectly have an impact on it, as it legally enforce traceability.
That is I strongly disagree with the following assertion: "a license
that requires BY sucks so hard for data [because] attribution
requirements grow very quickly". To my mind it is equivalent to say that
we will throw away traceability because it is subjectively judged too
large a burden, without providing any start of evidence that it indeed
can't be managed, at least with Wikimedia current ressources.

Now, I don't say traceability is the sole factor one should take into
account in data reliability, but certainly it is one of them. Maybe we
should first come with clear criteria to put in a equation that enable
to calculate reliability of information. Since it's in the core goals of
the Wikimedia strategy, it would certainly worth the effort to establish
clear metrics about reliability of information the movement is spreading.

Cheers


Le 04/07/2018 à 13:00, Andra Waagmeester a écrit :

> I agree with Maarten and to add to that. It is a huge misconception
> that CC0  makes data unreliable. It is only a legal statement about
> copyright, nothing more, nothing less. Statements without proper
> references and qualifiers make data unreliable, but Wikidata has a
> decent mechanism to capture that needed provenance.
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Maarten Dammers <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Mathieu,
>
>     On 04-07-18 11:07, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
>
>
>             Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you
>             have to respect it transitively. That is one of the
>             reasons a license that requires BY sucks so hard for data:
>             unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow very
>             quickly. It is the same as with modified images and
>             collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last
>             author, but all contributors have to be attributed.
>
>         If we want our data to be trustable, then we need
>         traceability. That is reporting this chain of sources as
>         extensively as possible, whatever the license require or not
>         as attribution. CC-0 allow to break this traceability, which
>         make an aweful license to whoever is concerned with obtaining
>         reliable data.
>
>     A license is not the way to achieve this. We have references for that.
>
>
>             This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a
>             large federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
>
>         As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data
>         banks, that's perfect. ;)
>
>     So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l
>     people in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks.
>     That's usually a good indication a thread is going nowhere.
>
>     No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the
>     only person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not
>     help you in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still
>     interested in this to go to
>     https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728
>     <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> and make useful
>     comments over there.
>
>     Maarten
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
In reply to this post by Maarten Dammers
Hi Andra,


Le 04/07/2018 à 13:00, Andra Waagmeester a écrit :

>
>
>     No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the
>     only person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not
>     help you in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still
>     interested in this to go to
>     https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728
>     <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> and make useful
>     comments over there.
>
It seems all this assertions are following some erroneous assumptions.
This ticket is not about changing Wikidata license. It aims at making
sure what can and what can not be legally imported into a database using
CC0, and in which juridiction it can be legally used safely or not in
downstream projects.

It would certainly be interesting that Wikimedia infrastructure would
allow to host projects using Wikibase with other topic/license scopes
that are queriables within other Wikimedia projects. Surelly it would
make a good match with the "become the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem of free knowledge" goal. But that's an other story, and I
didn't found time to work on that topic so far.

It would also be great if we could avoid to imput the title of "crusader
dedicated to discredit Wikidata" to someone that not later than this
afternoon helped a new contributor to make its first edit on this project.

Cheers.

>
>     Maarten
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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] On traceability and reliability of data we publish [was Re: [Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata]

Alphos OGame
In reply to this post by Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
Hello,

You seem to be mistaken.

Traceability of information does not pertain with who imported said
information on Wikidata. Could be an unregistered user, could be a bot,
could be a Wikimedian in residence or even the Pope himself, it doesn't
make a difference in the world.
What matters in traceability of a piece of data is *where* it comes from,
and that piece of metadata is achieved through referencing.
That does not belong in licencing.
CC-BY would mean reusers would have to mention individual users (including
vandals, sigh) who took part in compiling datasets on Wikidata, which you
seem to be oblivious to. CC-BY does not help track where a work comes from,
only who took part in making it. Datasets reusers don't need that kind of
information when all they want is a list of countries of which Heads of
State have spouses whose given name starts with a D [1].

When it comes to reliability, there again, who imported it is not
particularly of importance, keeping in mind that Wikidata is not the most
user-friendly wiki in the Wikimedia Ecosystem, as it is not the simplest to
grasp for human minds, and as such not the most frequently vandalized
(three huzzahs for small favors !).
What matters in reliability of a piece of data stems from the *source* of a
particular source of information, which, once again, is indicated by a
reference, and the credit you give to said source.
That again does not belong in licencing.
CC-BY would mean reusers would know that a crapton of people they have no
idea even exist took part in compiling a dataset they require (instead of
just the dataset and references pertaining to it), which again you seem to
be oblivious to. It doesn't protect reusers against vandalism, it does
however make their dataset a whole lot larger by adding the names of a
whole lot of people they don't know or care about.

It really doesn't matter how you put it, the arguments you've put forward
so far simply don't make any kind of sense against CC0 or for CC-BY.

If however you do insist on knowing which user added a particular piece of
data (or reference/metadata, for that matter) to an item, Wikidata keeps an
edit history just in case. It is not necessary for the licence currently in
effect on Wikidata (which, need I remind you, is still CC0), but it is
there nonetheless should you need it.

Now, do we need to keep this needlessly long and tedious thread alive under
another name or could we please drop it and carry on with our lives.

Roger / Alphos

[1] Maybe for a prophecy or something ? Well, if anyone need it, it's
hopelessly simple, so here goes : https://tinyurl.com/yb6dh3r6



2018-07-07 17:59 GMT+02:00 mathieu lovato stumpf guntz <
[hidden email]>:

> Hi Andra,
>
> I agree this is misconception that a copyright license make any direct
> change to data reliability. But attribution requirement does somewhat
> indirectly have an impact on it, as it legally enforce traceability. That
> is I strongly disagree with the following assertion: "a license that
> requires BY sucks so hard for data [because] attribution requirements grow
> very quickly". To my mind it is equivalent to say that we will throw away
> traceability because it is subjectively judged too large a burden, without
> providing any start of evidence that it indeed can't be managed, at least
> with Wikimedia current ressources.
>
> Now, I don't say traceability is the sole factor one should take into
> account in data reliability, but certainly it is one of them. Maybe we
> should first come with clear criteria to put in a equation that enable to
> calculate reliability of information. Since it's in the core goals of the
> Wikimedia strategy, it would certainly worth the effort to establish clear
> metrics about reliability of information the movement is spreading.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Le 04/07/2018 à 13:00, Andra Waagmeester a écrit :
>
>> I agree with Maarten and to add to that. It is a huge misconception that
>> CC0  makes data unreliable. It is only a legal statement about copyright,
>> nothing more, nothing less. Statements without proper references and
>> qualifiers make data unreliable, but Wikidata has a decent mechanism to
>> capture that needed provenance.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Maarten Dammers <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Mathieu,
>>
>>     On 04-07-18 11:07, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
>>
>>
>>             Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you
>>             have to respect it transitively. That is one of the
>>             reasons a license that requires BY sucks so hard for data:
>>             unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow very
>>             quickly. It is the same as with modified images and
>>             collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last
>>             author, but all contributors have to be attributed.
>>
>>         If we want our data to be trustable, then we need
>>         traceability. That is reporting this chain of sources as
>>         extensively as possible, whatever the license require or not
>>         as attribution. CC-0 allow to break this traceability, which
>>         make an aweful license to whoever is concerned with obtaining
>>         reliable data.
>>
>>     A license is not the way to achieve this. We have references for that.
>>
>>
>>             This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a
>>             large federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
>>
>>         As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data
>>         banks, that's perfect. ;)
>>
>>     So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l
>>     people in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks.
>>     That's usually a good indication a thread is going nowhere.
>>
>>     No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the
>>     only person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not
>>     help you in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still
>>     interested in this to go to
>>     https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728
>>     <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> and make useful
>>     comments over there.
>>
>>     Maarten
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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/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>
12