Wikidata September 2013

wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org

57 participants
42 discussions

Re: [Wikidata-l] Cooperation between Wikidata and DBpedia and Wikipedia
by Christian Bizer 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

Hi Gerard and all, Von: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. September 2013 10:26 An: Kingsley Idehen Cc: Discussion list for the Wikidata project.; Chris Bizer; Samuel Klein; Sören Auer; Christian Bizer Betreff: Re: [Wikidata-l] Cooperation between Wikidata and DBpedia and Wikipedia Hoi, Congratulations on the new version of DBpedia :) .. This makes it an auspicious occasion to talk about future collaboration. At this time several Wikimedians are busy harvesting data from Wikipedia and loading it into Wikidata. Yes, we did see this and of course all these Wikimedians are more than welcome to reuse parts of our code for building their harvesters (the DBpedia extraction framework does a lot of little things around data cleaning and recognizing different variations of values as well as normalizing units of measurements that I guess would also be useful for the other harvesters.) You are harvesting data from Wikipedia and loading it into DBpedia. As we are including data into Wikidata, it goes into DBpedia as well... We might as well work together on this. One of the best parts (as far as I am concerned) is your knowledge of fields used in infoboxes and knowing how they are the same / related to fields in other infoboxes. This expertise should be easy to absorb into Wikidata Yes, all the information about the infobox to ontology mappings are maintained by the DBpedia community in the mappings wiki (http://mappings.dbpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) and of course Wikidata is more than welcome to use them. As far as I know the mappings wiki also already contains mappings from DBpedia classes/properties to the corresponding Wikidata classes/properties for about 1/3 of all classes/properties (Sebastian Hellmann cc’ed knows more about this). So it would be very simple for you to use the mappings to fill your repository. In Wikidata we use qualifiers, will you adopt qualifiers in DBpedia? At this time qualifiers are not handled by the harvesting software I am familiar with. What kind of qualifiers? Do you mean provenance information? To me these are the two issues that determine how easy it will be to effectively collaborate on great content for Wikidata. To me the most important aspect of Wikidata is that it is actually used. Information added becomes available in many places. Consequently more data for Wikidata, data that fits in well and is closely related to the 100+ wikipedias you are harvesting will ensure a rich experience in so many places. Yes. Cheers, Chris Thanks, GerardM On 26 August 2013 17:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen(a)openlinksw.com> wrote: On 8/26/13 10:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: I do know how much the DBpedia people want to reach out and connect in any positive way with both Wikipedia and Wikidata. I have no knowledge (on the DBpedia side) of any resistance to collaborate with Wikidata. We've always seen this effort (like other structured data efforts of this kind e.g., Freebase, YAGO etc..) as being mutually beneficial. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

1 0

Re: [Wikidata-l] Cooperation between Wikidata and DBpedia and Wikipedia
by Gerard Meijssen 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

Hoi, I have been blogging a lot the last two days with DBpedia in mind. My understanding is that at DBpedia a lot of effort went into making something of a cohesive model of properties. Now that the "main type GND" is about to be deleted, it makes sense to adopt much of the work that has been done at DBpedia. The benefits are: - we will get access to academically reviewed data structures - we do not have to wait and ponder and get in to thebusiness enriching the data content of DBpedia - we can easily compare the data in DBpedia and Wikidata - more importantly, DBpedia has spend effort in connecting to other resources Yes, we can import data from DBpedia and we can import data from Wikipedia. Actually we can do both. The one thing that needs to be considered is that we need data before we can curate it. With more data available it becomes more relevant to invest time in tools that compare data. We can start doing this now and, over time this will become more relevant. But now we need more properties and the associated date. What do you think? Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerard.blogspot.com

6 11

[Wikidata-l] Counting sitelinks - period
by Luca Martinelli 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hi all, sorry if I burst in with a simple question, but... is there a tool to count how many sitelinks for a single project are there in Wikidata? I mean, if I want to know how many (and which) items in Wikidata have a sitelink to, say, Yoruba Wikipedia, what tool do I have to use, if exists? Thanks. -- Luca "Sannita" Martinelli http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita

5 5

[Wikidata-l] Counting sitelinks of subclasses.
by Klein,Max 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hello All, It struck me that one interesting way to see if subclasses are useful was to test this hypothesis. Let QID_a and QID_b be two Wikidata items. Conjecture: if QID_b is subclass of QID_a, then count_stelinks(QID_b) <= count_sitelinks(QID_a). Has anyone investigated this problem, or can think of an efficient way to test it? Or can tell me why it ought not to be true? Maximilian Klein Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC +17074787023

5 5

[Wikidata-l] 'Person' or 'human', upper ontologies and migrating 4 million claims
by Antoine Isaac 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Dear all, First, sorry for sending an email: I want to help, but I don't have the time required to understand how the wiki RfC mechanism work [1]. More precisely that one seems really not the appropriate for a first dive :-( In fact reading it I'm not even sure I understand the question anymore. To me the original question was about the properties P31 and P279 themselves (Eric's mail still list them as an option, albeit a popular one), ie, rather on how to represent a classification (independent from which one is chosen). But now I see plenty hardcore ontological discussions on the RfC page, which are indeed about getting a unified top-level ontology... The basic question is, can you really get a unified, perfectly structured and clean classification of things? I'm slightly surprised that Wikidata would go there. You want users to add classes in the future, no? Or to use the existing wikipedia categories as a source of classification? In either case, you'd end up making weird inferences possible, if you apply the formal semantics of P31 and P279 as they're defined for rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf [4,5]. Actually even if you invest time making a clean top-level, the lower-level parts of the classification will probably very soon diverge from formal ontology "meta-principles" that structure SUMO, DOLCE, BFO, etc. And it's probably very alright, for most of your usage scenarios. Having simple, intuitive classification semantics is possible without the full formal ontology apparatus. Namely, you can use something that looks like rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf, but with looser semantics. 1. you could use something like the dc:type property from the Dublin Core framework, instead of rdf:type. Possibly creating sub-properties of it, using a list like the one at [7] for input. 2. You could use something like skos:broader and skos:narrower [8] for the links between the 'looser classes' Of course this does not correspond to formal ontological framework as in the Semantic Web sense. But well, if the 'classification' doesn't fit a super-formal framework, I see no reason to desperately try to shoehorn it into RDFS. Note that I would quite disagree with the second part of the sentence from one of the RfC-related pages [9]: " There is a consensus on Wikidata against creating other properties which perform this function as it is felt a clean hierarchy of classes is in keeping with W3C recommendations and will make it easier to use the data here. " First, getting a clean hierarchy won't make things easier, if you end up with a too static/formal view on the world. Second, the feeling about the W3C recommendations is wrong. W3C has actually pushed SKOS to allow 'softer' classifications to be represented having to undergo the ordeals and dangers of RDFS/OWL... But I realize all this might be regarded as questioning the decision you made earlier on using P31 and P279 instead of the GND type, so I'm going to stop bothering you ;-) Best, Antoine --- Antoine Isaac Scientific coordinator, Europeana.eu [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_… [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2013-September/002815.html [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2013-September/002816.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof [6] http://purl.org/dc/terms/type [7] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_… [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secrel [9] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Modeling#Hierarchy_of_classes

4 3

[Wikidata-l] Commons now gets links via Wikidata
by Lydia Pintscher 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Heya folks :) We have just enabled interwiki links for Wikimedia Commons via Wikidata. This means they now no longer need to be stored in the wikitext on Commons but instead can be stored in Wikidata together with the links for Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Technical Projects Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

1 0

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 22
by Joe Filceolaire 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Subject: [Wikidata-l] 'Person' or 'human', upper ontologies and migrating 4 million claims Antoine while there there are discussions in the RFC about high level ontlogies there is other stuff happening out on the wikidata item pages. Editors are constructing low level ontologies using ''instance of' and 'subclass of' and these are gradually creeping upwards. 'is in administrative unit' and 'located on terrain feature' are being used to build another hierarchy of places on earth and 'part of' is being used to build a hierarchy of places off the planet. 'occupation (person)' is becoming more important than 'instance of' in classifying humans and 'child' 'instance of' is also being used to classify all the items derived from wikipedia pages that don't quite fit - category pages, disambiguation pages, compound items (describing more than one thing - like 'Bonnie and Clyde'), so tools can find these to exclude them from queries or whatever. Personally I can't see an awful lot of use for an upper level ontology - all the use cases I've seen are for the lower levels. If an upper level is to be added (and I'm sure it will - 'encyclopaedic' is close to a synonym for 'completist') then why not have all of the upper level ontologies? 'subclass of' can be used to create a variety of upper level ontologies on top of the base levels derived from the items we have. After all the enwp categories have three different upper level ontologies! Joe user:filceolaire On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM, <wikidata-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote: > Send Wikidata-l mailing list submissions to > wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wikidata-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wikidata-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wikidata-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 'Person' or 'human', upper ontologies and migrating 4 > million claims (Antoine Isaac) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:24:32 +0200 > From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac(a)few.vu.nl> > To: <wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: [Wikidata-l] 'Person' or 'human', upper ontologies and > migrating 4 million claims > Message-ID: <523F5200.7080704(a)few.vu.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > > Dear all, > > First, sorry for sending an email: I want to help, but I don't have the > time required to understand how the wiki RfC mechanism work [1]. More > precisely that one seems really not the appropriate for a first dive :-( > > In fact reading it I'm not even sure I understand the question anymore. To > me the original question was about the properties P31 and P279 themselves > (Eric's mail still list them as an option, albeit a popular one), ie, > rather on how to represent a classification (independent from which one is > chosen). But now I see plenty hardcore ontological discussions on the RfC > page, which are indeed about getting a unified top-level ontology... > > The basic question is, can you really get a unified, perfectly structured > and clean classification of things? > I'm slightly surprised that Wikidata would go there. You want users to add > classes in the future, no? Or to use the existing wikipedia categories as a > source of classification? > In either case, you'd end up making weird inferences possible, if you > apply the formal semantics of P31 and P279 as they're defined for rdf:type > and rdfs:subClassOf [4,5]. Actually even if you invest time making a clean > top-level, the lower-level parts of the classification will probably very > soon diverge from formal ontology "meta-principles" that structure SUMO, > DOLCE, BFO, etc. > > And it's probably very alright, for most of your usage scenarios. Having > simple, intuitive classification semantics is possible without the full > formal ontology apparatus. Namely, you can use something that looks like > rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf, but with looser semantics. > 1. you could use something like the dc:type property from the Dublin Core > framework, instead of rdf:type. Possibly creating sub-properties of it, > using a list like the one at [7] for input. > 2. You could use something like skos:broader and skos:narrower [8] for the > links between the 'looser classes' > > > Of course this does not correspond to formal ontological framework as in > the Semantic Web sense. But well, if the 'classification' doesn't fit a > super-formal framework, I see no reason to desperately try to shoehorn it > into RDFS. > > Note that I would quite disagree with the second part of the sentence from > one of the RfC-related pages [9]: > " > There is a consensus on Wikidata against creating other properties which > perform this function as it is felt a clean hierarchy of classes is in > keeping with W3C recommendations and will make it easier to use the data > here. > " > First, getting a clean hierarchy won't make things easier, if you end up > with a too static/formal view on the world. Second, the feeling about the > W3C recommendations is wrong. W3C has actually pushed SKOS to allow > 'softer' classifications to be represented having to undergo the ordeals > and dangers of RDFS/OWL... > > But I realize all this might be regarded as questioning the decision you > made earlier on using P31 and P279 instead of the GND type, so I'm going to > stop bothering you ;-) > > Best, > > Antoine > --- > Antoine Isaac > Scientific coordinator, Europeana.eu > > [1] > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_… > [2] > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2013-September/002815.html > [3] > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2013-September/002816.html > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof > [6] http://purl.org/dc/terms/type > [7] > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_… > [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secrel > [9] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Modeling#Hierarchy_of_classes > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > End of Wikidata-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 22 > ****************************************** >

2 1

[Wikidata-l] Fwd: [Dbpedia-announcements] ANN: DBpedia 3.9 released, including wider infobox coverage, additional type statements, and new YAGO and Wikidata links
by Kingsley Idehen 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

FYI This is the first release of DBpedia that includes cross-references (via owl:sameAs linkages) to WikiData URIs. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Dbpedia-announcements] ANN: DBpedia 3.9 released, including wider infobox coverage, additional type statements, and new YAGO and Wikidata links Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:27:17 +0200 From: Christian Bizer <chris(a)bizer.de> To: <dbpedia-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net>, <dbpedia-developers(a)lists.sourceforge.net>, <public-lod(a)w3.org>, <semantic-web(a)w3.org>, <dbpedia-announcements(a)lists.sourceforge.net> Hi all, we are happy to announce the release of DBpedia 3.9. The most important improvements of the new release compared to DBpedia 3.8 are: 1. the new release is based on updated Wikipedia dumps dating from March / April 2013 (the 3.8 release was based on dumps from June 2012), leading to an overall increase in the number of concepts in the English edition from 3.7 to 4.0 million things. 2. the DBpedia ontology is enlarged and the number of infobox to ontology mappings has risen, leading to richer and cleaner concept descriptions. 3. we extended the DBpedia type system to also cover Wikipedia articles that do not contain an infobox. 4. we provide links pointing from DBpedia concepts to Wikidata concepts and updated the links pointing at YAGO concepts and classes, making it easier to integrate knowledge from these sources. The English version of the DBpedia knowledge base currently describes 4.0 million things, out of which 3.22 million are classified in a consistent Ontology, including 832,000 persons, 639,000 places (including 427,000 populated places), 372,000 creative works (including 116,000 music albums, 78,000 films and 18,500 video games), 209,000 organizations (including 49,000 companies and 45,000 educational institutions), 226,000 species and 5,600 diseases. We provide localized versions of DBpedia in 119 languages. All these versions together describe 24.9 million things, out of which 16.8 million overlap (are interlinked) with the concepts from the English DBpedia. The full DBpedia data set features labels and abstracts for 12.6 million unique things in 119 different languages; 24.6 million links to images and 27.6 million links to external web pages; 45.0 million external links into other RDF datasets, 67.0 million links to Wikipedia categories, and 41.2 million YAGO categories. Altogether the DBpedia 3.9 release consists of 2.46 billion pieces of information (RDF triples) out of which 470 million were extracted from the English edition of Wikipedia, 1.98 billion were extracted from other language editions, and about 45 million are links to external data sets. Detailed statistics about the DBpedia data sets in 24 popular languages are provided at http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Datasets39/DatasetStatistics The main changes between DBpedia 3.8 and 3.9 are described below. For additional, more detailed information please refer to the Change Log (http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Changelog) 1. Enlarged Ontology The DBpedia community added new classes and properties to the DBpedia ontology via the mappings wiki. The DBpedia 3.9 ontology encompasses 529 classes (DBpedia 3.8: 359) 927 object properties (DBpedia 3.8: 800) 1290 datatype properties (DBpedia 3.8: 859) 116 specialized datatype properties (DBpedia 3.8: 116) 46 owl:equivalentClass and 31 owl:equivalentProperty mappings to http://schema.org 2. Additional Infobox to Ontology Mappings The editors of the mappings wiki also defined many new mappings from Wikipedia templates to DBpedia classes. For the DBpedia 3.9 extraction, we used 3177 mappings (DBpedia 3.8: 2347 mappings), that are distributed as follows over the languages covered in the release. English: 431 mappings Polish: 382 mappings Dutch: 335 mappings German: 219 mappings Greek: 215 mappings Portuguese: 211 mappings Slovenian: 170 mappings French: 165 mappings Korean: 148 mappings Spanish: 137 mappings Hungarian: 111 mappings Turkish: 91 mappings Japanese: 72 mappings Czech: 66 mappings Italian: 62 mappings Bulgarian: 61 mappings Indonesian: 59 mappings Catalan: 52 mappings Arabic: 51 mappings Russian: 48 mappings Croatian: 36 mappings Basque: 32 mappings Irish: 17 mappings Bengali: 6 mappings 3. Extended Type System to cover Articles without Infobox Until the DBpedia 3.8 release, a concept was only assigned a type (like person or place) if the corresponding Wikipedia article contains an infobox indicating this type. The new 3.9 release now also contains type statements for articles without infobox that were inferred based on the link structure within the DBpedia knowledge base using the algorithm described in Paulheim/Bizer 2013 [1]. Applying the algorithm allowed us to provide type information for 440,000 concepts that were formerly not typed. A similar algorithm was also used to identify and remove potentially wrong links from the knowledge base. 4. New and updated RDF Links into External Data Sources We added RDF links to Wikidata and updated the following RDF link sets pointing at other Linked Data sources: YAGO, Freebase, Geonames, GADM and EUNIS. For an overview about all data sets that are interlinked from DBpedia please refer to http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Interlinking 5. New Find Related Concepts Service We offer a new service for finding resources that are related to a given DBpedia seed resource. More information about the service is found at http://wiki.dbpedia.org/FindRelated Accessing the DBpedia 3.9 Release: You can download the new DBpedia datasets from http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Downloads39 As usual, the dataset is also available as Linked Data and via the DBpedia SPARQL endpoint at http://dbpedia.org/sparql Lots of thanks to: * Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt (Freelancer funded by the University of Mannheim, Germany) for improving the DBpedia extraction framework, for extracting the DBpedia 3.9 data sets for all 119 languages, and for generating the updated RDF links to external data sets. * All editors that contributed to the DBpedia ontology mappings via the Mappings Wiki. * Heiko Paulheim (University of Mannheim, Germany) for inventing and implementing the algorithm to generate additional type statements for formerly untyped resources. * The whole Internationalization Committee for pushing the DBpedia internationalization forward. * Dimitris Kontokostas (University of Leipzig) for improving the DBpedia extraction framework and loading the new release onto the DBpedia download server in Leipzig. * Volha Bryl (University of Mannheim, Germany) for generating the statistics about the new release. * Petar Ristoski (University of Mannheim, Germany) for generating the updated links pointing at the GADM database of Global Administrative Areas. * Kingsley Idehen, Patrick van Kleef, and Mitko Iliev (all OpenLink Software) for loading the new data set into the Virtuoso instance that serves the Linked Data view and SPARQL endpoint. * OpenLink Software (http://www.openlinksw.com/) altogether for providing the server infrastructure for DBpedia. * Julien Cojan, Andrea Di Menna, Ahmed Ktob, Julien Plu, Jim Regan and others who contributed improvements to the DBpedia extraction framework via the source code repository on GitHub. The work on the DBpedia 3.9 release was financially supported by the European Commission through the project LOD2 - Creating Knowledge out of Linked Data (http://lod2.eu/). More information about DBpedia is found at http://dbpedia.org/About as well as in the new overview article [2] about the project. Have fun with the new DBpedia release! Cheers, Christian Bizer and Christopher Sahnwaldt [1] http://www.heikopaulheim.com/docs/iswc2013.pdf [2] http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-announcements mailing list Dbpedia-announcements(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-announcements

1 0

[Wikidata-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo
by Federico Leva (Nemo) 21 Sep '13

21 Sep '13

FYI Nemo P.s.: P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your project by seeing if it's listed as "registered trademark" on <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks>. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo Data: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:16:16 +0200 Mittente: Tomasz W. Kozlowski Hello community, this is to inform you that in response to the trademarking of the Wikimedia community logo[1], created in 2006 by Artur “WarX” Fijałkowski, which was discussed on this mailing list[2] as well as on Meta[3] back in March, a small group of community members—Artur, myself, Federico Leva (Nemo) and John Vandenberg—have initiated a formal process of opposition against the registration of the trademark by the Foundation in order to *reclaim the logo* for unrestricted use by the community. We appreciate the Foundation’s protection of the other trademarks they have registered so far, including the logos of Wikipedia, Wikisource and some other sister projects. In the case of the community logo, however, it is our belief that the Foundation’s actions are exactly opposite to what the community logo stands for and contradict the purpose behind its very existence. We would like to make it clear that it is not our intention to damage anyone; our actions are a challenge against what we perceive as unilateral declaration of ownership of an asset that has always belonged to the wider community, and not to one or another organisation that is part of the movement. By formally opposing the registration of the trademark we hope to ensure the history of this logo is not disregarded, and we wish to protect the community against unnecessary bureaucracy and, to use another quote, let “groups who do not purport to represent the WMF”[4] to continue to be able to freely associate with a logo that has been part of their identity for so long. We also want to note that this is in no way a legal action against the Foundation, but a simple notice of opposition against the registration of the logo in the European Union. If we assume good faith, we can only be confident that the WMF, having now a formal occasion, will withdraw its registration of the logo rather than continue using movement resources to force the community into lengthy, expensive proceedings. We invite all community members interested in this issue to express their opinions at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Reclaim_the_Logo If any of you would like to help us in any way (covering the costs of the opposition, promoting the discussion, etc.), please feel free to contact us off–list. Artur Fijalkowski (WarX) Tomasz Kozlowski (odder) Federico Leva (Nemo) John Vandenberg (jayvdb) == References == * [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg * [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124715.html * [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo * [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124730.html _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 0

[Wikidata-l] weekly summary #76
by Lydia Pintscher 20 Sep '13

20 Sep '13

Heya folks :) Here's your fresh serving of weekly news about all things Wikidata. This time with the first work on paper cuts you reported (keep them coming), oversight nominations and more. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Status_updates/2013_09_20 Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Technical Projects Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Wikidata September 2013