2017-12-01 9:34 GMT+01:00 Markus Kroetzsch <markus.kroetzsch(a)tu-dresden.de>de>:
You are in an impossible position. Either you want to be an objective
researcher who tries to reconstruct past events as they happened, or you are
pursuing an agenda to criticise and change some aspects of Wikidata. The way
you do it, you are making yourself part of the debate that you claim you
want to reconstruct.
From a research perspective, any material you gather in this way comes with
a big question mark. You are not doing us much of a favour either, because
by forcing us to refute accusations, you are placing our memories of the
past events in a doubtful, heavily biased context.
Your overall approach of considering a theory to be true (or at least
equally likely to be true) unless you are given "proofs that this claim is
completely wrong" is not scientific. This is not how research works. For a
start, Occam's Razor should make you disregard overly complex theories for
things that have much simpler explanations (in our case: CC0 is a respected
license chosen by many other projects for good reasons, so it is entirely
plausible that the founders of Wikidata also just picked it for the usual
reasons, without any secret conspiracy). And once you have an interesting
theory formed, you need to gather evidence for or against it in a way that
is not affected by the theory (i.e., in particular, don't start calls for
information with an emotional discussion of whether or not you would
personally like the theory to turn out true).
What you are doing here is completely unscientific and I hope that your
supervisor (?) will also point this out to you at some point. Moreover, I am
afraid that you cannot really get back to the position of an objective
observer from where you are now. Better leave this research to others who
are not in publicly documented disagreement with the main historic
So you should understand that I don't feel compelled to give you a detailed
account of every Wikidata-related discussion I had as if I were on some
trial here. As a "researcher", it is you who has to prove your theories, not
the rest of the world who has to disprove them. I already told you that your
main guesses as far as they concern things I have witnessed are not true,
and that's all from me for now.
I agree wholeheartedly with Markus.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's been almost three days now and 40+
messages, and it seems that all the fundamental reasons for this
thread to be open are either too complicated to be implemented (or at
least "not worth the while") or inherently biased and/or unfounded.
For so, I kindly ask all people in this list to close this thread, as
it seems that nothing good will ever come out of it.
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli