On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Flaken Aldnonymous aldnonymous2@yahoo.com wrote:

On [[m:TOU]] already explain what you should do.

That is the default for Wikimedia projects. An individual project can overwrite that if wanted.

Cheers Lydia

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:

Lydia, I believe you meant to say "override", not "overwrite". Freudian slip, but I found it rather funny (and could think of multiple instances where that might even be true).

Heh yeah.

Cheers Lydia

Jeremy Baron you might want to read this https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

Also, we already done RFC for this here Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment - Meta

|   | |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment - MetaThis active discussion period of the Terms of Use amendment has been closed by the legal team (see message above). | | | | View on meta.wikimedia.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   |

The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements.

Joe On 2 Jan 2015 10:16, "Flaken Aldnonymous" aldnonymous2@yahoo.com wrote:

On [[m:TOU]] already explain what you should do.

Terms of use - Meta

[image: image]

Terms of use - Meta Translate this page Other languages: View on meta.wikimedia.org Preview by Yahoo

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 6:38 AM, Denny Vrandečić < vrandecic@gmail.com> wrote:

I found out the other day that there's an item about myself, and I wanted to edit it, and got a weird feeling about it. So I raised the question on the project chat

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#COI_and_editing

and got told that an RFC would be a good idea. So I tried one. I don't think it has caused problems yet, though - but it might be easier to discuss these things before they cause problems.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Conflict_of_Inte...

Input is highly appreciated.

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

I see, so why don't Wikidata just make derivative version of it? It's simple and easy to make.

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:39 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:   The terms of use are the minimum requirements.  Each wiki may have more requirements.

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements.

Jasper Deng, 04/01/2015 08:40:

@Andy: no, the terms of use /are/ the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.

Correct in general, but not for the last paragraph of article 4, which is what Andy was talking about. Setting a different (alternative) policy is in compliance with article 4 and there is no "minimum". https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#paid-contrib-disclosure

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have
*different* requirements.

Nemo

Love this thread - Happy New Year, to all of you TOU groupies! I bet half of the lurkers on this list never even clicked on the meta page

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

Hoi, You say this based on what? As far as I am aware Andy is right. Thanks, GerardM

On 4 January 2015 at 08:40, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:

...

@Andy: no, the terms of use *are* the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

...

On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:

...

The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements.

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements.

-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

I can't imagine anyone reading these mails who has never hit the edit button at least once on some random Wikimedia project. Could it possibly be entertaining otherwise? For the sorry few who need to read these mails for their work (whatever that may be), they have my sympathy.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:36 AM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com wrote:

Love this thread - Happy New Year, to all of you TOU groupies! I bet half

...

of the lurkers on this list never even clicked on the meta page

Half of the lurkers on this list probably don't even edit Wikimedia.

John Lewis

-- John Lewis

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Back to Denny's original question:

Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have?

Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content:

* Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page (whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?).

* Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be).

* I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed).

If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed.

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:

Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly:

  A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution
  disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure

policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project.

And Commons, for one, has already done so:

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_policy

which says in full:

 The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid
 contributions from its contributors.

On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:

...

@Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

...

On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:

...

The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements.

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements.

-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Markus, Denny and Wikidatans,

I don't, Markus. In the information age, this seems to be a widespread and helpful practice in general (e.g. in LinkedIn and for some medical records,, for example).

On the benefits of this side, this is a way for Wikidata to get most accurate, and potentially, timely data about people.

Are there further criteria Wikidata might add to lessen misrepresentations, etc., or to make more explicit what personal information is welcome, building on past Wikipedia experience in particular here, and not a conflict of interest?

Also, concerning POV, are there sociocultural or linguistic differences in interlingually Wikidata, here that might be relevant? Would people in India in Hindi represent their own personal data (e.g. due to traditions of spiritual "selflessness") differently from Swedes in Swedish (due to a different history of "knowledge generating practices"), for example, that are worth addressing with specific criteria? In what ways has Wikipedia addressed this already?

Cheers, Scott On Jan 7, 2015 6:33 AM, "Markus Krötzsch" markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:

P.S. I also should declare a COI on this discussion: I am Q18618630. -- Markus

On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote:

...

Back to Denny's original question:

Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have?

Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content:

• Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page

(whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?).

• Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of

certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be).

• I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases,

but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed).

If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed.

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:

...

Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly:

  A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid

contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project.

And Commons, for one, has already done so:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_ contribution_disclosure_policy

which says in full:

 The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure

of paid contributions from its contributors.

On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:

...

@Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

...

On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:

...

The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements.

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements.

-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Also, when adding information to Wikipedia/Wikidata, it is best practice (but not mandatory) to provide external references backing up your claims. Nicolas.

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider pfpschneider@gmail.com wrote:

Wikipedia has already addressed this question.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography. In summary, one should not add or change information about oneself, unless the change could not be considered to be non-controversial or there is some reason that a change should be made and the reasons for the change are laid out in a talk page. This is pretty much just the general conflict of interest guidelines applied to information about oneself, I think.

There was an instance of someone writing their own Wikipedia entry.  (I'm not linking to information about the issue to somewhat hide the identity of the guilty.)  The end of the discussion was that the page would not be taken down.   The decision hinged, in part, on how easy it would be to anonymously enter or change information about oneself, so forbidding this kind of activity is impossible to police.  The best that can be done is to point out that this kind of activity is strongly discouraged.

I think that the Wikipedia policy should be carried over directly to Wikidata.   It lets responsible individuals fix or point out errors concerning information about them, but has strong admonitions against making any other kind of changes to this information.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

On 01/07/2015 06:25 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:

Back to Denny's original question:

Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have?

Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content:

• Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page

(whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?).

• Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain

properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be).

• I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but

not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed).

If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed.

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:

...

Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly:

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution       disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may       comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when       contributing to that Project.

And Commons, for one, has already done so:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_poli...

which says in full:

The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid       contributions from its contributors.

On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:

...

@Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

...

On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:

...

The terms of use are the minimum requirements.  Each wiki may have more requirements.

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements.

-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Hoi, English Wikipedia is not Wikipedia. It certainly is not any other project. I certainly do not want the policies of English Wikipedia. It is bad enough for en,wp itself Thanks, GerardM

On 7 January 2015 at 19:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com

wrote:

Wikipedia has already addressed this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography. In summary, one should not add or change information about oneself, unless the change could not be considered to be non-controversial or there is some reason that a change should be made and the reasons for the change are laid out in a talk page. This is pretty much just the general conflict of interest guidelines applied to information about oneself, I think.

There was an instance of someone writing their own Wikipedia entry. (I'm not linking to information about the issue to somewhat hide the identity of the guilty.) The end of the discussion was that the page would not be taken down. The decision hinged, in part, on how easy it would be to anonymously enter or change information about oneself, so forbidding this kind of activity is impossible to police. The best that can be done is to point out that this kind of activity is strongly discouraged.

I think that the Wikipedia policy should be carried over directly to Wikidata. It lets responsible individuals fix or point out errors concerning information about them, but has strong admonitions against making any other kind of changes to this information.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

On 01/07/2015 06:25 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:

...

Back to Denny's original question:

Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have?

Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special form of content:

• Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page

(whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on being younger than he really is?).

• Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of

certain properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now what this might be).

• I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases,

but not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed).

If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity, then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any way to get it fixed.

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:

...

Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly:

  A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid

contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project.

And Commons, for one, has already done so:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_ contribution_disclosure_policy

which says in full:

 The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of

paid contributions from its contributors.

On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng jasper@jasperswebsite.com wrote:

...

@Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

...

On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:

...

The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more requirements.

No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different* requirements.

-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Hoi, Markus, is there no public domain picture for you... Please let it be a flattering picture.. and please add it yourself...

<grin> I love the argument people make when they want to imply that you are not that good looking </grin> Thanks, Gerard

https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q18618630

On 7 January 2015 at 23:14, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:

Irrespective of the general policy discussion, I have now been bold and changed my item and user page to record that relationship as by my earlier suggestion (as copied below):

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18618630

I was wondering if, given that we have single signon, "website account on" should point to "Wikidata" or to "Wikimedia" or something else. But besides this minor point this seems to be a nice way to have COI declarations in the data (would also be interesting to know which living people have official Wikimedia accounts).

Cheers,

Markus

On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: ...

...

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

On 08.01.2015 15:10, james@j1w.xyz wrote:

Prior to viewing Markus Krötzsch's Wikidata page, I was unaware of the "Wikidata: A Free Collaborative Knowledgebase" article [1] written by Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch. This is a very helpful article that in my opinion should be featured on the Wikidata main page.

Glad you liked it. Checking the Wikidata item, I notice that it is actually Open Access and not "all rights reserved". It is available for free ("forever") from the ACM [1], but it seems they do not define any license. However, as we have retained all the rights, we can do what we like there.

Denny, shall we use CC-BY?

Markus

[1] http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/10/178785-wikidata/fulltext

[1] http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/10/178785-wikidata/fulltext

Regards, James Weaver

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:

...

Irrespective of the general policy discussion, I have now been bold and changed my item and user page to record that relationship as by my earlier suggestion (as copied below):

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18618630

I was wondering if, given that we have single signon, "website account on" should point to "Wikidata" or to "Wikimedia" or something else. But besides this minor point this seems to be a nice way to have COI declarations in the data (would also be interesting to know which living people have official Wikimedia accounts).

Cheers,

Markus

On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: ...

...

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

On 08.01.2015 18:38, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

Yes, CC-BY is great.

Good. I have officially released the article text under this license now:

https://korrekt.org/page/Wikidata:_A_Free_Collaborative_Knowledgebase

Cheers,

Markus

On Thu Jan 08 2015 at 7:01:12 AM Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

On 08.01.2015 15:10, james@j1w.xyz wrote:
 > Prior to viewing Markus Krötzsch's Wikidata page, I was unaware
of the
 > "Wikidata: A Free Collaborative Knowledgebase" article [1] written by
 > Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch.  This is a very helpful article
 > that in my opinion should be featured on the Wikidata main page.

Glad you liked it. Checking the Wikidata item, I notice that it is
actually Open Access and not "all rights reserved". It is available for
free ("forever") from the ACM [1], but it seems they do not define any
license. However, as we have retained all the rights, we can do what we
like there.

Denny, shall we use CC-BY?

Markus

[1]
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/__2014/10/178785-wikidata/__fulltext
<http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/10/178785-wikidata/fulltext>


 >
 > [1]
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/__2014/10/178785-wikidata/__fulltext
<http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/10/178785-wikidata/fulltext>
 >
 > Regards,
 > James Weaver
 >
 > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
 >> Irrespective of the general policy discussion, I have now been
bold and
 >> changed my item and user page to record that relationship as by my
 >> earlier suggestion (as copied below):
 >>
 >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/__Q18618630
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18618630>
 >>
 >> I was wondering if, given that we have single signon, "website
account
 >> on" should point to "Wikidata" or to "Wikimedia" or something
else. But
 >> besides this minor point this seems to be a nice way to have COI
 >> declarations in the data (would also be interesting to know
which living
 >> people have official Wikimedia accounts).
 >>
 >> Cheers,
 >>
 >> Markus
 >>
 >> On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
 >> ...
 >>>
 >>> In addition, there should be a template that one can use on
one's user
 >>> page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain
item.
 >>> Conversely, we should also use our "website account on"
property (P553)
 >>> to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the
COI is
 >>> recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on
one's
 >>> user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could
 >>> actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the
 >>> companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc.
can all
 >>> be specified in data).
 >>>
 >>> Cheers,
 >>>
 >>> Markus
 >>>
 >>>
 >>
 >> _________________________________________________
 >> Wikidata-l mailing list
 >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
 >
 > _________________________________________________
 > Wikidata-l mailing list
 > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>
 >


_________________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l>

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

<completely-self-serving>Yay! I would love to see it featured on the Wikidata main page! Let's slashdot ACM :)</completely-self-serving>

On Thu Jan 08 2015 at 6:11:57 AM james@j1w.xyz wrote:

Prior to viewing Markus Krötzsch's Wikidata page, I was unaware of the "Wikidata: A Free Collaborative Knowledgebase" article [1] written by Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch. This is a very helpful article that in my opinion should be featured on the Wikidata main page.

[1] http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/10/178785-wikidata/fulltext

Regards, James Weaver

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:

...

Irrespective of the general policy discussion, I have now been bold and changed my item and user page to record that relationship as by my earlier suggestion (as copied below):

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18618630

I was wondering if, given that we have single signon, "website account on" should point to "Wikidata" or to "Wikimedia" or something else. But besides this minor point this seems to be a nice way to have COI declarations in the data (would also be interesting to know which living people have official Wikimedia accounts).

Cheers,

Markus

On 07.01.2015 15:25, Markus Krötzsch wrote: ...

...

In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format, but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from, etc. can all be specified in data).

Cheers,

Markus

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

---

Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l