My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open meetings
with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus usually attended.
As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a discussion in the office,
there was a reference to an earlier meeting. It is although easy to mix up
old memories, so what happen first and what happen next should not be taken
to be facts. If Markus also says the same it is although a reasonable
chance we have got it right.
As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the community.
This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there were only
concerned individuals. The community started to emerge in August with the
first attempts to go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some
posts from 15. August 2012,[1] while first post on the subject page is from
30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
Meta.[3] Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published under a
free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different scenarios."
but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is published under [
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ a free license], allowing
the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.",[4] and at that point
there were a community on an open site and had been for a week. When
Whittylama did his post it was the 4504th post on the site, so it was
hardly the first! The license was initially a CC-SA.[8] I'm not quite sure
when it was changed to CC0 in the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen
before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October
2012,[5] this is one of several items updated this evening.
It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] and stepping forward. You
will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012. So much
for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions before 25th
October does not make sense, there were no site, and the only people
involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for example that the page
Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.[7]
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
[2]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&oldid=2677
[3]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction&diff=…
[4]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&diff=next&…
[5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1&oldid=103
[6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction&oldid=40…
[8]
https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wik…
[9]
https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wik…
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
> Dear Mathieu,
>
> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
> (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here -- the
> discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
> Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>
> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
> message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not Denny's
> decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
> people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
> born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
> received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
> disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
> projects.
>
> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions in
> the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
> their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
> terms in the data they display. Also, I can tell you that we would have
> reacted in a very allergic way to such attempts, so if any company had
> approached us, this would quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or
> not, when we started it was all but clear that this would become a relevant
> project at all, and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still
> mostly a few hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin. There
> was a lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of Wikidata
> (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
>
> So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events that
> you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no
> substitute for methodology and rigour). Putting unsourced personal attacks
> against community members before all other arguments is a reckless way of
> maximising effect, and such rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this
> thread or topic. Our main strength is not our content but our community,
> and I am glad to see that many have already responded to you in such a
> measured and polite way.
>
> Peace,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
> > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
> > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
> > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
> > Google.
> >
> > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
> > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
> > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as the
> > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced me.
> >
> > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
> > Jens did too.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
Haha, thank you for the funny form of your message Luca.
Now on topic, I'm not convinced that the current situation resolve the
problem, it just pretend that nothing exist out of the simple cases.
For example, currently we can not use data from OSM due to this license
restriction. May the per item license attribute is not the best
approach, other suggestions are welcome. But at least it's a proposal
that would resolve this issue, rather was divest the Wikimedia community
from valuable free resource like OSM data for the convenience of
Wikidata reusers which are exogenes of the Wikimedia movement. Adding a
license attribute is not technically complicated. The only complexity it
would make visible is the legal complexity. And providing tool to filter
by license or compatible license would be just as easy as adding any
other criterion in a request.
Maybe an other approach might be to have a separated Wikibase instance
for specific projects (like OSM) or licenses and make them accessible
through an other magic word in Mediawiki instances of the foundation.
But then it would add technical difficulties in possibility of remix
even when distinct licenses are compatibles, although Scribunto modules
might help for most trivial cases. However all in all that would be
probably a far more complex solution than the previous one.
It's complicated,
mathieu
Le 30/11/2017 à 13:07, Luca Martinelli a écrit :
> Il 30 nov 2017 13:02, "mathieu stumpf guntz"
> <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org <mailto:psychoslave@culture-libre.org>>
> ha scritto:
>
>
> Also it doesn't completely dismiss the idea of a per item license
> tracking system, does it?
>
>
> In Italy, a country notorious for its simple and easily understandable
> set of rules, we'd compare such proposal to the institution of the
> strangely infamous "Office for Complication of Simple Affairs".
>
> That sums up perfectly what I think of this idea, and it's also as
> diplomatic as I can get on the issue.
>
> L.
Hello Markus,
First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in the
research project on the topic with proper references, including this
email. It might not come before beginning of next week however, as I'm
already more than fully booked until then. But once again it's on a
wiki, be bold.
Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :
> Dear Mathieu,
>
> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first
> chosen (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims
> here -- the discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this,
> and I agree with Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>
> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his
> earlier message (quote included below this email for reference): it
> was not Denny's decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a
> discussion among several people who had worked with open data for some
> time before Wikidata was born. I have personally supported this choice
> and still do. I have never received any money directly or indirectly
> from Google, though -- full disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for
> supervising in Summer of Code projects.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem is
not money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it
wherever wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.
But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance and
future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, communication
must be extensive, and taking into account community feedback is
extremely preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, so its all the
more important to listen to external feedback. I said earlier that I
found the knowledge engine was a good idea, but for what I red it seems
that transparency didn't reach expectation of the community.
So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I would
prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No mistrust
intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in perspective
with sources and think critically.
For completeness, was this discussion online or – to bring bag the
earlier stated testimony – around a pizza? If possible, could you
provide a list of involved people? Did a single person took the final
decision, or was it a show of hands, or some consensus emerged from
discussion? Or maybe the community was consulted with a vote, and if
yes, where can I find the archive?
Also archives show that lawyers were consulted on the topic, could we
have a copy of their report?
> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our
> discussions in the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From
> what I can see on their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds
> of different license terms in the data they display.
Because they are more and more moving to a business model of providing
themselves what people are looking for to keep users in their sphere of
tracking and influence, probably with the sole idea of generating more
revenue I guess.
> Also, I can tell you that we would have reacted in a very allergic way
> to such attempts, so if any company had approached us, this would
> quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or not, when we started
> it was all but clear that this would become a relevant project at all,
> and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still mostly a few
> hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin. There was a
> lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of Wikidata
> (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
Please situate that in time so we can place that in a timeline. In March
2012 Wikimedia DE announced the initial funding of 1.3 million Euros by
Google, Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation.
>
> So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events
> that you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is
> no substitute for methodology and rigour).
But that's all the problem here, no one should have to carry the pain of
trying to reconstruct what happened through such a research. Process of
this kind of decision should have been documented and should be easily
be found in archives. If you have suggestion in methods, please provide
them. Just denigrating the work don't help in any way to improve it. If
there are additional sources that I missed, please provide them. If
there are methodologies that would help improve the work, references are
welcome.
> Putting unsourced personal attacks against community members before
> all other arguments is a reckless way of maximising effect, and such
> rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this thread or topic.
All this is built on references. If the analyze is wrong, for example
because it missed crucial undocumented information this must be
corrected with additional sources. Wikidata team, as far as I can tell,
was perfectly aware of this project for weeks. So if there was some
sources that the team considered that it merited my attention to
complete my thoughts on the topic, there was plenty of time to provide
them before I posted this message.
> Our main strength is not our content but our community, and I am glad
> to see that many have already responded to you in such a measured and
> polite way.
We completely agree on that. This is a wonderful community. And that's
concerns for future of this very community which fueled this project.
I only can reiterate all apologies to anyone that might have felt
personally attacked. I can go back to reformulate my message.
I hope you will help me to improve the research, or call it as you like,
with more relevant feedback and references.
Peace
>
> Peace,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
> > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
> > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
> > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
> > Google.
> >
> > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
> > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
> > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as
> the
> > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0
> convinced me.
> >
> > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
> > Jens did too.
>
>
Dear Wikimaniacs,
we are now calling for the Scholarship Committee.
The Scholarship Committee is an important and diverse group of volunteers
who help to run the scholarship program. We encourage people from all
Wikimedia wikis to apply for this position so that the committee can handle
applications in many different languages.
The main duties of the committee members prior to Wikimania 2018 are:
* Participation in periodic online meetings with scholarships program
manager and other committee members.
* Review and edit communications material (e.g. application questions).
* Assistance in determination of scholarship applicant requirements.
* Assurance of due consideration and speedy response time to Wikimania
scholarship applications in multiple languages.
For further information please visit
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Handbook#Scholarships and
https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships.
We are looking for Wikimedians from all over the world, who are:
* fluent in written English and have good communication skills, or can name
local community member(s) who help them with English translations.
* discreet and able to handle confidential applicant information, and
objectively assess candidates.
* willing to review scholarship applications remotely in early 2018,
estimated time is 30 hours. A review guide can be found on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_…
.
* having either or both:
** previously attended Wikimania,
** strong knowledge of the cross-project Wikimedia community.
Scholarship Committee members may not apply for a scholarship themselves
but there is a small budget for supporting committee members to attend
Wikimania. Please tell us if you need financial support in case you’ll be
selected.
If you're interested in serving on the Scholarship Committee, please send
us an email to wikimania-scholarships(a)wikimedia.org. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to contact us there as well.
Deadline to apply is Sunday, December 10, 2017. The organizers will contact
all candidates and publish the list of scholarship committee members right
afterwards.
Proposed timeline
* Nov 30–Dec 10: Call for Scholarship Committee
* mid-December: Selection of the Scholarship Committee and start of the
submission time
* 5–26 February (estimated time frame): main review time
Before the start of the submission time, we are adapting the application
process to take recent activities more into account than the years before,
as proposed on wikimania-l. On the one hand we want to encourage returning
Wikimania participants to share their knowledge, on the other newcomers to
Wikimania to apply for a scholarship at all. Former scholarship recipients
can help us with the latter by sharing their successful applications on
MetaWiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2017_WMF_Wiki….
In case you don’t have your text at hand, you can send us a confirmation
mail to wikimania-scholarships(a)wikimedia.org where you allow us to publish
it for you.
Above all, we want to support African community members with applying for
scholarships. To achieve that, we are especially looking for volunteers who
want help us with encouraging people, assisting with the application form,
finding the right level of presenting one’s activities, etc. Please reach
out to us if you'd like to help.
Many thanks,
David Richfield
<https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slashme> and Martin
Rulsch <https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DerHexer>
Wikimania 2018 Scholarship Committee co-organizers