There have been announcements about the Structured data project on Commons,
that is intended to make it easier to view, search, edit, organize and
re-use the metadata on media. This is clearly of great value to
researchers and developers in image recognition, who will have a large
repository of tagged image files to train their AI implementations on.
There is however an ethical issue here. Readers will recall that Google
discovered that its facial regonition software was prone to classifying
African-American faces as "gorilla", because the training dataset had not
contained enough non-white faces -- see for example The Verge
Is the Foundation confident that the Commons repository is sufficiently
diverse that it can ethically offer it to others as a source of training
For the past two years, Turkish authorities have blocked access to
Wikipedia across all languages -- the most expansive form of blocking of
Wikipedia ever imposed.
During that time, the Wikimedia Foundation has been working to lift the
block through many different efforts, including legal action in Turkish
courts, good faith conversations with Turkish authorities, and speaking
directly to the public to raise awareness of the block and its impact on
both Turkey and the rest of the world. Recently, we have also seen China
censor Wikipedia across all languages to the same extent.
Therefore, we are announcing today that we have filed a petition in the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the international court hearing
cases of human rights violations within the Council of Europe, in order to
lift the more than two-year block of Wikipedia in Turkey.
In our filing, we argue that denying access to Wikipedia violates
fundamental freedoms of expression—freedoms that have been denied to the
more than 80 million people in Turkey who have been impacted by the block —
but also to the rest of the world, which has lost the perspectives of
residents of the country in contributing, debating, and adding to
Wikipedia. Turkey is a long-standing party of the Convention, which
protects the right to freedom of expression including the right to receive
and share information.
We are making this petition to stand for these fundamental human rights and
freedoms, and to ask the court to order that the Turkish government lift
the block of Wikipedia. You can learn more about our and the ECHR in our
announcement on the Wikimedia Foundation blog:
As part of this filing, we're also inviting Wikimedia affiliates,
communities, and the rest of the world to join us in amplifying the about
this action through a social media campaign. The campaign will focus on
raising awareness of Wikipedia being blocked in Turkey, and educating
people on why we took the step of filing with the ECHR. We will also tie
into the broader narrative around “knowledge is a human right” to make
clear the ECHR filing is one of many steps we need to take to ensure
Wikipedia is accessible to everyone.
We invite you to join us in amplifying the messages of the campaign on
social media and sharing our statement with your networks. More information
on how to participate and translate into your language:
This next action in the ECHR is part of an ongoing, resolute commitment and
strategy to protect everyone’s right to freely access knowledge. While the
focus of our action today is on the block in Turkey, we are also continuing
to explore our options and ways to support our readers and contributors in
China. We have more work to do, but I’m grateful for the steps we can take
today to realize that commitment.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly -- I want to thank the Turkish
community for their continued efforts to stay involved, active, and present
in the Wikimedia projects and global community, despite these adverse
circumstances. We stand with you today in support of your continued efforts
on our projects.
Katherine Maher (she/her)
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Just stumbled upon an page where Swiss collecting society SUISA lists
things which they consider commercial use within CC NC licenses, as
applied to works they have copyright on (delegated from authors who are
their members). It's quite interesting and I think it is a very good
example for advocating for fully free/libre licensing of works.
Here's the page:
The list of uses that they consider commercial use is quite
interesting. For instance, it includes things like:
- involving a counterpart, of a financial or other nature, regardless of the beneficiary, title or grounds;
- in exchange for other goods, whether or not the exchange generates
direct or indirect revenues or gives rise to a payment of any nature
- at places of work;
> From: Mister Thrapostibongles <thrapostibongles(a)gmail.com>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue
> for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing,
> especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit
> commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but
let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing
policy of Wikimedia projects.
I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the
use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial
clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial
clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and
rights to go to court over your use of the work.
> And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner
> from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they own:
> so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for
instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
> From: Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com>
> In 2009 Creative Commons published "Defining Noncommercial", a 250-page
> report presenting survey data on what people consider to be
> "noncommercial". There is a copy of the report at
Thanks a lot, I didn't know about this report.
> Creative Commons calls NC licenses "non-free", which I think is a great
> place to start any conversation about them.