Pete,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that
Wikidata is fundamentally
problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.) I've found these
threads illuminating, and appreciate much of what has been said by all
parties.
However, that core premise is problematic. If the possibility of people
publishing uncited information were fundamentally problematic, here are
several platforms that we would have to consider ethically problematic at
the core:
* Wikipedia (which for many years had very loose standards around
citations)
* Wikipediocracy (of which Andreas is a founding member) and all Internet
forums
* All blogs
* YouTube
* Facebook
* The Internet itself
* The printing press
Every one of the platforms listed above created opportunities for people --
even anonymously -- to publish information without a citation. If we are to
fault Wikidata on this basis, it would be wrong not to apply the same
standard to other platforms.
In many countries, people have a right to free speech: to voice opinions,
engage in speculation, and so on. I feel quite certain that we agree that
the right to free speech is a good thing to have.
But Wikipedia and Wikidata are not experiments in free speech. They are
designed to be reference works.
Wikipedia, in its early days, was faulted by Wikipedians – rightly so – for
publishing material that could not be traced to professionally published
sources, including much material that was plain wrong (crank theories
etc.). That was considered unacceptable for a reference work; hence the
requirement for references, the no-original-research rule, and all the rest
of it.
I'm addressing this now, because I think it is becoming problematic to
paint Wikidata as a flawed project with a broad brush.
Wikidata is an
experiment, and it will surely lead to flawed information in some
instances. But I think it would be a big problem to draw the conclusion
that Wikidata is problematic overall.
Perhaps we can agree that reliable sources are a useful part of a
crowdsourced reference project. The more citations Wikidata contains, the
more useful it will be. Citations make data provenance transparent to the
end user. They enable end users to verify, judge and correct the
information they're given, if they so desire.
Data provenance is all the more important if Wikidata content comes to be
spread far and wide, as seems possible, given major search engines'
involvement.
In my opinion, Wikidata's CC-0 licence undermines that, because it allows
re-users to cut the chain between the end user and the data's original
source.
That said, it is becoming ever more clear that the Wikimedia Foundation has
developed big plans that involve Wikidata; and those
big plans are not open
to scrutiny.
THAT, I believe, is a problem.
I agree with you that there appears to be an undue amount of secrecy.
Jimmy Wales said[1] over two weeks ago, in response to questions about the
Knight Foundation's Knowledge Engine grant, in the context of ousted board
member James Heilman's complaints about a lack of transparency,
--------------------
"What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure
there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant
letter should be published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here,
so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as
possible."
--------------------
That sounded reassuring. But to date neither the Knight Foundation grant
letter nor the Foundation's grant application have been published on Meta.
The fact that nothing has happened following Jimmy Wales' statement has
been discussed in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. As you probably
know, Jimmy Wales said there yesterday,
--------------------
"Assurances"? Please don't make things up out of thin air. I've
expressed
my opinion, but contrary to some people's fantasies, me expressing an
opinion doesn't have the force of law.
--------------------
In the same discussion, a WMF staffer said last week that WMF staff would
be delighted to publish that documentation, but haven't been given leave to
do so.
That sounds to me like there is a continued intent to withhold the
documentation of this restricted grant from public view. I believe that is
a mistake.
If there is nothing objectionable in it, publication now will stop the
rumour mill. If there is something objectionable in it, then it is better
for that to come to light now, rather than six months or a year down the
line.
Wikidata is not a problem; but it is something that
could be leveraged in
problematic ways (and/or highly beneficial ways).
I feel it is very important that we start looking at these issues from that
perspective.
I agree. Thank you for raising the issue.
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff…