Le 30/11/2017 à 11:04, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org>: promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted. So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done, it wouldn't be enough.
This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.
Well, I don't know on this one, I'm talking about "Wikidata team". Maybe the statement might be considered incorrect, but is it personal attack to mention who said what with a precise source? Or is it the way I formulated that was needlessly aggressive? What would be a more proper way to formulate that there was a stated promise which wasn't hold?
Once again, my goal is not to offence anyone, be it an individual or a group of people. On the other hand, when there are decisions which are taken by some entity which clearly identify itself as responsible for the decision, then isn't it fair to consider this entity as also responsible for consequences of this decision. At least to some extent which don't include reasonably unpredictable consequences.
The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by Wikidata team.
Sure, and I think that here the responsibility is shared between the Wikidata community and the team which promised it would not happen. Hopefully, Wikisource community would no allow anyone to publish a work like Harry Potter in it's repository. Or even less legally problematic some works available under a CC-by-sa-nc license or some equivalent. And would the Wikisource community be lenient enough for allowing that, I would expect the foundation to remove this works, especially if authors of this works would complain about this license laundering.
Also I wonder why Wikipedia community didn't react to this massive extraction, if indeed it didn't, so maybe there are also some convincing arguments that was presented to him that I'm not aware of. Once again, references are welcome.
So, maybe I'll proven completely wrong here too, with some point I'm not aware of, which would be fine. Otherwise Wikidata team did indeed let the community go in too lenient behaviours.
By the way, arguments proposed here will be used in further evolution of the project research on this topic. Plus it's on Wikiversity, so if you speak French, your contributions are welcome.
It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible scenarios:
Well, the easiest way to go is to blindly follow anywhere the majority goes. Anything else is more difficult. Building scenarios is good, and trying to falsify them with available data is even better.
- Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.
Yes, I came across some document on that matter, which fed my thoughts on traceability. Actually, from document I went through it's probably the most recurring concern that I found expressed by the community. And the most usual answer is (in spirit) that "it will improve in the future, this is a useful transition state, later more external sources will supersed Wikipedia for the same statements". Apart from the usefulness from a Wikipedia perspective, that are arguments that all sound rather consistent to my mind.
I'm not sure of the current state of use of Wikidata within the miscellaneous Wikipedia projects, and what community discussions occurred in each. References are welcome here too.
- Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could happen, but it didn't.
- Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like it or not, this happened.
Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.
The problem is not so much predictions, which is always difficult, especially about future.
The problem is the will of Wikidata team to intervene when the community is crossing the line that they themselves previously identified as not legally negotiable.
Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0 will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
Actually, I dug in all this research because I'm very interested with all that Wikibase could bring to lexicological works in Wikimedia, but that I wasn't very enthusiast with CC0 and I wanted to see if I could change my mind through studying why it was chose for Wikidata in the first place.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe