I think it depends how it's being used. If the nonfree content is presented
as an integral part of the interface, such as inline with the article,
that's a problem. On the other hand, if the interface just allows the
separate Apple Maps to be pulled up, that's a bit different. We frequently
link to offsite nonfree content when, for example, we cite such a source as
a reference. It only becomes a major issue when it's presented as part of
an article.
My more major concern is, would this be a privacy issue? That concern has
been brought up before, I think for quite valid reasons, with for example
social media "Share this" buttons. Would this allow Apple to gather data on
what a reader is reading?
Todd
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
gladjonatan(a)outlook.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a
good way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I
thought it was a good way to see what others had to say and think.
The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!) has recently
released (in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a one
of it's main feature, to find articles nearby.
"The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which uses
Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has
already sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our
project's values."
These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against
our values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed
(with fair use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution
regarding EDP's).
Some reasons why this was done can be read here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service
I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was
non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If
we can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if we
copied text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica, and
that reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something,
doesn't mean we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our
'wants', if it causes us to loose what is... 'us'.
I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not
our according to values, which states:
"An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging
the development of free-content educational resources that may be created,
used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this
mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to
allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use,
and reuse.
At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with
freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community
should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps.
The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be
distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free
software tools."
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>