Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be interested to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the discussion on the Wikidata chat https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses, I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be interested to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Importing_datasets_under...,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia, it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention. It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-da...
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be interested to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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
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
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA. I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia, it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention. It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-da...
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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
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
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
Rob Speer wrote:
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual blurb-based attribution is acceptable." http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the original source of the extraction.
(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a different attribution) is legally sound.
If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been followed on Wikidata.
For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata project chat and in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wiki...
I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be, for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would you like to ask instead?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA. I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention. It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-da...
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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
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
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
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
I would like to not limit the discussion to interwiki links; it also applies to Wikipedia infoboxes and Wiktionary tables, for example.
On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 20:55 Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Speer wrote:
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual blurb-based attribution is acceptable." http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the original source of the extraction.
(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a different attribution) is legally sound.
If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been followed on Wikidata.
For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata project chat and in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wiki...
I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be, for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would you like to ask instead?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
multiple
Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
CC-By-SA.
I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
attitude
toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
us
back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I
still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
as
well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED
and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as
a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data
from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of
data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
because
it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
superior
as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
negating
the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the
place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-da...
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had
no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of
Wikidata
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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>
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
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
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
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
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask.
In the Phabricator discussion, Denny and others spent some considerable effort to come up with the following questions (I am quoting below from Denny's last post on Phabricator, dated May 26th):
---o0o---
Denny wrote on Phabricator:
So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following questions sound good to everyone:
1. Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?
1. Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be: a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts extracted from prose through natural language processing.
1. What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?
If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered.
---o0o---
Given that more than a month has passed, have these questions actually been answered?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
multiple
Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
CC-By-SA.
I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
attitude
toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
us
back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I
still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
as
well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED
and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as
a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data
from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of
data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
because
it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
superior
as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
negating
the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the
place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
copyright-and-linked-data.html
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had
no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of
Wikidata
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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>
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
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
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
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
I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright protection.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 17:11 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but
we
need to come up with the questions that we want to ask.
In the Phabricator discussion, Denny and others spent some considerable effort to come up with the following questions (I am quoting below from Denny's last post on Phabricator, dated May 26th):
---o0o---
Denny wrote on Phabricator:
So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following questions sound good to everyone:
- Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk
extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?
- Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be:
a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts extracted from prose through natural language processing.
- What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like
OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?
If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered.
---o0o---
Given that more than a month has passed, have these questions actually been answered?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
multiple
Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be
protected
by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
CC-By-SA.
I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
attitude
toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's
holding
us
back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't
make
us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell
modified
versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always,
copyright
is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I
still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to
do
as
well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED
and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and
as
a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data
from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of
data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
because
it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
superior
as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data
that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much
of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of
copyright
moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
negating
the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata.
However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the
place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together
to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
copyright-and-linked-data.html
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about
projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had
no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of
Wikidata
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility
through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
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
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
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
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
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright protection.
Martijn, individual facts aren't eligible for copyright, but substantial compilations of facts are.
The concept you are missing is "database rights":
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights
'Databases may be protected by US copyright law as "compilations." In the EU, databases are protected by the Database Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive, which defines a database as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means."'
That page (including the above quote) was written by WMF Legal.
Hoi, When you imply that I do not support Creative Commons and its work on licenses, you are explicitly wrong. It is because of the CC that a harmonisation has taken place. It it thanks to this harmonisation that a lot of material gained a license, becoming accessible. This does not mean that the practice of copyright is not evil, it means that thanks to CC copyright became less open to abuse.
I am old school Wikipedia. I strongly believe that our mission is to "share the sum of all knowledge". When people like you aim to claim copyright on Wikipedia articles, you do not argue how this would play. You do not consider how this is a knife that cuts both ways and most prominently will hinder our quest to share the sum of all knowledge to all people. When a company abuses our content by ignoring the license, they gain a public for our content. When this is done right, we benefit; there is a symbiotic relation with Google for instance. The only disadvantage happens when because of a lack of attribution people do not come to Wikipedia or Wikidata to curate the data. Practically the whole license issue of Wikipedia is a mess because it is not enforced and because there are too many copyright warriors claiming that things should be different, never stop arguing and never coming to a practical point.
What I am saying is that when multiple sources claim the same thing, it follows that any and all of them can not claim exclusive copyright to it. For me the databus that DBpeida will show how little is original in databases. On the one hand this is cool because it will indicate that such things are likely correct on the other hand it is cool because it will indicate what to curate in order to gain a better understanding. It also follows that in order to bring things into doubt, you must publish facts and strongly support the underlying data in order to be noticed. This is why the work on the gender gap is so important. This is why work needs to be done where all of us / all the databases are weak. This is why fake news is so easy, there is nothing that easily finds where the data goes off the rails.
<grin> so then we get to </grin> This is why we need the databus of DBpedia, this is why we should stop mocking DBpedia and collaborate with them in stead of what some say: "everything you can do, we can do better". The fact of the matter is that they do what we might do and we have to learn to collaborate.
Now why would you use Wikidata when DBpedia by definition can include all of Wikidata and is better equipped to bring all the data together? You would because it is not the copyright, it is superior functionality. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 May 2018 at 17:39, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA. I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention. It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
copyright-and-linked-data.html
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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
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
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
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
Hi Mathieu, Rob, Denny, and Wikidatans,
I'm writing to inquire about further Wikidata CC licensing clarifications.
Wikidata may be heading to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ which allows for a) sharing b) adapting and even c) commercially
MIT OCW uses, by way of comparison, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ which allows for a) sharing b) adapting but c) non-commercially
At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing - https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed with CC-0?
Thanks.
Cheers, Scott
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA. I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention. It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
copyright-and-linked-data.html
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
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
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
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
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
Hi,
Le 18/05/2018 à 19:45, Info WorldUniversity a écrit :
At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed with CC-0?
I am not sure what you mean here. Regarding citations, our movement already faced copyright issues with Wikiquote, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Subcommittees/Press...
Cheers
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org