I think the bigger issue is the arguable violation of the CC-BY-SA license that the content they are displaying is under. They're basically taking what has been written by a bunch of people for a public encyclopedia. Then displaying it alone with absolutely no attribution or hint to where it came from. Something that would give off the impression to normal people that Apple cultivated the database of information.
Fair use is nice. But there's no excuse for doing a copy of the core part of content, adding absolutely nothing to it, then not even saying where you got it from. While fair use is fairly liberal I have a feeling that even for clips this much copying without attribution would fail the requirements of fair use in a court.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
On 2013-06-12 11:01 AM, Brandon Harris wrote:
This would result in:
1) Apple cloning our database 2) Siri working off their clone.And then we'd have drift issues. I think we'd have to weigh the pros and cons of disseminating stale articles to traffic/activity loss.
On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's use of Wikipedia like this that makes me think we should charge for API access over a certain limit
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design