On 16.06.2016 17:45, nicolasmaia@tutanota.com wrote:
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-06-15/Op-ed
Picking licenses is a complex topic, and it is extremely important to some people -- projects have split over this. I understand. But do emotions always have to be put above facts? Is the cause justifying all means, even against our own principles of rigour and truthfulness that are otherwise so important in our projects? Here is what I mean:
You say that Microsoft donated to Wikidata. Is it possible that you have just made this up since it fits the picture you want to paint? No concerns about misinforming your readers here?
You claim that Google is using Wikidata content. I have not seen any proof of this. I have challenged Mr. Kolbe about this before, and indeed it seems that he is now avoiding this claim in the text you cite. The fact that Google stopped working on the Freebase imports does not seem to suggest that they are very interested in the data right now [1]. Maybe you have new information you would like to share with us? It would surely be of interest to many people here.
You mention "vain threats made by those who wish to use us as mere free labor for their enterprises". Which threats? Who made them? What are they threatening with? Are you just trying to stir the emotions of the reader, making them wish to rebel against some imagined enemy?
We can discuss which licence will lead to the best return of investment for the Wikidata community, if it is desirable that restrictive data licenses become legally binding world wide, and who would really benefit from this change in legislation(s). But being untruthful for the sake of argument is not a good start for such a discussion.
Markus
[1] I think this is nothing to be ashamed of -- Google is huge and their own internal data is likely much larger than what we have in Wikidata today. We may get there yet. Most importantly, our data is available freely while Google's is not.