On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On 02/21/2016 11:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
So, if you speak of structurally connecting
*open* sources, as a basis for
smart editing tools, you seem to be saying that such copyrighted yet
openly
accessible sources, as well as all genuinely paywalled sources, should be
excluded from these efforts.
If that's correct, and I am not misunderstanding what you mean to say here
(please correct me if I do!), how do you square it with the Wikimedia
vision?
She did not say anything about excluding references to proprietary sources
like those you mentioned above. I think we're all in agreement they will
still be referenced.
Thanks for your reply, Matt. At the Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta, your
colleague Chris Koerner told me, when I asked what criteria a source will
have to fulfil in order to be included in the Knowledge Engine's search
results, that he personally believed "that not only should the sources be
open-access, but they should be in agreement with our other values, neutral
point of view, free license, etc."
So evidently we're not *all* in agreement.
She described possible enhanced support for
including/connecting to open
data. That may not be possible/advisable to do for proprietary data, which
might require proprietary licenses or software.
Enhanced support for including/connecting open data could, I guess, benefit
both editors adding that data to a Wikimedia project's page (Magnus tweeted
an interesting application earlier today, see [[Falkensee]] in the English
Wikipedia) and commercial re-users.
Of course, it depends on the actual details, but as an
analogy think of
how fair use images are allowed on some specific projects (e.g. English
Wikipedia), but the central repositories (Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata)
only include open content/data.
Thanks. That is a good analogy.
I see that there is now a record of a candid discussion between Lila and
the Discovery team of what happened with the Knowledge Engine project here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Discovery/2016-02-16_Discussing_Knowledge_En…
That is good to see.
Best,
Andreas