Here are some reasons for other resources to switch to CC0: https://www.wikipathways.org/index.php/WikiPathways:CC0_Announcement
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz < psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote: > Saluton ĉiuj, > > I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous > Wiktionary User Group talk page > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>, > because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on this > point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided or that I > might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested to know it, so > please be bold. > > Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind that I > stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I wish it a bright > future full of even more amazing things than what it already brung so far. > My sole concern is really a license issue. > > Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message: > > Thank you Lydia Pintscher > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for > taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0> miss > too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised. > > Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the > decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as this > inquiry on the topic > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive> > advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice > toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it > short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth > noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work. > Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, > established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft > co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1] > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>. > To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet > trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of Wikimedia. > For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the research > project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough shape, and it's > only available in French so far). Some proofs that this claim is completely > wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact that was the community > that was the driving force behind this single license choice and that it is > the best choice for its future, not the future of giant tech companies. > This would be a great contribution to bring such a happy light on this > subject, so we can all let this issue alone and go back contributing in > more interesting topics. > > Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia. > Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge. So > far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal. This means we > want our data to be used as widely as possible. Sure, as long as it > rhymes with equity. As in *Our strategic direction: Service and **Equity* > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>. > Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That is, > starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under this level, > freedom of one is murder and slavery of others. CC-0 is one step towards > that. That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to > agree without some convincing proof. Data is different from many other > things we produce in Wikimedia in that it is aggregated, combined, > mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more extensively. No it's not. From a > data processing point of view, everything is data. Whether it's stored in a > wikisyntax, in a relational database or engraved in stone only have a > commodity side effect. Whether it's a random stream of bit generated by a > dumb chipset or some encoded prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So > from this point of view, no, what Wikidata store is not different from what > is produced anywhere else in Wikimedia projects. Sure, the way it's > structured does extremely ease many things. But this is not because it's > data, when elsewhere there would be no data. It's because it enforce data > to be stored in a way that ease aggregation, combination, mashing-up, > filtering and so on. Our data lives from being able to write queries over > millions of statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of > it on a map and much more. Sure. It also lives from being curated from > millions[2] > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2> > of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of random > bytes. This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases > attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and > sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only helped > to get the result). No, it doesn't mean that. First let's recall a few > basics as it seems the whole answer makes confusion between attribution and > distribution of contributions under the same license as the original. > Attribution is crucial for traceability and so for reliable and trusted > knowledge that we are targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same > license" is the sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, > trusted knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement > goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this goals. > Now, > what would be the additional cost of storing sources in Wikidata? Well, > zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the "reference" attribute is part > of the Wikibase item structure. So attribution is not a problem, you don't > have to put it in front of your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia > article: until you go to history, you have zero attribution visible, and > it's ok. It's also have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it > doesn't have to be included in all computations, it just need to be > retrievable on demand. What would be the additional cost of storing > licenses for each item based on its source? Well, adding a license > attribute might help, but actually if your reference is a work item, I > guess it might comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. > Now for letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their > work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous weight > when balanced with equity concerns it resolves. Could that prevent some > uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually the point, preventing abuse of > those who doesn't want to act equitably. For all other actors a "distribute > under same condition" is fine. This is potentially computationally hard > to do and and depending on where the data is used very inconvenient (think > of a map with hundreds of data points in a mobile app). OpenStreetMap > which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do exactly that too, > doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item would enable to include > OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is currently impossible due to the > CC0 single license policy of the project. Too bad, it could be so useful to > have this data accessible for Wikimedia projects, but who cares? This is > a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them. Wait, > which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would care first of > re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal, so surely needs of > Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre Culture in general should > be considered. Do this re-users would be penalized by a copyleft license? > Surely no, or they wouldn't use it extensively as they do. So who are this > re-users for who it's thought preferable, without consulting the community, > to not annoy with questions of equity and traceability? It would make it > significantly harder to re-use our data and be in direct conflict with our > goal of spreading knowledge. No, technically it would be just as easy as > punching a button on a computer to do that rather than this. What is in > direct conflict with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 > community consultation is going against equity and traceability. You > propose to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next > to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our community. > Whether > data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the jurisdiction > we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database rights > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for more > details. It says basically that it's applicable in United States and > Europe on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world, > it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing. So > even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be > enforceable in some jurisdictions. What kind of logic is that? Maybe it > might not be applicable in some country, so let's withdraw the few rights > we have. Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately > often means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal > repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading > knowledge. Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might > also refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical > repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by enforcing > people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight against the growing > asymmetry that social structures are concomitantly building. So CC0 as > unique license choice is in direct conflict with our goal of *equitably* > spreading knowledge. Also it seems like this statement suggest that > releasing our contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish > legal doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job > regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So while > associate a clear license to each data item might indeed diminish legal > uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for enforcing CC0 as sole license > available to contributors. Moreover, just putting a license side by side > with a work does not ensure that the person who made the association was > legally allowed to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of > a statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once > again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently include > many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia versions, and claim > that the derived work obtained – a set of items and statements – is under > CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement and it alarmingly looks like license > laundering <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is > true for Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large > scale extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd > sourcing. So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to > give lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and > the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny. Licenses > that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make it harder > for big companies to profit from openly available resources. No there are > not. They are used as *a way to try to make it harder for big companies > to profit from openly available resources* *in inequitable manners*. > That's completely different. Copyleft licenses give the same rights to big > companies and individuals in a manner that lower socio-economic > inequalities which disproportionally advantage the former. The thing is > there seems to be no indication of this working. Because it's not trying > to enforce what you pretend, so of course it's not working for this goal. > But for the goal that copyleft licenses aims at, there are clear evidences > that yes it works. Big companies have the legal and engineering resources > to handle both the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily. There > is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy is > disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with some > constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but that the price > for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even individuals can > manage, it might require a very little extra time on legal considerations, > but on the other hand using the free work is an immensely vast gain that > worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is stated *proprietary > software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers > need to make advantages for each other*. This might be generalised as *big > companies have the advantage of money; free/libre culture contributors need > to make advantages for each other*. So at odd with what pretend this > fallacious claims against copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and > the technical hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, > let's recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors > which are related to big companies. Who it is really hurting is the > smaller start-up, institution or hacker who can not deal with it. If this > statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just plainly false. > Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual benefit of the common > ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters. With Wikidata we are making > structured data about the world available for everyone. And that's great. > But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be achieved. We are > leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have access to > the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build something > amazing. And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license. > Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as it > allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added value that > our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an hegemonic position in the > ecosystem with their own closed solution. And, ta ta, Wikidata can be > discontinued quietly, just like Google did with the defunct Freebase which > was CC-BY-SA before they bought the company that was running it, and after > they imported it under CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger > community of free curators. And when it will have performed license > laundering of all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and > import, Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits > more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial support and > no hegemonic position. Thereby we are helping more people get access to > knowledge from more places than just the few big ones. No, with CC0 you > are certainly helping big companies to reinforce their position in which > they can distribute information manipulated as they wish, without > consideration for traceability and equity considerations. Allowing > contributors to also use copyleft licenses would be far more effective to > *collect > and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge* that *focus efforts > on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of > power and privilege*, as stated in *Our strategic direction: Service and > Equity*. CC-0 is becoming more and more common. Just like economic > inequality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that > is not what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement. Many > organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy with the > experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the National > Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts. Good for > them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have their own goals > and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily meet what our > community can follow. Different contexts require different means. States > and their institutions can count on tax revenue, and if taxpayers ends up > in public domain works, that's great and seems fair. States are rarely > threatened by companies, they have legal lever to pressure that kind of > entity, although conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate > this statement. Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and > license is fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an > argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw of all > their rights as single option to contribute. All this being said we do > encourage all re-users of our data to give attribution to Wikidata because > we believe it is in the interest of all parties involved. That's it, zero > legal hope of equity. And our experience shows that many of our re-users > do give credit to Wikidata even if they are not forced to. Experience > also show that some prominent actors like Google won't credit the Wikimedia > community anymore when generating directly answer based on, inter alia, > information coming from Wikidata, which is itself performing license > laundering of Wikipedia data. Are there no downsides to this? No, of > course not. Some people chose not to participate, some data can't be > imported and some re-users do not attribute us. But the benefits I have > seen over the years for Wikidata and the larger open knowledge ecosystem > far outweigh them. This should at least backed with some solid statistics > that it had a positive impact in term of audience and contribution in > Wikimedia project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a > positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or maybe > so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it is correlative > with a decrease of the total number of active contributors. Some plots > would be interesting here. Mere personal feelings of benefits and > hindrances means nothing here, mine included of course. Plus, there is > not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with a second Wikibase > instant that allow users to select which licenses its contributions are > released under, so there is no possible way to state anything backed on > relevant comparison. The fact that they are some people satisfied with the > current state of things doesn't mean they would not be even more satisfied > with a more equitable solution that allows contributors to chose a free > license set for their publications. All the more this is all about the > sustainability and fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not > immediate feeling of satisfaction for some people. > > - > > [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed> > > > - > > [2] according to the next statement of Lydia > > Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The > motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might participate > in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and traceability that is > granted in other Wikimedia projects. > > Kun multe da vikiamo, > mathieu > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
