Le 30/11/2017 à 12:14, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
Maybe, instead of thinking about CC0 vs CC-BY-SA,
we should try to think at the goal: how can we, as a movement,
"fight" the exploitation from over-the-top players of community-generated
content?
Thank you for enlightening this surely far better way to investigate the
topic.
Stand back is often very helpful, but also often difficult when you have
your nose in the data.
Of course, license is the primary tool every one of us thinks about.
But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that things changed
much from when Wikidata was not here and Google just scraped/crawled
Wikipedia for their own knowledge base. Players like Google have resources
and skill to basically do what they want, and if I recall correctly they
didn't really stop with CC-BY-SA content. So license is not an obstacle for
them. As much as I don't personally like this, my question is: Is this a real
problem?
I miss clear data on that, but I came across some documents making a
parallel between a shrink of audience in Wikipedia and the arrival of
Google Knowledg Graph. So the basic argument was, less traffic, less
people know our movement, less potential contributors and less donors.
But I didn't deepen this topic yet. Any reference which confirm/infirm
or simply speak about this corollary is welcome.
I don't like the idea of Wikimedia communities giving content for free to
players so big that can actually profit hugely from this,
(huge profits always translates to huge power), but I really don't know
what we could do about this.
Well, I'm far less concerned with other actors making little, medium or
huge profit by using work of our community. Per se, I don't see it as a
threat for our community, and even this actors might give back in some
way if they wish. And in fact, some do. Google does provide to our
community some useful resources, not only money but they also organize
events like summer of code which benefits our community.
What raises my concern is that this actors can have a negative effect on
our community liveliness, even if it's not their goal at all and that
they are fine with the idea of helping us where it doesn't directly
conflict with their business model.
I say Google, but other prominent actors which makes the sun shine or
make it rain as regards of web audience are equally replaceable in
previous sentences.
So to my point of view, despite all the controversies it raised
"knowledge engine" as a general search open engine would be an
interesting idea to explore. That could avoid being left without
visibility due to main actors of the field moving to a new paradigm
where our community is no longer useful for them, or even in direct
competition with what they are targeting but under a closed garden paradigm.
Aubrey
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org>:
Nobody suggest in no way to do license laundering nor to violates
Wiktionaries licence,
It's not suggestion, it's what Wikidata is already doing with Wikipedia,
despite the initial statement of Wikidata team[1] that it wouldn't do that
because it's illegal :
/"Alexrk2, it is true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed
to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will
provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias./"
– Denny Vrandečić
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_
right_license_for_data.3F
I think that the extent to which massive import without respecting
license of the source should be investigated properly by the Wikimedia
legal team, or some qualified consultants.
In the mid time, based on its previous practises, it's clear that
promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted.
So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done,
it wouldn't be enough.
This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.
The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by
Wikidata team.
It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible
scenarios:
1. Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing
data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a
reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from
Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I
remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.
2. Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could
happen, but it didn't.
3. Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like
it or not, this happened.
Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you
would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are
likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.
Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from
Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people
will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger
questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what
licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free
Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0
will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
_______________________________________________
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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
