Hi Paulo, On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for > the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and > commercializes it anyway.
In practice, this can happen. Two points to keep in mind: * Building trust and relationships with new communities may require taking steps that we may not have been taking so far. People operate in different contexts and they have varying experiences, and we may sometimes have to change the way we do things to include them and their knowledge. We should get comfortable thinking about these trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and content to the project. (I'm not arguing that we should do what this proposal says at this point. We should discuss it though in the talk page.) * Having some legal pathway can be attractive to some folks, /even if/ they don't exercise it. This is an assurance that they can have some control over their culture and the narratives around it and I can see how this can be important for some marginalized communities. This middle step may be needed. Also, if the legal pathway is there, they can always some day decide to pursue it. > If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons, > in my opinion. If that makes it less visible, then that is the problem of > the communities that don't share it freely. One cannot have both things at > the same time. Two points again: ;) * Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages. Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3 different options available. * This won't be only their problem. It will be our shared problem. If Commons ends up not being the solution, we shouldn't stop there. We should think through what else we can do to make bringing of their knowledge to Wikimedia projects happen. While I don't know what the answers are, I know that we should try more. From a narrow research perspective: this is immensely important for addressing Wikimedia's knowledge gaps for the sake of our own immediate users but also for the sake of indirect users of Wikimedia content. Wikimedia is imo one of the cornerstones of the Web. The content we collectively bring to Wikimedia projects is no longer /just/ used directly on Wikipedia (even that alone is enough argument to attempt to find solutions for the kind of gaps we're talking about). It's being used by a variety of technologies to build algorithms and machines that have impact on people's lives. Gaps in Wikimedia can become a source of bias and gaps on search engines, home devices, school material, ... . I'll keep the specific comments about the proposals for the talk pages. Best, Leila _______________________________________________ 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>
