from:"mathieu stumpf guntz"

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-07-04 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hi,

Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :


Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect 
it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY 
sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements 
grow very quickly. It is the same as with modified images and 
collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last author, but all 
contributors have to be attributed.
If we want our data to be trustable, then we need traceability. That is 
reporting this chain of sources as extensively as possible, whatever the 
license require or not as attribution. CC-0 allow to break this 
traceability, which make an aweful license to whoever is concerned with 
obtaining reliable data.


This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large 
federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data banks, 
that's perfect. ;)


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-07-04 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hi,


Le 18/05/2018 à 19:45, Info WorldUniversity a écrit :

At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of
Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed
with CC-0?

I am not sure what you mean here. Regarding citations, our movement 
already faced copyright issues with Wikiquote, see 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/28_fr.Wikiquote_brief


Cheers

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-08 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hello everybody,

There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata 
 that you might be interested 
to look at and participate in.


As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the 
discussion on the Wikidata chat 
, 
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.


Cheers

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [wikidata] Digression sur l'usage des listes (était : Re: Réutilisation de données ouvertes sur Wikidata ?)

2018-03-02 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Le 02/03/2018 à 15:00, Envel Le Hir a écrit :

Bonjour Mathieu,

Serait-il possible que :
1. tu arrêtes de mettre en copie des personnes en-dehors de la liste 
de discussions ? C'est leur choix de ne pas être abonnées ; tu peux de 
façon privée les inviter à rejoindre la liste ou leur transférer un 
mail si tu souhaites leur partager une info.
Oui, sur simple demande des personnes concernées. Ne pas être abonné à 
une liste n’indique pas qu’on a fait le choix de ne pas recevoir de 
message comprenant cette liste dans ses destinataires. Ce message visait 
initialement avant tout ces personnes, et la liste n’a été ajouté dans 
les destinataires que dans souci de transparence.


Je peux aussi cesser d’envoyer des messages sur cette liste s’il y a 
consensus parmi ses abonnés sur le fait qu’ils y sont indésirables dans 
leurs fond ou leurs forme.


2. tu arrêtes de faire dévier les conversations vers tes combats 
personnels (on est grosso modo passé de "qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire 
avec les données ouvertes ?" à "Wikidata viole le droit d'auteur"). Tu 
as déjà provoqué des discussions houleuses à plusieurs reprises sur 
les listes francophones et internationales, sur ce sujet ou d'autres [1].
Le point de départ de cette conversation est l’interrogation sur la 
possibilité de légalement importer des données issues de data.gouv.fr au 
sein de Wikidata, dans la continuité de réflexions sur la légalité des 
pratiques qu’entend mener Wikidata. Il n’y a donc aucune déviation 
lorsque l’interrogation se poursuit sur les pratiques déjà en cours en 
matière d’importation de masse depuis diverses autres sources.


Il s’agit d’un sujet sensible, parce que les enjeux sont colossaux, et 
forcément cela peut facilement conduire à des débats houleux. Cela dit, 
faut-il pour autant éviter tout débat et appliquer une politique du 
laisser faire avec une confiance aveugle¹ ? N’y-t-il aucune leçon à 
tirer des précédentes problématiques de gouvernance du mouvement 
wikimédien ?


De plus il n’y a pas de combat personnel dans tout cela, ni même aucune 
prétention à des actions martiales quelconques. Le sujet qui est abordé 
ici n’a à voir avec ma petite personne que dans la mesure où cette 
humble chose s’inscrit dans la communauté wikimédienne. Aussi il serait 
plus pertinent de qualifier la présente discussion de débat wikimédien 
alimenté par des soucis de légalité et de pérennité des actions du 
mouvement wikimédien. Ma petite personne peut mourir dans l’instant, le 
problème ne disparaîtra pas pour autant.


¹ Une défiance aveugle ne serait certes pas plus opportune. :)
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Weekly Summary #301

2018-02-28 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Le 26/02/2018 à 16:47, Léa Lacroix a écrit :
/Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata 
over the last week./



  Events
  /Press/Blogs
  

  * Upcoming: IMLD-ODD 2018 Wikidata India Edit-a-thon
,
February 21st to March 3rd
  * Upcoming: presentation of the paper "Knowledge Graphs and
Pluralism on Wikidata"
,
February 27th, Luxembourg

Was this event recorded, and if so, is it or will it be available 
somewhere? Also where is the corresponding mentioned paper available?


Cheers
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Weekly Summary #301

2018-02-28 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz




Le 26/02/2018 à 16:47, Léa Lacroix a écrit :
/Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata 
over the last week./



  Events
  /Press/Blogs
  

  * Upcoming: IMLD-ODD 2018 Wikidata India Edit-a-thon
,
February 21st to March 3rd
  * Upcoming: presentation of the paper "Knowledge Graphs and
Pluralism on Wikidata"
,
February 27th, Luxembourg

Was this event recorded, and if so, is it or will it be available 
somewhere? Also where is the corresponding mentioned paper available?


Cheers
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Fwd: Re: Imperative programming in Lua, do we really want it?

2017-12-06 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Following your message Jeroen, there it also is on Wikitech-l now.

 Message transféré 
Sujet : 	Re: [Wikidata] Imperative programming in Lua, do we really want 
it?

Date :  Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:53:17 +0100
De :Jeroen De Dauw 
Répondre à : 	Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 

Pour : 	Discussion list for the Wikidata project. 





Hey,

While I am not up to speed with the Lua surrounding Wikidata or 
MediaWiki, I support the call for avoiding overly imperative code where 
possible.


Most Lua code I have seen in the past (which has nothing to do with 
MediaWiki) was very imperative, procedural and statefull. Those are 
things you want to avoid if you want your code to be maintainable, easy 
to understand and testable. Since Lua supports OO and functional styles, 
the language is not an excuse for throwing well establishes software 
development practices out of the window.


If the code is currently procedural, I would recommend establishing that 
new code should not be procedural and have automawted tests unless there 
is very good reason to make an exception. If some of this code is 
written by people not familiar with software development, it is also 
important to create good examples for them and provide guidance so they 
do not unknowingly copy and adopt poor practices/styles.


John, perhaps you can link the code that caused you to start this thread 
so that there is something more concrete to discuss?


(This is just my personal opinion, not some official statement from 
Wikimedia Deutschland)


PS: I just noticed this is the Wikidata mailing list and not the 
Wikidata-tech one :(


Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw | https://entropywins.wtf |https://keybase.io/jeroendedauw
Software craftsmanship advocate | Developer at Wikimedia Germany
~=[,,_,,]:3

On 6 December 2017 at 23:31, John Erling Blad > wrote:


   With the current Lua environment we have ended up with an imperative
   programming style in the modules. That invites to statefull objects,
   which does not create easilly testable libraries.

   Do we have some ideas on how to avoid this, or is it simply the way
   things are in Lua? I would really like functional programming with
   chainable calls, but other might want something different?

   John

   ___
   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
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [wikicite-discuss] Cleaning up bibliographic collections in Wikidata

2017-12-04 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Haha, nice reply thank you.


Le 04/12/2017 à 20:59, Finn Aarup Nielsen a écrit :

Hi,

I do not see any problem.


SELECT ?catalog ?catalogLabel
WITH {
  SELECT DISTINCT ?catalog WHERE {
    ?item wdt:P972 ?catalog .
    FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?catalog wdt:P972 ?catalog . }
  }
} AS %results
WHERE {
  INCLUDE %results
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language 
"[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

}


P972 is catalog. There are presently 166 distinct.

http://tinyurl.com/y7vxdacu

I suppose you run into the paradox if you make a Wikidata item that is 
a catalog over the catalogs in Wikidata that are not member of 
themselves. That would at least include the 166. The question is then 
if the 167th catalog should be in its own catalog. As I see it you 
could have an infinite edit war with yourself as you first discover 
that it is not a member of itself, then add it, then find out that now 
it is a member of itself and then revert your own edit. :)


I do recall myself almost getting trapped in editing Q16222597. Isn't 
it an instance of itself?



/Finn


On 12/02/2017 08:09 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:

Hi all,

You should in any case be sure to avoid allowing collections which 
fall in Russell's paradox 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox>. So if a 
predicate "belongs to collection QX" is added such that an Wikidata 
item can be stated as being part of an other, it must be envisionned 
that at some point a request my aske "What is the collection of items 
that do not belongs to themselves?".


Paradoxically logical,
mathieu

Le 27/11/2017 à 02:07, Arthur Smith a écrit :
I think the general idea of documenting collections is a good one, 
though I haven't thought carefully about this or some of the 
responses already sent. However, I think the use of P361 (part of) 
for this purpose might not be a good idea and a new property should 
be proposed for it, or some other mechanism used for large 
collection handling (collections added through Mix n Match for 
example generally have external identifiers as their 
collection-specific properties). My concern here is mainly that the 
relationship is not generally going to be intrinsic to the item, and 
is more related to the project doing the import work, while P361 
should generally describe some intrinsic relationship that an item 
has (for example a subsidiary being part of a parent company, a 
component of a device being part of the device, a research article 
being part of a particular journal issue, etc).


We do have a very new property that might be useable for this 
purpose, though it is intended to link to Wikiprojects rather than 
"collection" items - P4570 (Wikidata project). Or perhaps something 
similar should be proposed?


   Arthur



On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Dario Taraborelli 
<dtarabore...@wikimedia.org <mailto:dtarabore...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:


    Hey all,

    I'd like to hear from you on a proposal to add some order and
    structure to the various bibliographic corpora we currently have
    in Wikidata.

    As you may know, coverage of creative works in Wikidata has seen
    significant growth over the last year. [1][2] Different groups and
    projects have started importing source metadata for various 
reasons:


  * to provide sources machine-extracted statements (WikiFactMine
    [3], StrepHit [4])
  * to represent sources cited in Wikipedia (e.g. DOIs and PMIDs
    imported via the mwcite identifier dumps) or other Wikimedia
    projects (Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews)
  * to create collections of the open access literature citable
    and reusable in Wikimedia projects (e.g. open access PMC
    review articles)
  * to maintain small, curated corpora about specific topics (e.g.
    the Zika corpus [5])

    While all these efforts have grown organically and with little
    coordination, it's hard to keep track of who initiated the, to
    clearly communicate their purpose, to understand their completion
    criteria and their data quality needs, and last but not least to
    offer any contribution opportunities (in terms of code, or manual
    labor) to other community members. It's unclear if the future of
    these efforts should continue to be within Wikidata, or leverage
    the power of federated Wikibase-powered wikis (see our discussion
    at the end of the WikiCite session at WikidataCon [6]).
    Irrespective of the best long term solution, we need to provide
    some better structure to these efforts today if we want to address
    the above problems.

    I'd like to propose a fairly simple solution and hear your
    feedback on whether it makes sense to implement it as is or with
    some modifications.

 1. create a Wikidata class called "Wikidata item collection" [Q-X]
 2. create and document individual collections (e.g. the Wikidata
    Zika corpus [Q-Y])

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-12-03 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Dear Leila


Le 02/12/2017 à 21:48, Leila Zia a écrit :
[I apologize for the longish response, and I will do what I can to 
take the rest of this offlist as needed. I just see a couple of places 
where I need to add more explanation.]
Then I feel somewhat bond to respond too. But too make it shorts, I 
don't think I add in this email says anything that wasn't already said 
before. So anyone already fed up with this thread can just skip this 
message with no fear to miss any revelation. And to make it clear, I 
don't expect any answer to this message on the list, but will diligently 
reply in private if you are looking for more information from my part.


(Side-note. We should take this part offline but for the record: I 
couldn't find a place where transparency was listed as an agreed upon 
and shared value of our movement as a whole. There are subgroups that 
consider it a core value or one of the guiding principles, and it's of 
course built in in many of the things we do in Wikimedia, but I'm 
hesitant to call it /a core value of our movement/ given that it's not 
listed somewhere as such. btw, for the record, it's high on my 
personal and professional list of values.)
Here is an official Wikimedia Foundation presentation support of 2017 
related to leadership where /being transparent/ is explicitely stated in 
a silde titled "Staying true to our values": 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWhat_is_Leadership%3F.pdf=25


While I agree that transparency is a value for many of us, it is not 
very clear, to at least me, how we as a whole define transparency to 
the level that can be used in practice. In the absence of a shared 
practical definition for transparency, each of us (or groups of us) 
define a process as transparent as a function of how big/impactful the 
result of a process is at each point in time, our 
backgrounds/cultures/countries-we're-from, how much personal trust we 
have in the process or the people involved in the process, etc. If 
this is correct, this means that in practice we as individuals or 
groups define what transparency means for us and we will demand 
specific things based on our own definition. So, while in theory you 
are requesting/demanding something that is likely a shared value for 
many of us, in practice, you are entering your own checklist (that may 
be shared with some other people's view on transparency in a specific 
case) that once met, you will call the process transparent. That's why 
I interpreted what I heard from you as "I" demand transparency, versus 
"we, as a movement" demand transparency in this case.
I completely agree with you with the lake of clear definition of some 
crucial core notions we use all the time. This is also a feedback I red 
in several comments in the 2017 strategy consultation. Staying vague 
brings both pros and cons of flexibility. An other example is "free 
license", which is for example used in the foundation bylaws 
, but not defined it it. 
One might argue that "free license" has a clear cultural meaning in the 
free/libre culture movement, with the four famous freedom inherited from 
free software. But this is a legal document, what is not clearly 
explicitly stated is subject to large interpretation variations. But at 
list the foundation has "free license" in its bylaws, I know that the 
equivalent is not even mentioned in the French chapter similar document 
.




To give you a more specific example: as an Iranian involved in 
Wikimedia movement who knows Markus through his contributions to 
Wikidata and at a professional/work level, I trusted Markus' words 
when he said that those in early stages of the project didn't think of 
Wikidata as a project that one day becomes as big as it is today. I 
believe it that this was a fun project that they wanted to see 
succeed, but they were not sure at all if it gets somewhere, so the 
natural thing to do for them was to spend time to see if they can help 
it take off at all as opposed to spending time on documenting 
decisions in case it takes off and they need to show to people how 
they have done things. If trust between Markus and I were broken, 
however, I would likely not be content with that level of response and 
I would ask/demand for more explanation. In case (ii), and in the 
absence of a shared practical definition of transparency, my personal 
priors and understandings of the case would define when I call the 
process transparent.
The issue has nothing to do with Markus or anyone else being an honest 
sympathetic person, and just by "assuming good faith" surely we can 
grant that, even without any testimony, to every contributors unless 
clear proof of the contrary should make think otherwise. Also the issue 
is not how Wikidata project debuted in some confidential ways with 
uncertain results.


One issue remounted here is that

Re: [Wikidata] [wikicite-discuss] Cleaning up bibliographic collections in Wikidata

2017-12-02 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hi all,

You should in any case be sure to avoid allowing collections which fall 
in Russell's paradox 
. So if a predicate 
"belongs to collection QX" is added such that an Wikidata item can be 
stated as being part of an other, it must be envisionned that at some 
point a request my aske "What is the collection of items that do not 
belongs to themselves?".


Paradoxically logical,
mathieu

Le 27/11/2017 à 02:07, Arthur Smith a écrit :
I think the general idea of documenting collections is a good one, 
though I haven't thought carefully about this or some of the responses 
already sent. However, I think the use of P361 (part of) for this 
purpose might not be a good idea and a new property should be proposed 
for it, or some other mechanism used for large collection handling 
(collections added through Mix n Match for example generally have 
external identifiers as their collection-specific properties). My 
concern here is mainly that the relationship is not generally going to 
be intrinsic to the item, and is more related to the project doing the 
import work, while P361 should generally describe some intrinsic 
relationship that an item has (for example a subsidiary being part of 
a parent company, a component of a device being part of the device, a 
research article being part of a particular journal issue, etc).


We do have a very new property that might be useable for this purpose, 
though it is intended to link to Wikiprojects rather than "collection" 
items - P4570 (Wikidata project). Or perhaps something similar should 
be proposed?


   Arthur



On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Dario Taraborelli 
> wrote:


Hey all,

I'd like to hear from you on a proposal to add some order and
structure to the various bibliographic corpora we currently have
in Wikidata.

As you may know, coverage of creative works in Wikidata has seen
significant growth over the last year. [1][2] Different groups and
projects have started importing source metadata for various reasons:

  * to provide sources machine-extracted statements (WikiFactMine
[3], StrepHit [4])
  * to represent sources cited in Wikipedia (e.g. DOIs and PMIDs
imported via the mwcite identifier dumps) or other Wikimedia
projects (Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews)
  * to create collections of the open access literature citable
and reusable in Wikimedia projects (e.g. open access PMC
review articles)
  * to maintain small, curated corpora about specific topics (e.g.
the Zika corpus [5])

While all these efforts have grown organically and with little
coordination, it's hard to keep track of who initiated the, to
clearly communicate their purpose, to understand their completion
criteria and their data quality needs, and last but not least to
offer any contribution opportunities (in terms of code, or manual
labor) to other community members. It's unclear if the future of
these efforts should continue to be within Wikidata, or leverage
the power of federated Wikibase-powered wikis (see our discussion
at the end of the WikiCite session at WikidataCon [6]).
Irrespective of the best long term solution, we need to provide
some better structure to these efforts today if we want to address
the above problems.

I'd like to propose a fairly simple solution and hear your
feedback on whether it makes sense to implement it as is or with
some modifications.

 1. create a Wikidata class called "Wikidata item collection" [Q-X]
 2. create and document individual collections (e.g. the Wikidata
Zika corpus [Q-Y]) as instances of this class: [Q-Y] --P31-->
[Q-X]
 3. add appropriate metadata to describe such collections (its
main topic(s), creators, any external identifiers, if applicable)
 4. mark individual bibliographic items as part of [P361] the
corresponding collections

Note that this approach can apply to bibliographic item
collections but also to any other set of items not directly
identifiable via Wikidata properties. Of course, the same items
could obviously be part of multiple collections. Some criteria
would be needed to determine an appropriate threshold for
legitimate collections (we wouldn't want arbitrary collections to
be created for sets of items generated as part of a test import).

Beyond solving the issues listed above, this approach would also
allow us to generate dedicated statistics on the growth or data
quality of each collection via the SPARQL endpoint. It would also
allow us to design constraints for arbitrary  item collections,
something that right now is not possible (unless these sets can
already be identified via a query).

If something similar already exists in the context of

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-12-01 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hi Leila,

First, thank you for your clear analyze and suggestions.

I won't respond extensively on list about this thread anymore for now.

So to your reply, I will just make a single point more clear, and take 
the rest in consideration off list.



Le 01/12/2017 à 22:49, Leila Zia a écrit :

(ii) I demand transparency: You need to answer my questions since
transparency is important for us and I have the right to ask about any
topic and demand more explanation until my satisfaction.
Once again, this is not about "I, me and my". Transparency is a core 
value of *our* Wikimedia movement. So the question is not to reach my 
satifaction, but the level of transparency which is expected in the 
Wikimedia movement.


As far as I'm aware, this level is nothing like "a right for any 
individual to ask full transparency on any topic at whichever level it 
wants". This is just broad unfair generalization of what I said. I never 
demanded such an extensive transparency level, and I actually would 
raise against such a demand more vigorously than what I'm doing here in 
favor of more transparency on a scoped issue.


My demand is on a scoped topic which, to my mind, is of deep importance 
for the general governance of the movement and its future as a whole. So 
if that is asking too much information, then yes it can be stated that I 
was wrong in my view regarding the expected level of transparency our 
community is demanding on its governance. Or maybe it's the importance 
of the topic and its impact that I'm miss-evaluating.


I recognize I'm all but perfect, I do mistakes, and the form of my 
message was a terrible one. Exaggeratedly generalized interpretation of 
a transparency demand is however not a proper way to discard the 
underlying issue.


But once again, this is the single point I wanted to makes things more 
clear, and the rest of Leila message seems full of good advises. So 
while I'm not going to make extensive laudatory comments on the reply, 
I'm not short of complimentary thoughts for the rest of it.


Kind regards,
mathieu
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-12-01 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Le 01/12/2017 à 14:06, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :

mathieu stumpf guntz, 01/12/2017 03:00:
Actually, as far as I know, CC-by-sa-3.0-undeed states nothing about 
/suis generis/ rights


I don't know what's -undeed, but 3.0-it and 4.0 do, which is for 
instance why ISTAT data can be imported in Wikidata despite the less 
than ideal license (CC-BY-3.0-it).


Federico
Sorry, I meant "unported", that is whith no specific claims about local 
juridiction. So, in a nutshell, ported versions of CC-3.0 of European 
countries such as Italy or France do include clauses related to /suis 
generis/ rights, while the unported version.


And to be complete "undeed" is the Creative Commons sobriquet for "full 
legal code", as opposed to the simple "deed" presentation for the layman:


   The Commons Deed is a handy reference for licensors and licensees,
   summarizing and expressing some of the most important terms and
   conditions. Think of the Commons Deed as a user-friendly interface
   to the Legal Code beneath, although the Deed itself is not a
   license, and its contents are not part of the Legal Code itself. 


   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Uncreatively,
mathieu
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-12-01 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

founders of Wikidata also just picked it for the usual 
reasons, without any secret conspiracy).
Occam's Razor states that you should always prefer the theory which 
requires the smallest set of entities/rules couple available to explain 
a phenomena in regard of empirical data. It's completely different from 
opting for the simplest explanation. The possibility of conflict of 
interest require no hidden conspiracy, no additional entity, and simply 
consider the possibility of occurrence of a phenomena which is widely 
documented in social science fields.


Maybe at this point it might also be interesting to explicitly state 
that knowing that there was no conflict of interest intervening in this 
decision is interesting for the sake of governance transparency. But 
going with this hypothesis don't really have much importance with the 
rather independent question of whether using CC0 as unique license for 
Wikidata is the best choice for reaching the goal of the Wikimedia 
movement in a sustainable manner.


And once you have an interesting theory formed, you need to gather 
evidence for or against it in a way that is not affected by the theory 
(i.e., in particular, don't start calls for information with an 
emotional discussion of whether or not you would personally like the 
theory to turn out true).
I totally recognize that on this point I've misbehaved in this post, I 
should have refrain of adding so much emotional emphaze in my message.
What you are doing here is completely unscientific and I hope that 
your supervisor (?) will also point this out to you at some point. 
Moreover, I am afraid that you cannot really get back to the position 
of an objective observer from where you are now. Better leave this 
research to others who are not in publicly documented disagreement 
with the main historic witnesses.
This research don't have a supervisor. This is a Wikiversity research 
project. Anyone can join and improve it.
So you should understand that I don't feel compelled to give you a 
detailed account of every Wikidata-related discussion I had as if I 
were on some trial here. As a "researcher", it is you who has to prove 
your theories, not the rest of the world who has to disprove them. I 
already told you that your main guesses as far as they concern things 
I have witnessed are not true, and that's all from me for now.
The question is not whether you want to give me that kind of details. Me 
and the feelings I might inspire doesn't matter here. The question is 
whether you are willing to comply with the exigence of transparency that 
the Wikimedia movement is attached to, on a topic which directly impact 
its governance and future on a large scale.


Kind regards,
mathieu


Kind regards,

Markus


On 01.12.2017 03:43, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:

Hello Markus,

First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in 
the research project on the topic with proper references, including 
this email. It might not come before beginning of next week however, 
as I'm already more than fully booked until then. But once again it's 
on a wiki, be bold.


Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :

Dear Mathieu,

Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first 
chosen (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other 
claims here -- the discussions on the Wikidata list are already 
doing this, and I agree with Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.


Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his 
earlier message (quote included below this email for reference): it 
was not Denny's decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a 
discussion among several people who had worked with open data for 
some time before Wikidata was born. I have personally supported this 
choice and still do. I have never received any money directly or 
indirectly from Google, though -- full disclosure -- I got several 
T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code projects.


Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem 
is not money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it 
wherever wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.


But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance 
and future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, 
communication must be extensive, and taking into account community 
feedback is extremely preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, 
so its all the more important to listen to external feedback. I said 
earlier that I found the knowledge engine was a good idea, but for 
what I red it seems that transparency didn't reach expectation of the 
community.


So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I 
would prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No 
mistrust intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in 
perspective with sources and think critically.


For completeness, was this discussion online or – to

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-12-01 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

Le 01/12/2017 à 05:51, John Erling Blad a écrit :
My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open
meetings with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus
usually attended. As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a
discussion in the office, there was a reference to an earlier meeting.
It is although easy to mix up old memories, so what happen first and
what happen next should not be taken to be facts. If Markus also says
the same it is although a reasonable chance we have got it right.
It's perfectly understandable that human memory limits arise here, I was
expecting such a response. Are they some minutes of this meetings? No
blame if that's not the case, Wikimedia DE for what I found already
release a large set of archives, including the IRC logs of the open
meeting organized each weeks. Simply if there is no trace of this, it's
really unfortunate that considerations for such a crucial decision fell
in oblivion while so many log are available for far less important
points in term of governance.
As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the
community. This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there
were only concerned individuals.
Just as a side note if it wasn't clear, by community, I was talking
about the Wikimedia community at large. And if I don't make the
precision, you can assume that it's how it is supposed to be denoted in
my sentences.
The community started to emerge in August with the first attempts to
go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some posts from 15.
August 2012,[1] while first post on the subject page is from 30.
October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
Meta.[3] Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published
under a free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different
scenarios." but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is
published under[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/a
free license], allowing the reuse of the data in many different
scenarios.",[4] and at that point there were a community on an open
site and had been for a week. When Whittylama did his post it was the
4504th post on the site, so it was hardly the first! The license was
initially a CC-SA.[8] I'm not quite sure when it was changed to CC0 in
the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen before 31 October 2012, at
19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October 2012,[5] this is one of
several items updated this evening.

It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] and stepping forward.
You will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012.
So much for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions
before 25th October does not make sense, there were no site, and the
only people involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for
example that the page Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.[7]

Thank you for all this sourced informations.

[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
[2]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction=2677
[3]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction=133569705=128154617
[4]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction=next=4504

[5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1=103
[6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction=4030743
[8]
https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
[9]
https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hello Markus,

First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in the 
research project on the topic with proper references, including this 
email. It might not come before beginning of next week however, as I'm 
already more than fully booked until then. But once again it's on a 
wiki, be bold.


Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :

Dear Mathieu,

Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first 
chosen (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims 
here -- the discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, 
and I agree with Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.


Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his 
earlier message (quote included below this email for reference): it 
was not Denny's decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a 
discussion among several people who had worked with open data for some 
time before Wikidata was born. I have personally supported this choice 
and still do. I have never received any money directly or indirectly 
from Google, though -- full disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for 
supervising in Summer of Code projects.


Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem is 
not money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it 
wherever wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.


But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance and 
future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, communication 
must be extensive, and taking into account community feedback is 
extremely preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, so its all the 
more important to listen to external feedback. I said earlier that I 
found the knowledge engine was a good idea, but for what I red it seems 
that transparency didn't reach expectation of the community.


So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I would 
prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No mistrust 
intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in perspective 
with sources and think critically.


For completeness, was this discussion online or – to bring bag the 
earlier stated testimony – around a pizza? If possible, could you 
provide a list of involved people? Did a single person took the final 
decision, or was it a show of hands, or some consensus emerged from 
discussion? Or maybe the community was consulted with a vote, and if 
yes, where can I find the archive?


Also archives show that lawyers were consulted on the topic, could we 
have a copy of their report?


At no time did Google or any other company take part in our 
discussions in the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From 
what I can see on their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds 
of different license terms in the data they display.
Because they are more and more moving to a business model of providing 
themselves what people are looking for to keep users in their sphere of 
tracking and influence, probably with the sole idea of generating more 
revenue I guess.
Also, I can tell you that we would have reacted in a very allergic way 
to such attempts, so if any company had approached us, this would 
quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or not, when we started 
it was all but clear that this would become a relevant project at all, 
and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still mostly a few 
hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin. There was a 
lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of Wikidata 
(well, I guess we are still in this phase).
Please situate that in time so we can place that in a timeline. In March 
2012 Wikimedia DE announced the initial funding of 1.3 million Euros by 
Google, Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Gordon 
and Betty Moore Foundation.


So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events 
that you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is 
no substitute for methodology and rigour). 
But that's all the problem here, no one should have to carry the pain of 
trying to reconstruct what happened through such a research. Process of 
this kind of decision should have been documented and should be easily 
be found in archives. If you have suggestion in methods, please provide 
them. Just denigrating the work don't help in any way to improve it. If 
there are additional sources that I missed, please provide them. If 
there are methodologies that would help improve the work, references are 
welcome.


Putting unsourced personal attacks against community members before 
all other arguments is a reckless way of maximising effect, and such 
rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this thread or topic. 
All this is built on references. If the analyze is wrong, for example 
because it missed crucial undocumented information this must be 
corrected with additional sources. Wikidata team, as far as I

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hi James,

Le 30/11/2017 à 23:54, James Heald a écrit :

Mathieu,

You don't seem to grasp the essential legal point, though several 
people in this thread have already tried to tell you.


Copyright protects expression and creative originality.  It does not 
protect merely a collation of facts.
Well, let's recall 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights#Copyright_protection_in_the_US:


   A database is protected by copyright when the selection or
   arrangement is original and creative.^[2]
   
   The level of creativity required is low, so it doesn’t have to be
   very creative — as long as the author had some discretion and made
   some choices in what to include or how to organize it, the database
   is likely to be protected.

So, depending on how creative your collation arrangement is, copyright 
might apply (in the US). In Europe, as you point bellow, /sui generis/ 
rights might be enforceable.




The CC-SA licence is based on copyright.  Anything that is not 
protected by copyright is not protected by the CC-SA licence.


To the extent that an article can be reduced to a mere collation of 
facts, it is not protected by copyright.  What is protected is any 
originality or creativity in how those facts are organised and 
presented -- the expression, the sequence of thought, the selections 
of words, all the authorial choices in the text.
The problem not addressed in this reasoning is that all this "creative 
choices" can themselves be exposed as factual statements. This could be 
exposed in extensive development of several concurrent theses regarding 
the problem of knowledge and creativity from both a gnoseologic and 
epistemic perspectives. But admittedly, here this would be useless 
offtopic logorrhoea. So in short, through history people developed, 
inter alias, theories which states that everything is creative, nothing 
is creative, only some things are creative.


So the problem here is not that I can't grasp the legal point about the 
creativity argument, but that I'm not in position of enforcing what is 
considered creative nor predict whatever some undetermined legal entity 
might prefer to declare to be creative or not.


For that, you have to get the answer from some legal entity which 
through their mystic power inaccessible to mere mortal like me will be 
able to operate the magical performative statement 
 that will seal 
the destiny of a work into the realm of creativity or relegate it to 
vulgar combinatorial material for the rest of eternity (in the scope of 
its jurisdiction, until some other legal decision states otherwise).




*That* is the difference between a copyright-protected Wiki article on 
the one hand, and a Wikidata collection of facts on the other.



In the European Union collections of facts can be protected by 
database rights.


That is the path Open Streetmap chose, when they designed the ODbL, to 
prevent their work being eaten up and assimilated by closed commercial 
rivals.


It is not the choice Wikidata made.  And it is not the choice any of 
the Wiki projects made before Wikidata -- CC-SA disclaims database 
rights.
Actually, as far as I know, CC-by-sa-3.0-undeed states nothing about 
/suis generis/ rights, and so don't disclaim it but let it applied in 
all its extensiveness.


And that is the license that cover all other Wikimedia wiki projects 
(with a dual GFDL 1.3), except Commons where users chose whatever free 
licenses they want, and Wikidata which permit exclusively CC0.


And a large part of the inquiry on this topic is to determine who 
decided to use exclusively CC0, through which process and with which 
goals/perspectives. Some answers stated "long discussions on the topic", 
but I wasn't given any link so far with something like a vote on the 
topic, and until something like that is provided, it can't be checked 
that indeed the community made this decision. So a statement like "the 
choice Wikidata made" is inconvenient, as what denotation is supposed to 
be done of "Wikidata" in this context is all but trivial.



Yes, CC0 causes us some difficulties.

It means what we can import from OpenStreetmap is very restricted -- 
mass import falls foul of OSM's database rights; and also coordinates 
and boundaries are somewhat susceptible to judgment, so there is 
probably a copyright element to.


It also makes it difficult to import from official sources (eg the UK 
Open Government Licence) that use database rights to require 
attribution -- that is not an obligation we are prepared to pass on to 
out re-users, which means we generally have to forego such sources.
I think that with the solution already previously proposed to integrate 
a license attribute, it would be extremely easy for end user to filter 
items and statements that come with license they don't want to respect, 
while still enabling other

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

t
Wikidata team will allow contributors to indeed include this CC-BY-SA
material in the Wikibase instance/namespace/whatever place where this
lexicological items will be stored in, rather than enforcing here too
contribution under CC0. But so far statement made by the Wikidata team
go in the exact opposite hypothesis, that is using CC0 for everything.
Wikidata will not be laundering this data to CC-0, nor will it be
setting up a parallel project to duplicate the efforts under a license
which is not appropriate for the type of content.

I hope future will prove you right.
Attempting to license the database's contents under CC-BY-SA would not
ensure attribution, and would harm reuse. I fail to see any potential
benefits to using the more restrictive license. Attribution will be
required where it is possible (in Wiktionary proper), and content will
be as reusable as possible in areas where requiring attribution isn't
feasible (in Wikidata). There's no real conflict here.
I hope my answer made this conflicts more obvious, as well as showing
how "more reusable right now" might rhyme with "less equity and
accessibility of knowledge in the long term".

-- Yair Rand

2017-11-29 16:45 GMT-05:00 Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
<psychosl...@culture-libre.org <mailto:psychosl...@culture-libre.org>>:

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*/

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

Le 30/11/2017 à 10:13, Egon Willighagen a écrit :

Dear Mathieu,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
<psychosl...@culture-libre.org <mailto:psychosl...@culture-libre.org>>
wrote:

I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta
Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page

As having contributed to many open database and as user of many open
database, the CCZero is my default choice for making data open.
Adoption of this license is, IMHO, the prime reason Wikidata is
growing so fast, and integrated so fast in many use cases.
Well, that would indeed be a huge point in favor of CC0 then.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any way to turn that into a measurable
analyze, as too many factors might come coincidentally to this. However,
since you are contributor of many open database, maybe you are aware of
some studies on the subject which can back your opinion.

License incompatibilities have been a major concern in open source
development and academic research. Yes, there too, there is a
continuous almost-religious and unsolved discussion about copylefting,
but the plain experience there is that the closer to the idea of
public domain, the easier it is to use. The advantages of CCZero have
been widely discussed in the life sciences, and while not everyone
choice, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for many.
Well, surely my message don't help to make it obvious, but I'm not
radically against CC0, and don't deny it does have huge advantages in
reuse. As an example I already gave the CC0/public domain for works
publishd by State institutions. This is something that I am completely
favorable to and will defend and promote anytime I can.

I also note that public domain (which CCZero formalizes across
jurisdictions) is still the "ideal" license when uploading images to
Wikimedia, suggesting more of Wikimedia actually finds the CCZero idea
very welcome.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about things like
pictures that the NASA release, I think it falls in the case exposed
above. If you are speaking of the most used license on Wikimedia by
benevolent contributors, I'm not aware of the statistics on this topic,
but would be interested to have some.

Also stress that in no way I recognize myself in your comments about
Denny and Google.

I guess it's all in your honour.
And your comment that "freedom of one is murder and slavery of others"
needs some refinement, IMHO; my definition of "freedom" is quite
different and I experience your definition as abusive and offensive.
If you mean "freedom of one begins where it confirms freedom of others",
it's not "my" definition, however I could not give proper credit to it.
Maybe Joseph Déjacque was among the first to publish this with some
variation in the exact formulation. But really this not "mine
definition". Also it is of course not the ultimate definition of freedom
that everybody have to agree with.

If you are talking about the more dramatic example of "freedom abuse" I
provided next to this definition, as far as I'm aware it's more or less
my forgery. Although it probably was somewhat influenced by a comment of
Teofilo[1].

Suggestion of less dramatic examples which enlighten the point just as
well are welcome.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Teofilo

The CCZero license of Wikidata is essential to my contributions and
use of Wikimedia products. The chemistry knowledge in Wikidata is 100x
more useful (to me) than that in Wikipedia etc. That is in part
because of the machine readability, but also to a large part by the
choice of CCZero.

I hope this helps,

with kind regards,

Egon

--
E.L. Willighagen
Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
ORCID: -0001-7542-0286
ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/u/egonwillighagen

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz




Le 30/11/2017 à 11:45, Luca Martinelli a écrit :
Il 30 nov 2017 09:55, "John Erling Blad" > ha scritto:


Please keep this civil and on topic!

I was just pointing out that CC0 wasn't forced down our throat by 
Silicon Valley's Fifth Column supposed embodiment, that we actually 
discussed several alternatives (ODbL included, which I saw was 
mentioned in the original message of this thread) and that that 
several of the objections made here were actually founded, as several 
other discussions happened outside this ML confirmed.
Once again, I'm interested to have any reference toward this 
discussions. If it can be proven with those references that I'm just 
completely wrong, that's great. But I want sources to be convinced of that.


I'm sorry if it appeared I wanted to start a brawl, it wasn't the 
case. For this misunderstanding, I'm sorry.
No problem for me. I understand that people can feel annoyed with how I 
formultated my message and reacted accordingly.


L.


___
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

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

Le 30/11/2017 à 08:57, Luca Martinelli a écrit :

I basically stopped reading this email after the first attack to Denny.
That's sad to read, but I guess I must mostly blame my unfortunate
formulations.

I was there since the beginning, and I do recall the *extensive*
discussion about what license to use. CC0 was chosen, among other
things, because of the moronic EU rule about database rights, that CC
3.0 licenses didn't allow us to counter - please remember that 4.0
were still under discussion, and we couldn't afford the luxury of
waiting for 4.0 to come out before publishing Wikidata.

I welcome any reference to this discussions.

And possibly next time provide a TL;DR version of your email at the top.

Ok, thank you for this suggestion, I'll do that.

Cheers,

Il 29 nov 2017 22:46, "Mathieu Stumpf Guntz"
<psychosl...@culture-libre.org <mailto:psychosl...@culture-libre.org>>
ha scritto:

Saluton ĉiuj,

I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta
Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page

Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:

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

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

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

d under a
free license, that, I can use in the extent to which you explicitly
consented to grant to everybody.

As it is, anyone can use the data of Wikidata and that is why I
contribute.

Thanks,
GerardM

Cheers

On 29 November 2017 at 22:45, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
<psychosl...@culture-libre.org <mailto:psychosl...@culture-libre.org>>
wrote:

Saluton ĉiuj,

I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta
Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page

Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:

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

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*/

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 wa

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz

Le 30/11/2017 à 02:00, Gregor Hagedorn a écrit :
I fully support CC0. The question of commercial is misleading here,
all of Wikipedia can by used commercially under its CC BY-SA licence.
We can all have different opinions about Google, but not that
commercial use includes most universities and tax-exempt NGOs which
have a business model and are not purely funded by some benefactor.
To my mind it seems obvious, but of course there is no problem with
commercial use, and the current thread doesn't pertain to any concern
with commercial use.

Also note, that data in many jurisdictions can be owned and withheld,
but once published not copyrighted. CC0 simply clarifies this.
See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights on this
point. It's not a country by country full cover, but it includes some
hints for United States and Europe, where there are misc. monopoly of
use granted to those who create data base.

gregor

On 30 November 2017 at 01:13, Fariz Darari <fadi...@gmail.com
<mailto:fadi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Whatever happens behind the scenes (all those conspiracies), as
long as Wikidata can be useful to everyone (yes, incl. Google,
etc) then it does not matter.

And I believe there are still a million things we can do to make
Wikidata even more useful.

-fariz

On Nov 30, 2017 07:05, "Andra Waagmeester" <an...@micelio.be
<mailto:an...@micelio.be>> wrote:

Here are some reasons for other resources to switch to CC0:
https://www.wikipathways.org/index.php/WikiPathways:CC0_Announcement
<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
<mailto: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:

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]

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-30 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Saluton Nicolas,

Le 30/11/2017 à 00:23, Nicolas VIGNERON a écrit :

Mathieu,

I know you and like you personally, that why I can say that this mail 
is clearly not your best argument.


Despite saying multiple times this is not a manifesto nor against 
Wikidata, your mail seems clearly fuelled with biases and 
misjudgements (especially Wikidata can't be « discontinued quietly » 
not now that it's so widely used in Wikimedia projects, even the 
wiktionaries are *already* using Wikidata).
That's perfectly plausible that my view is fuelled with biases and 
misjudgements, and that's why I'm looking for feedback that might help 
in correcting them if needed. I prefer to expose my errors blatantly and 
seize opportunities to correct them rather than confine myself in my 
possibly misguided views.


Of course, the statement that Wikidata can't be « discontinued quietly » 
is shocking. Surely I'm a little provocative here. But one have to put 
that in perspective with the fact that my previous attempts to get 
feedback on this were far less provocative, or at least were aiming at 
being as unprovocative as I could do. So I recognize you are right to 
point this, all the more as I made my previous more cordial demands in 
less visible canals.


Dissecting each single phrase point by point is violent, borderline 
mean and definitely not constructive ; cross-posting this mail on 
multiple places doesn't help either. This is not the good way to 
debate peacefully.
First, if people felt personally assaulted by my message, I apologize. I 
wasn't aware that treating a topic point by point extensively could be 
perceived as such a violent behaviour. I don't want to harass anyone, I 
want to get constructive feedback on this topic from as many people of 
our community that I can get. If there are better way to achieve this 
through documented peaceful process, I would welcome references to this 
kind of documentation. And if we don't have that kind of documentation, 
I think it would be interesting that we build one.


For better or worse, Wikidata choose CC0 and it will be quite 
difficult to change the licence now (the example of licence change on 
OpenStreetMap illustrate it quite painfully).
Actually, with CC0 – if it appeared that all the data contained in 
Wikidata really can be published under CC0 – we could switch the whole 
database to whatever license we want. That was even explicitly stated as 
is at the start of the project that:


   So do I understand it correctly that during development and testing,
   we can can go with CC-0, and later relicense to whatever seems
   suitable, which is possible with CC-0?, Denny Vrandečić,
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata//2012-April/000185.html

But as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't suggest for such a unilateral 
move. For me, just allowing a tracking of license for each item would be 
enough.


We have to get approval of the community, there was multiple lengthy 
and non-conclusive discussions, it's not something that will be done 
with a ranting mail.
I'm interested with links to this community discussions and clear 
approval of the community.


For me, the situation is quite simple, Wikidata needs lexiographical 
data and the Wikimedia projects needs Wikidata to have these data.
I agree with that, or at least that it would be very positive for our 
community to have this kind of tools.
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.


in fact we could simply import Public Domain sources (in the same way 
the wiktionaries did, in frwikt a big chunk of entries come from the 
/Littré/ and the /Dictionnaire de l’Académie française/, and there is 
enough dictionaries waiting in the Wikisources to keep us busy for 
years) but it would be a shame for Wikidata to not profits from 
wiktionarists expertise.
I agree with that. All the more, all this material we imported helped 
much in populating the project, but it often includes heavy biases, 
outdated

[Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

2017-11-29 Thread Mathieu Stumpf Guntz

Saluton ĉiuj,

I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous
Wiktionary User Group talk page
,
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
 for
taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer

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

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]
.
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*/

.
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]


of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of
random bytes. 
This means, if we require

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikisource-l] quickstatements for missing editions

2017-11-01 Thread mathieu stumpf guntz


Hey everyone,

I seize the opportunity of this planed import to make you aware that I 
started a project research on Wikiversity about Wikidata and its license :


https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/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

Admittedly, a driving force behind the launch of this project is an 
intuitive aversion against CC0, and the will of the Wikidata team to 
launch their lexicological solution with, without, or even against 
Wiktionary communities. But as intuition is never as useful as when 
feeding hypotheses of rational inquiry whose conclusions might reject 
it, I thought preferable to make such a research project so I could 
stand on a firmer vision of implications of this choice.


Also, whatever one might ethically feel about this topic is one thing, 
legal issues is a really different matter. So far, I have didn't found 
any evidence of a serious inquiry of letting people make mass import of 
data within Wikidata. But hopefully I'll soon be given links showing 
such an inquiry was indeed performed. Not requiring source and evidence 
of a free license covering imported data is a great way to put at risk 
of massive legal infraction, not only the Wikidata project, but anyone 
who reuse its data.


I welcome any source that you might judge valuable for the research 
project evoked above. That is anything speaking about how the license 
was chose, opinion of the community regarding this choice, ins and outs 
of the reuse ability, what notable partnership was ease or prevented due 
to the license, how external reusers do or do not give back through one 
form (better curated or enlarged set of data), or an other (technical 
advises, institutional promotion, funds…), and anything you think worth 
mentioning regarding Wikidata license. It would be kind to check it is 
not already in the list of sources I fetched so far, see 
https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/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/Wikidata_:_les_origines_du_choix_de_CC-0#Notes_et_r.C3.A9ferences


Also let me know if you would be interested with a translation. So far 
I'm writing it in my native language to hasten the draft outcome and I 
don't necessarily expect huge interest for the subject beyond myself. 
But if people show interest, or even would like to contribute, I can 
switch to Esperanto, or even the less likely demand of an English 
version. ;)


Inquirely,
psychoslave


Le 31/10/2017 à 16:14, Thomas Pellissier Tanon a écrit :

Hello Sam,

Thank you for this nice feature!

I have created a few months ago a prototype of Wikisource to Wikidata 
importation tool for the French Wikisource based on the schema.org annotation I 
have added to the main header template (I definitely think we should move from 
our custom microformat to this schema.org markup that could be much more 
structured). It's not yet ready but I plan to move it forward in the coming 
weeks. A beginning of frontend to add to your Wikidata common.js is here: 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Tpt/ws2wd.js
We should probably find a way to merge the two projects.

Cheers,

Thomas


Le 31 oct. 2017 à 15:10, Nicolas VIGNERON  a écrit :

2017-10-31 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
Sorry, I am much more of a Wikidatan than a Wikisourcerer! I was referring to 
items like this one
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21125368

No need to be sorry, that is actually a good question and this example is even 
better (I totally forgot this kind of case).

For now, this is probably better to deal with it by hands (and I'm not sure 
what this tools can even do for this).

Cdlt, ~nicolas
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l



___
Wikisource-l mailing list
wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [wikidata] Digression sur l'usage des listes (était : Re: Réutilisation de données ouvertes sur Wikidata ?)

Re: [Wikidata] Weekly Summary #301

Re: [Wikidata] Weekly Summary #301

[Wikidata] Fwd: Re: Imperative programming in Lua, do we really want it?

Re: [Wikidata] [wikicite-discuss] Cleaning up bibliographic collections in Wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] [wikicite-discuss] Cleaning up bibliographic collections in Wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

[Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikisource-l] quickstatements for missing editions

25 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information