Re: [Wikimedia-l] Request for status update on CC-BY-SA 4.0

[Samuel Klein]

No.
OCW uses CC-NC-SA 4.0; Wikimedia uses CC-SA 3.0.

Denny is asking where we are in upgrading to CC-SA 4.0, which is a very
good question. :)
That will provide all of the same modes of reuse as the 3.0 license, but is
more cleanly compatible with other 4.0 licenses, particularly around edge
cases.

SJ

P.S. other MIT groups are moving towards licenses without the NC clause;
with a little high-volume video conversion help we could accelerate this
process!




On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:38 PM Info WorldUniversity <
i...@worlduniversityandschool.org> wrote:

> I think this CC-4 licensing would allow for 1) sharing, 2) adapting, but 3)
> non-commercially. At least this is what I learned when I was in
> communication a number of times with the MIT associate *dean* of
> digital *learning
> Cecilia d'Oliveira *at the time about sharing CC-4 licensed MIT
> OpenCourseWare now in 5 languages (re WUaS). Would this indeed be the case
> for Wikimedia resources?
>
> Cheers, Scott
>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > About one and a half years ago, there was a consultation process about
> > updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use to move from CC 3.0 to 4.0 licenses.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
> >
> > I would like to ask what the status of this proposal is, and whom to
> bother
> > to get this unstuck in case it is stuck.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> - Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
> - https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
> - World University and School
> - http://worlduniversityandschool.org
> - http://scottmacleod.com
>
> - CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
> CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
> California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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, 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.

In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
well as "we" do it.

When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.

As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
as a tool for disambiguation.

About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
the copyright held on databases.

I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html

On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer  wrote:

> Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that
> change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea
> that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
> violation is coming from inside the house!
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > <
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> >
> > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Delphine Dallison]

> Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.

I would suggest that we already have a repository built for purpose to
gather these oral histories and it's Wikimedia Commons. I definitely agree
that finding ways of capturing and uploading those oral histories on a
Creative Commons open license would be a fantastic project, whether that be
in the form of video or oral recordings. There are already many projects of
that type taking place with local history groups or herstory groups, etc, so
maybe we need to find ways to work with those groups to release their
content under the right licenses. Wouldn't it be amazing to have such a
wealth of primary sources available on wiki commons for any researchers to
use and write about so it can then generate secondary sources to be added to
Wikipedia? 

Best wishes,

Delphine Dallison
Wikimedian in Residence
Scottish Library and Information Council
Turnberry House
Suite 5:5, Fifth Floor
175 West George Street
Glasgow G2 2LB
Tel: 0141 202 2999
www.scottishlibraries.org


Enriching lives through libraries


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l  On Behalf Of
Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: 11 May 2018 14:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

When we say we want to keep our current requirements, we need to ask
ourselves if we want to continue to be an encyclopedia written by Westerners
for Westerners. If that's the case, fine. But that's not what we are
claiming to be...

JP

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:30 Cameron,  wrote:

> Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am
> with an encyclopedia using such sources.
>
> Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
> use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
> are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is
> an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
> typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary
> sources.
>
> Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
> My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
> and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
> include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
>
> - Cameron C.
> Cameron11598
>
>  On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> wrote 
>
> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
> sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
> consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition
> and not written.
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen,  wrote:
>
> > Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
> > spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an
> > engraved invitation.
> >
> > If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
> > be
> made
> > at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> > reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
> > ask
> them
> > to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
> > accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to
> > second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or
> > "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our
> > references are
> flawed,
> > the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> > "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
> > we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
> wanting
> > > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
> > > started 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Request for status update on CC-BY-SA 4.0

[Info WorldUniversity]

I think this CC-4 licensing would allow for 1) sharing, 2) adapting, but 3)
non-commercially. At least this is what I learned when I was in
communication a number of times with the MIT associate *dean* of
digital *learning
Cecilia d'Oliveira *at the time about sharing CC-4 licensed MIT
OpenCourseWare now in 5 languages (re WUaS). Would this indeed be the case
for Wikimedia resources?

Cheers, Scott


On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
wrote:

> About one and a half years ago, there was a consultation process about
> updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use to move from CC 3.0 to 4.0 licenses.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
>
> I would like to ask what the status of this proposal is, and whom to bother
> to get this unstuck in case it is stuck.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 

-- 
- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
- World University and School
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- http://scottmacleod.com

- CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
___
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,