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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Martijn Hoekstra 
wrote:

> I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright
> protection.
>
>
Martijn, individual facts aren't eligible for copyright, but substantial
compilations of facts are.

The concept you are missing is "database rights":

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights

'Databases may be protected by US copyright law as "compilations." In the
EU, databases are protected by the Database Directive
, which defines a
database as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials
arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by
electronic or other means."'

That page (including the above quote) was written by WMF Legal.
___
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] The Wikimedia Foundation's FY18-19 Annual Plan is on Meta-wiki

[James Salsman]

Pine,

Thanks for your reply. Can you say more about which kind of SMART you
prefer? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria the
definitions have drifted since original publication of the term,
including by authors who seem to have eclipsed the original's
popularity. The T = Timely vs. Time-constrained seems like a pretty
large difference.

Best regards,
Jim


On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:02 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> Hi James,
>
>
> Let me start with something positive to say before I discuss problems.
>
>
> I think that there were some good intentions with this plan. Also, I think 
> that some good things will happen this year, such as with Structured Data on 
> Commons and with the Audience Department's Growth Team, regardless of the 
> shortcomings with the WMF AP.
>
>
> Unfortunately, good intentions don't fully compensate for poor design or 
> incompleteness.
>
>
> A good place to start to see problems is here: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Final#Appendix_1:_resources.
>  I am looking for project-based budgets, SMART goals, and detailed financial 
> projections. I sampled three departmental APs: Communications, Audiences, and 
> Talent and Culture.
>
>
> I want to distinguish plans from promises. I don't expect that every SMART 
> goal will be met, and I understand that plans and goals can change over time 
> due to changes in available resources, new information, projects failing or 
> succeeding beyond expectations, or other factors. An Annual Plan is not an 
> Annual Promise. I also want to keep in mind that flexibility is valuable to 
> take advantage of emergent opportunities, and that excessively detailed 
> planning can be unnecessarily costly.
>
>
> But proceeding without SMART goals for T (is there a single SMART goal for 
> them?), and with such limited financial detail for all three of the 
> departments that I sampled, is disappointing. I am also disappointed by the 
> lack of project-based budgeting.
>
>
> Realistically, unless the WMF Board decides to get serious about making and 
> publishing good annual plans, we are stuck.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> null
> ___
> 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] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Martijn Hoekstra]

I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright
protection.

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 17:11 Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but
> we
> > need to come up with the questions that we want to ask.
> >
> >
>
> In the Phabricator discussion, Denny and others spent some considerable
> effort to come up with the following questions (I am quoting below from
> Denny's last post on Phabricator, dated May 26th):
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Denny wrote on Phabricator:
>
> So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following
> questions sound good to everyone:
>
>1. Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk
>extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under
> CC-BY-SA,
>and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?
>
>
>1. Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be:
>a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts
>extracted from prose through natural language processing.
>
>
>1. What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like
>OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?
>
> If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these
> as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Given that more than a month has passed, have these questions actually been
> answered?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer  wrote:
> >
> > > > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
> > the
> > > enemy of science and knowledge
> > >
> > > Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
> > >
> > > I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> > > which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
> > multiple
> > > Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be
> protected
> > > by CC-By-SA.
> > >
> > > Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
> > CC-By-SA.
> > > I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
> > attitude
> > > toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's
> holding
> > us
> > > back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't
> make
> > > us follow it", etc.
> > >
> > > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell
> modified
> > > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> > DBPedia
> > > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > 

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić 
wrote:

> Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
> need to come up with the questions that we want to ask.
>
>

In the Phabricator discussion, Denny and others spent some considerable
effort to come up with the following questions (I am quoting below from
Denny's last post on Phabricator, dated May 26th):

---o0o---

Denny wrote on Phabricator:

So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following
questions sound good to everyone:

   1. Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk
   extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA,
   and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?


   1. Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be:
   a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts
   extracted from prose through natural language processing.


   1. What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like
   OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?

If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these
as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered.

---o0o---

Given that more than a month has passed, have these questions actually been
answered?






>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer  wrote:
>
> > > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
> the
> > enemy of science and knowledge
> >
> > Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
> >
> > I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> > which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
> multiple
> > Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> > by CC-By-SA.
> >
> > Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
> CC-By-SA.
> > I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
> attitude
> > toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
> us
> > back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> > us follow it", etc.
> >
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
> >
> > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > > 

[Wikimedia-l] Polish Wikipedia - blackout for 24h

[Wojciech Pędzich]

Starting today, 15:00, Polish Wikipedia has been blacked out for its
readers and editors for 24 hours, in response to unfavourable changes
proposed to EU copyrigh directive.

Wojciech Pędzich
Secretary of the Board, Wikimedia Polska
___
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] [Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Maarten Dammers]

Hi Mathieu,

On 04-07-18 11:07, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:

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.

A license is not the way to achieve this. We have references for that.


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. ;)
So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l 
people in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's 
usually a good indication a thread is going nowhere.


No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only 
person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you 
in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this 
to go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful 
comments over there.


Maarten

___
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] [Wikidata] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[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. ;)


___
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

[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

___
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,