Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Gergő Tisza
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Do you think there is something "shameful" about Wikipedia using the
> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License?
>
> And if that isn't shameful, why would it be shameful if Wikidata used the
> same licence?
>

There is nothing wrong with BY-SA per se; it's antithetical to the spirit
of the free content movement to pick a license for the reason that it would
prevent (some types of) reuse, which seemed to be where this conversation
was heading. (Just like there is nothing wrong with the GFDL either, but
picking it as a Commons image license for the reason that it is technically
a free license but onerous enough to prevent reuse in practice would be
wrong, IMO.) We have spent enough time to dissuade organizations from
publishing content under NC and ND and similar licences because they were
afraid of losing control over how it will be used; I'd rather we didn't do
that ourselves.
("Shameful" was an unnecessarily confrontational choice of word; I
apologize.)

There is also the practical matter of facts not being copyrightable in the
US, and non-zero CC licenses not being particularly useful for databases
(what you want is something like the GPL Affero for databases and CC does
not have such a license).
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Bassel

2015-11-28 Thread Gregory Varnum
Reminder that the current discussion on the banner will be continuing on 
Meta-Wiki for another 12 hours:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll

As of this email, 142 people have shown support for the banner campaign and 84 
have opposed the banner campaign.

Thank you to everyone that is participating in the poll and discussion.

-greg (User:Varnent)

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> As this is not a Wikipedia article, it is more of an advertisement, a call
> to action. Urgency is key. This is not about the well known patterns of a
> Wikipedia article.
> 
> This is not understood, it results at this late stage in an edit war.
> Either we have a point and make it or we have a Wikipedia style article
> which is to long to read. It will not be read because there is nothing
> urgent, nothing that demands attention.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> On 25 November 2015 at 11:20, Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
> 
>> Hoi,
>> I have looked at the article. It does not have the necessary urgency. He
>> is likely to have been sentenced to death and the article reads like a
>> Wikipedia article. This is Meta, it is not Wikipedia and it needs urgency.
>> We appeal to the world to get involved to let his death not happen. That is
>> imho what the message needs to be.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>> 
>> On 25 November 2015 at 02:57, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>> 
>>> FYI: User:Odder has now created [[m:Free Bassel
>>> ]], as a landing page to
>>> link
>>> from the banner.
>>> 
>>> If anyone would like to help with a design for the banner (I concede not
>>> everyone shares my taste for 10pt-black-on-white text), we would be able
>>> to
>>> move ahead.  There is, so far, nothing but support.
>>> 
>>>   A.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Katherine Maher 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi everyone,
 
 Thank you for raising this issue here on this list. I wanted to share
>>> some
 more information about how we’ve been working to support Bassel to this
 point, in public and behind the scenes. Unfortunately, some efforts are
 sensitive, so can’t be shared in full on public mailing lists. But we’re
 committed to supporting next steps or decisions by the community, and
 keeping you updated going forward.
 
 Working with some other colleagues at the Foundation, we have been
>>> tracking
 Bassel's case for some time now, in direct contact with the organizers
>>> of
 the #FreeBassel campaign  [1], and Bassel's
>>> family.
 The actions we have taken to date have been in coordination and approval
 with the #FreeBassel campaign, including:
 
   - Coordination and communication with related organizations, such as
>>> the
   Electronic Frontier Foundation and Amnesty International. (ongoing)
   - Regular contact and updates with senior human rights officials at
>>> the
   U.S. State Department. (ongoing)
   - Outreach to the press around Bassel’s arbitrary detention and
   contributions to the free knowledge movement. Please see this WIRED
 story, “A
   Jailed Activist’s 3-D Models Could Save Syria’s History From ISIS
   <
 
>>> http://www.wired.com/2015/10/jailed-activist-bassel-khartabil-3d-models-could-save-syrian-history-from-isis/
> .”
   [2] (Although we did reach out to WIRED, we cannot say for certain if
 that
   story was the direct result of our efforts or others within the
 #FreeBassel
   coordination community). (10/21)
   - Raising Bassel’s case in public speaking opportunities, including
   Lila’s keynote to the Creative Commons Summit. (10/15)
   - Blog post #FREEBASSEL: Free culture advocate who built 3D
>>> renderings
   of Palmyra missing in Syria
    [3].
   (10/08)
   - Ongoing participation in #FreeBassel social media campaigns on
   Facebook and Twitter.
 
 Bassel is in a situation known as arbitrary detention
 <
 
>>> http://en.alkarama.org/1763-syria-un-calls-for-the-release-of-freedom-of-speech-advocate-bassel-khartabil
> 
 [4]. Arbitrary detentions are characterized by uncertainty, lack of
 information, and volatility. They’re scary because we don’t know what’s
 happening, and often we are making decisions without a lot of
>>> information.
 Our goal is always to support Bassel to make sure our efforts help him
 without putting him at greater risk. So we’ve been working with
>>> experienced
 human rights campaigners, including the #FreeBassel campaign, to
>>> understand
 the best actions to take at different times over the past two months.
 
 We’ve been in touch with Bassel’s family, who would support 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Gergo Tisza  wrote:

> Trying to make our content less free for fear that someone might misuse it
> is a shamefully wrong frame
> of mind for and organization that's supposed to be a leader of the
> open content movement, IMO.
>


Do you think there is something "shameful" about Wikipedia using the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License?

And if that isn't shameful, why would it be shameful if Wikidata used the
same licence?

Attribution has a dual benefit:

1. It provides visibility for Wikimedia and the open content movement.
2. The public can see where the data comes from.

What is shameful about that?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:

>
> ("Shameful" was an unnecessarily confrontational choice of word; I
> apologize.)
>


Thanks.



> There is also the practical matter of facts not being copyrightable in the
> US, and non-zero CC licenses not being particularly useful for databases
> (what you want is something like the GPL Affero for databases and CC does
> not have such a license).
>


That hasn't stopped DBpedia and other open-content databases (the
Paleobiology database for example[1]) from using CC licenses requiring
attribution.

DBpedia arguably had to, because its database is derived from Wikipedia,
which has an attribution required, share-alike license: "DBpedia is derived
from Wikipedia and is distributed under the same licensing terms as
Wikipedia itself."[2]

To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would
appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license
requirement.

The generation of data always has a social context. Knowing where data come
from is a good thing.

[1] https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/41216
[2] http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] TPP - copyright

2015-11-28 Thread Jayanta Nath
FYI

On Friday 6 November 2015, Gnangarra  wrote:

> We have a new problem to face in the coming months assuming countries
> ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
>
> The text of the agreement has been released in the last 24 hours, early
> commentary is indicating that copyright changes will occur restoring
> copyright to some works that are currently PD.
> http://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/how-tpp-will-clobber-canadas.html
>
> According reports this will affect media sourced in Canada where copyright
> will be extended from 50-70 years meaning that image sin this period may
> need to be deleted both on commons and on en:wp, Australian sourced images
> face a similar issue as will other countries.
>
> Rather than a piece meal commons copyright battle, and a duplicate one on
> en:wp being lead by  unqualified wikilawyers resulting in project
> discrepancies. I'm calling on the community to take  more holistic approach
> and request that the WMF ask for its legal eagles to give an edict we can
> take or communities to explain what will happen in each jurisdiction as the
> TPP is ratified.
>
> This will also give us guidance as to how Affiliates can approach and
> support activities locally  to ensure material that is already freely
> available remains so.
>
>
>
> --
> G
> ​ideon
>
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Gerard,


On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
> are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better informed
> on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
>


Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646 content pages at
the time of writing, covering (or trying to cover) all countries of the
world, and all aspects of human knowledge.[1]

The English Wikipedia's WikiProject Myanmar, meanwhile, has 6,713 pages
within its purview.[2] I dare say that's more articles on Myanmar than the
Burmese Wikipedia contains. As an indication, the English Wikipedia's
article on Myanmar is more than twice as long as the one in the Burmese
Wikipedia.

Moreover, according to Freedom House[3], the internet in Myanmar is not
free:

"The government detained and charged internet users for online activities
[...] Government officials pressured social media users not to distribute
or share content that offends the military, or disturbs the functions of
government."



> When you qualify a Wikipedia as fascist, it does not follow that the data
> is suspect. Certainly when data in a source that you so easily dismiss is
> typically the same, there is not much meaning in what you say from a
> Wikidata point of view.
>


Data are always generated within a social context, and data generated by
political extremists or people living under oppressive regimes are suspect
whenever they have political implications. (Looking at the descriptions of
Burmese politics, my feeling is the Burmese Wikipedia is not under
significant government control, but largely written by ex-pats. However,
the situation is quite different in some other Wikipedias serving countries
labouring under similar regimes.)



> PS What does your librarian think when she knows



It was a he, but I'll leave him to join in himself if he chooses to.


I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the
> information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
>
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
>


Let's look at this example. Reasonator says of Grasulf II of Friulim, "He
died in 653". There is no source. Wikidata says he died in 653, and the
indicated source is the Italian Wikipedia.

However, when you look at the (very brief) Italian Wikipedia article[4],
you will find that the year 653 is given with a question mark. The English
Wikipedia, in contrast, states, in its similarly brief article[5],

"Nothing more is known about Grasulf and the date of his death is
uncertain."

Do you now see the problem about nuance? Reasonator and Wikidata
confidently proclaim as uncontested fact something that in fact is rather
uncertain.

The sole source cited by both the English and the Italian Wikipedia is the
Historia Langobardorum, available in Wikisource.[6] My Latin is a bit
rusty, but while the Historia mentions that Ago succeeded Grasulf upon the
latter's death, it says nothing specific about when that was. The
Historia's time indications are in general very vague, usually limited to
the phrase "Circa haec tempora", meaning "about this time". So it is in
this case.

For reference, the Google Knowledge Graph states equally confidently that
Grasulf II of Friuli died in 651AD. This may be based on the English
Wikipedia's unsourced claim (in the template at the bottom of the English
Wikipedia article) that his reign ended c. 651, or on some other source
like Freebase.

The other Wikipedias that have articles on Grasulf II provide the following
death dates

Catalan: 651
Galician: 653
Lithuanian: 653
Polish: 651
Romanian: Unknown
Russian: 653
Ukrainian: 651

As for published sources, I can offer Ersch's Allgemeine Encyclopädie
(1849), which states on page 209 that Grasulf II died in 651.[7]

The extreme vagueness of the available dates is pointed out by Thomas
Hodgkin in Vol. 7 of "Italy and Her Invaders" (1895). Hodgkin puts the end
of Grasulf's reign at 645, "as a mere random guess", and adds that "De
Rubeis, following Sigonius", puts the accession of Ago in 661.[8]

There may well be better and more recent sources beyond my reach, but
having these published dates in Wikidata, with the source references, would
actually make some sense. Unsourced data, not so much.

Answers are comfortable, but they are not knowledge when they are
unverifiable and/or wrong.


[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#10_000.2B_articles
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Myanmar_(Burma)/Assessment

[3] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2015/myanmar
[4]
https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grasulfo_II_del_Friuli=76641444
[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grasulf_II_of_Friuli=633223880
[6] https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Historia_Langobardorum/Liber_IV
[7]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Ed Erhart
On the very specific point of knowledge and how it's not always possible to
boil it down to a single quantifiable value, I couldn't agree more. Thank
you, Andreas, for the detailed anecdote displaying that problem, and I'll
be happy to provide more if needed.

Does Wikidata have a way of marking data entries as estimates, or at least
dates as circa (not just unknown)?

--Ed
On Nov 28, 2015 1:24 PM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
> > are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better
> informed
> > on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
> >
>
>
> Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646 content pages at
> the time of writing, covering (or trying to cover) all countries of the
> world, and all aspects of human knowledge.[1]
>
> The English Wikipedia's WikiProject Myanmar, meanwhile, has 6,713 pages
> within its purview.[2] I dare say that's more articles on Myanmar than the
> Burmese Wikipedia contains. As an indication, the English Wikipedia's
> article on Myanmar is more than twice as long as the one in the Burmese
> Wikipedia.
>
> Moreover, according to Freedom House[3], the internet in Myanmar is not
> free:
>
> "The government detained and charged internet users for online activities
> [...] Government officials pressured social media users not to distribute
> or share content that offends the military, or disturbs the functions of
> government."
>
>
>
> > When you qualify a Wikipedia as fascist, it does not follow that the data
> > is suspect. Certainly when data in a source that you so easily dismiss is
> > typically the same, there is not much meaning in what you say from a
> > Wikidata point of view.
> >
>
>
> Data are always generated within a social context, and data generated by
> political extremists or people living under oppressive regimes are suspect
> whenever they have political implications. (Looking at the descriptions of
> Burmese politics, my feeling is the Burmese Wikipedia is not under
> significant government control, but largely written by ex-pats. However,
> the situation is quite different in some other Wikipedias serving countries
> labouring under similar regimes.)
>
>
>
> > PS What does your librarian think when she knows
>
>
>
> It was a he, but I'll leave him to join in himself if he chooses to.
>
>
> I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the
> > information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
> >
> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
> >
>
>
> Let's look at this example. Reasonator says of Grasulf II of Friulim, "He
> died in 653". There is no source. Wikidata says he died in 653, and the
> indicated source is the Italian Wikipedia.
>
> However, when you look at the (very brief) Italian Wikipedia article[4],
> you will find that the year 653 is given with a question mark. The English
> Wikipedia, in contrast, states, in its similarly brief article[5],
>
> "Nothing more is known about Grasulf and the date of his death is
> uncertain."
>
> Do you now see the problem about nuance? Reasonator and Wikidata
> confidently proclaim as uncontested fact something that in fact is rather
> uncertain.
>
> The sole source cited by both the English and the Italian Wikipedia is the
> Historia Langobardorum, available in Wikisource.[6] My Latin is a bit
> rusty, but while the Historia mentions that Ago succeeded Grasulf upon the
> latter's death, it says nothing specific about when that was. The
> Historia's time indications are in general very vague, usually limited to
> the phrase "Circa haec tempora", meaning "about this time". So it is in
> this case.
>
> For reference, the Google Knowledge Graph states equally confidently that
> Grasulf II of Friuli died in 651AD. This may be based on the English
> Wikipedia's unsourced claim (in the template at the bottom of the English
> Wikipedia article) that his reign ended c. 651, or on some other source
> like Freebase.
>
> The other Wikipedias that have articles on Grasulf II provide the following
> death dates
>
> Catalan: 651
> Galician: 653
> Lithuanian: 653
> Polish: 651
> Romanian: Unknown
> Russian: 653
> Ukrainian: 651
>
> As for published sources, I can offer Ersch's Allgemeine Encyclopädie
> (1849), which states on page 209 that Grasulf II died in 651.[7]
>
> The extreme vagueness of the available dates is pointed out by Thomas
> Hodgkin in Vol. 7 of "Italy and Her Invaders" (1895). Hodgkin puts the end
> of Grasulf's reign at 645, "as a mere random guess", and adds that "De
> Rubeis, following Sigonius", puts the accession of Ago in 661.[8]
>
> There may well be better and more recent sources beyond my reach, but
> having these published dates in Wikidata, with the source references, would
> actually make some sense. Unsourced 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Rob
That male librarian here.

I think we need to encourage people to add more and conflicting data
to Wikidata, and to cite their sources when they do so.  Currently
it's not particularly easy to cite your sources on Wikidata.  So the
end result is that it encourages people to view whatever single
uncited bit of data appears there as the one true fact.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> On the very specific point of knowledge and how it's not always possible to
> boil it down to a single quantifiable value, I couldn't agree more. Thank
> you, Andreas, for the detailed anecdote displaying that problem, and I'll
> be happy to provide more if needed.
>
> Does Wikidata have a way of marking data entries as estimates, or at least
> dates as circa (not just unknown)?
>
> --Ed
> On Nov 28, 2015 1:24 PM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:
>
>> Gerard,
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>>
>> When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
>> > are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better
>> informed
>> > on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646 content pages at
>> the time of writing, covering (or trying to cover) all countries of the
>> world, and all aspects of human knowledge.[1]
>>
>> The English Wikipedia's WikiProject Myanmar, meanwhile, has 6,713 pages
>> within its purview.[2] I dare say that's more articles on Myanmar than the
>> Burmese Wikipedia contains. As an indication, the English Wikipedia's
>> article on Myanmar is more than twice as long as the one in the Burmese
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> Moreover, according to Freedom House[3], the internet in Myanmar is not
>> free:
>>
>> "The government detained and charged internet users for online activities
>> [...] Government officials pressured social media users not to distribute
>> or share content that offends the military, or disturbs the functions of
>> government."
>>
>>
>>
>> > When you qualify a Wikipedia as fascist, it does not follow that the data
>> > is suspect. Certainly when data in a source that you so easily dismiss is
>> > typically the same, there is not much meaning in what you say from a
>> > Wikidata point of view.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Data are always generated within a social context, and data generated by
>> political extremists or people living under oppressive regimes are suspect
>> whenever they have political implications. (Looking at the descriptions of
>> Burmese politics, my feeling is the Burmese Wikipedia is not under
>> significant government control, but largely written by ex-pats. However,
>> the situation is quite different in some other Wikipedias serving countries
>> labouring under similar regimes.)
>>
>>
>>
>> > PS What does your librarian think when she knows
>>
>>
>>
>> It was a he, but I'll leave him to join in himself if he chooses to.
>>
>>
>> I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the
>> > information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
>> >
>> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519
>> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
>> >
>>
>>
>> Let's look at this example. Reasonator says of Grasulf II of Friulim, "He
>> died in 653". There is no source. Wikidata says he died in 653, and the
>> indicated source is the Italian Wikipedia.
>>
>> However, when you look at the (very brief) Italian Wikipedia article[4],
>> you will find that the year 653 is given with a question mark. The English
>> Wikipedia, in contrast, states, in its similarly brief article[5],
>>
>> "Nothing more is known about Grasulf and the date of his death is
>> uncertain."
>>
>> Do you now see the problem about nuance? Reasonator and Wikidata
>> confidently proclaim as uncontested fact something that in fact is rather
>> uncertain.
>>
>> The sole source cited by both the English and the Italian Wikipedia is the
>> Historia Langobardorum, available in Wikisource.[6] My Latin is a bit
>> rusty, but while the Historia mentions that Ago succeeded Grasulf upon the
>> latter's death, it says nothing specific about when that was. The
>> Historia's time indications are in general very vague, usually limited to
>> the phrase "Circa haec tempora", meaning "about this time". So it is in
>> this case.
>>
>> For reference, the Google Knowledge Graph states equally confidently that
>> Grasulf II of Friuli died in 651AD. This may be based on the English
>> Wikipedia's unsourced claim (in the template at the bottom of the English
>> Wikipedia article) that his reign ended c. 651, or on some other source
>> like Freebase.
>>
>> The other Wikipedias that have articles on Grasulf II provide the following
>> death dates
>>
>> Catalan: 651
>> Galician: 653
>> Lithuanian: 653
>> Polish: 651
>> Romanian: Unknown
>> Russian: 653
>> Ukrainian: 651
>>
>> As for published sources, I can offer Ersch's Allgemeine Encyclopädie
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-28 Thread Amir Ladsgroup
Hey,
The subject is self-explanatory (also I have this suggestion for
blog.wikiquote.org and other projects as well)

What do you think?

Best
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would
> appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license
> requirement.
>

It's essential to also consider whether the factual information derived
from Wikipedia (or any other copyrighted source) is subject to copyright.
For instance, a biography might contain facts like "born in year" and "born
in place" and "elected to XYZ position". I don't think facts like those are
copyrightable in any jurisdiction. Perhaps there are copyrightable elements
from Wikipedia that are brought into Wikidata, but I don't know offhand
what they might be.

The generation of data always has a social context. Knowing where data come
> from is a good thing.


Knowing where data comes from is a good thing, yes; but "copyright holder"
and "intellectual source" are not identical concepts. If the purpose is to
preserve the integrity of a line of reasoning, copyright law is probably
not a very good tool for that purpose.

A related question was recently asked on the web site Quora; here's my
answer for why CC0 is generally preferable for data sets. (I may update it
with some of the points brought up here.)
https://www.quora.com/Should-open-data-be-publised-with-CC0-instead-of-CC-BY

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-28 Thread MZMcBride
Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>The subject is self-explanatory (also I have this suggestion for
>blog.wikiquote.org and other projects as well)
>
>What do you think?

Hi.

Why? The request is self-explanatory, but the uses and use-cases are not.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-28 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
Why?

I would prefer not, as I like the project domains to be kept clean,
and I suspect it would (by effect if not intent) be abusing
'wikipedia's name to push meta content higher up in the results.

Project domains should be used for that project only, so IMO it would
only be appropriate to host a Wikipedia specific blog on
blog.wikipedia.org (and likewise for the other projects).  However I
feel it is cleaner if project subdomains are restricted to language
codes except where redirects are needed for keeping historical links
working.

Currently when I search "blog wikipedia" , I get the Wikimedia blog as
the third result, followed by three Wikimedia blog posts about
Wikipedia.  Ideally that search should show _more_ Wikipedia content
about blogs in the search results before meta stuff like the Wikimedia
blog.

If we added and used blog.wikipedia.org, it would probably rank higher
in search results, which I believe is contrary to our goals.


On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
> Hey,
> The subject is self-explanatory (also I have this suggestion for
> blog.wikiquote.org and other projects as well)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Gnangarra
>
> While I happily agree that Sources are good, I will not ask people to start
> adding Sources at this point of time it will not improve quality
> signifcantly. It makes more sense once we are at a stage where multiple
> sources disagree on values for statements. Adding sources is signifcantly
> more meaningful and useful once we start curating data.


​the problems will that by the time Wikidata starts to curate data​ it'll
will have corrupted that data with its own data, and secondly past
experience with wiki's is that fixing data after its been entered is
actually harder and more time consuming to do, along with the fact that the
damage to reputation will have a lasting impact  and fixing that consumes
millions of dollars in Donner money.. As said earlier there are lesson in
the development of Wikipedia that should be heeded in an attempt to avoid
those same pitfalls


On 29 November 2015 at 08:37, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was imported to
> Wikidata. Data that did not exist elsewhere. I do not care really what
> "Freedom House" says. I do not know them, I do know that the data is
> relevant and useful It was even the subject on a blogpost..
>
> You may ignore data that is not from a source that you like. This
> indiscriminate POV is not a NPOV.
>
> As to Grasulf, you failed to get the point. It was NOT about the data
> itself but about the presentation. I worked on this item because a
> duplicate was created with even less data.
>
> While I happily agree that Sources are good, I will not ask people to start
> adding Sources at this point of time it will not improve quality
> signifcantly. It makes more sense once we are at a stage where multiple
> sources disagree on values for statements. Adding sources is signifcantly
> more meaningful and useful once we start curating data. Statistically most
> errors will be found where sources disagree.
>
> When people add conflicting data, it is indeed really relevant to add
> Sources. My practice for adding data is that I will only add data that
> fulfils some minimal criteria. Typically I am not interested in adding data
> that already exists. I will remove less precise for more precise data.
>
> The biggest issue with data is that we do not have enough of it and the
> second most relevant issue is that we need processes to compare sources
> with Wikidata and have a workflow to curate differences.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 28 November 2015 at 19:23, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> >
> > When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
> > > are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better
> > informed
> > > on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646 content pages
> at
> > the time of writing, covering (or trying to cover) all countries of the
> > world, and all aspects of human knowledge.[1]
> >
> > The English Wikipedia's WikiProject Myanmar, meanwhile, has 6,713 pages
> > within its purview.[2] I dare say that's more articles on Myanmar than
> the
> > Burmese Wikipedia contains. As an indication, the English Wikipedia's
> > article on Myanmar is more than twice as long as the one in the Burmese
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > Moreover, according to Freedom House[3], the internet in Myanmar is not
> > free:
> >
> > "The government detained and charged internet users for online activities
> > [...] Government officials pressured social media users not to distribute
> > or share content that offends the military, or disturbs the functions of
> > government."
> >
> >
> >
> > > When you qualify a Wikipedia as fascist, it does not follow that the
> data
> > > is suspect. Certainly when data in a source that you so easily dismiss
> is
> > > typically the same, there is not much meaning in what you say from a
> > > Wikidata point of view.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Data are always generated within a social context, and data generated by
> > political extremists or people living under oppressive regimes are
> suspect
> > whenever they have political implications. (Looking at the descriptions
> of
> > Burmese politics, my feeling is the Burmese Wikipedia is not under
> > significant government control, but largely written by ex-pats. However,
> > the situation is quite different in some other Wikipedias serving
> countries
> > labouring under similar regimes.)
> >
> >
> >
> > > PS What does your librarian think when she knows
> >
> >
> >
> > It was a he, but I'll leave him to join in himself if he chooses to.
> >
> >
> > I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and
> the
> > > information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
> > >
> > > https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
> > >
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> As to Grasulf, you failed to get the point. It was NOT about the data
> itself but about the presentation.
>


QED. :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was imported to
Wikidata. Data that did not exist elsewhere. I do not care really what
"Freedom House" says. I do not know them, I do know that the data is
relevant and useful It was even the subject on a blogpost..

You may ignore data that is not from a source that you like. This
indiscriminate POV is not a NPOV.

As to Grasulf, you failed to get the point. It was NOT about the data
itself but about the presentation. I worked on this item because a
duplicate was created with even less data.

While I happily agree that Sources are good, I will not ask people to start
adding Sources at this point of time it will not improve quality
signifcantly. It makes more sense once we are at a stage where multiple
sources disagree on values for statements. Adding sources is signifcantly
more meaningful and useful once we start curating data. Statistically most
errors will be found where sources disagree.

When people add conflicting data, it is indeed really relevant to add
Sources. My practice for adding data is that I will only add data that
fulfils some minimal criteria. Typically I am not interested in adding data
that already exists. I will remove less precise for more precise data.

The biggest issue with data is that we do not have enough of it and the
second most relevant issue is that we need processes to compare sources
with Wikidata and have a workflow to curate differences.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 28 November 2015 at 19:23, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
> > are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better
> informed
> > on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
> >
>
>
> Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646 content pages at
> the time of writing, covering (or trying to cover) all countries of the
> world, and all aspects of human knowledge.[1]
>
> The English Wikipedia's WikiProject Myanmar, meanwhile, has 6,713 pages
> within its purview.[2] I dare say that's more articles on Myanmar than the
> Burmese Wikipedia contains. As an indication, the English Wikipedia's
> article on Myanmar is more than twice as long as the one in the Burmese
> Wikipedia.
>
> Moreover, according to Freedom House[3], the internet in Myanmar is not
> free:
>
> "The government detained and charged internet users for online activities
> [...] Government officials pressured social media users not to distribute
> or share content that offends the military, or disturbs the functions of
> government."
>
>
>
> > When you qualify a Wikipedia as fascist, it does not follow that the data
> > is suspect. Certainly when data in a source that you so easily dismiss is
> > typically the same, there is not much meaning in what you say from a
> > Wikidata point of view.
> >
>
>
> Data are always generated within a social context, and data generated by
> political extremists or people living under oppressive regimes are suspect
> whenever they have political implications. (Looking at the descriptions of
> Burmese politics, my feeling is the Burmese Wikipedia is not under
> significant government control, but largely written by ex-pats. However,
> the situation is quite different in some other Wikipedias serving countries
> labouring under similar regimes.)
>
>
>
> > PS What does your librarian think when she knows
>
>
>
> It was a he, but I'll leave him to join in himself if he chooses to.
>
>
> I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the
> > information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
> >
> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?=2471519
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
> >
>
>
> Let's look at this example. Reasonator says of Grasulf II of Friulim, "He
> died in 653". There is no source. Wikidata says he died in 653, and the
> indicated source is the Italian Wikipedia.
>
> However, when you look at the (very brief) Italian Wikipedia article[4],
> you will find that the year 653 is given with a question mark. The English
> Wikipedia, in contrast, states, in its similarly brief article[5],
>
> "Nothing more is known about Grasulf and the date of his death is
> uncertain."
>
> Do you now see the problem about nuance? Reasonator and Wikidata
> confidently proclaim as uncontested fact something that in fact is rather
> uncertain.
>
> The sole source cited by both the English and the Italian Wikipedia is the
> Historia Langobardorum, available in Wikisource.[6] My Latin is a bit
> rusty, but while the Historia mentions that Ago succeeded Grasulf upon the
> latter's death, it says nothing specific about when that was. The
> Historia's time indications are in general very vague, usually limited to
> the phrase "Circa haec tempora", meaning "about this time". So it is in
> this case.
>
> For reference, the Google Knowledge Graph 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would
> appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license
> requirement.
>

By the same logic, to the extent Wikipedia takes its facts from non-free
external source, its free license would be a copyright violation. Luckily
for us, that's not how copyright works. Statements of facts can not be
copyrighted; large-scale arrangements of facts (ie. a full database)
probably can, but CC does not prevent others from using them without
attribution, just distributing them (again, it's like the GPL/Affero
difference); there are sui generis database rights in some countries but
not in the USA where both Wikipedia and most proprietary
reusers/compatitors are located, so relying on neighbouring rights would
not help there but cause legal uncertainty for reusers (e.g. OSM which has
lots of legal trouble importing coordinates due to being EU-based).

The generation of data always has a social context. Knowing where data come
> from is a good thing.
>

You probably won't find any Wikipedian who disagrees; verifiability is one
of the fundaments of the project. But something being good and using
restrictive licensing to force others to do it are very different things.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-28 Thread Amir Ladsgroup
We already have some subdomains that are not related to language, biggest
example: ten.wikipedia.org

My motivation of this request is that makes access for people who doesn't
know what's wikimedia easier. Everyone knows wikipedia but less people know
about wikimedia and the organization behind wikipedia. I had to explain
this everytime I'm invited by WMF and visa officer asks me "what is
wikimedia?" it may lead to better recognition of WMF by wikipedia readers.
I won't make a huge difference. Just a redirect.

Best

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 4:56 AM MZMcBride  wrote:

> Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
> >The subject is self-explanatory (also I have this suggestion for
> >blog.wikiquote.org and other projects as well)
> >
> >What do you think?
>
> Hi.
>
> Why? The request is self-explanatory, but the uses and use-cases are not.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

2015-11-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
Amir,

My initial, gut reaction to your suggestion was positive. I like that you
have thought of a way to make blog content more accessible to the public.

However, on reflection:
* The Planet Wikimedia blog predates the Wikimedia Foundation's blog by
some years, and is well populated by a variety of people blogging about
Wikipedia and the other projects.
* I run a blog that's almost entirely dedicated to Wikipedia, as do many
other individuals (off the top of my head, Gerard Meijssen is one, Erik
Zachte, etc.)
* Many affliliated organizations (such as the Wiki Education Foundation,
Wiki Med Foundation, and various chapters) have their own
Wikipedia-oriented blogs as well.

I believe (as others have said) the primary result of your proposal is that
it would make the official Wikimedia blog more discoverable; but that
increase would come at the expense of community-driven efforts. On that
basis, I can't support it. I think the results people get typing queries
like "Wikipedia blog" into search engines are adequate. The Wikimedia blog
already has the top (blog) spot on that specific query. I don't see any
compelling reason to further increase its SEO performance at the expense of
other Wikipedia-oriented blogs.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,