Gergo, do you mind if people continue discussing this? I'm finding it
very interesting and fruitful. I hadn't thought through these issues
before, and there are likely to be others on this list who haven't
either.

Best!
,Wil

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Gergo Tisza <gti...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation
>> of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the
>> fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard to
>> identify and correct errors, biases, etc. Because if the source of error is
>> obscured, that error is that much harder to find and to correct. In fact,
>> we see this even on Wikipedia articles today (wrong dates of births sourced
>> from publications that don't do enough fact checking is something I came
>> across personally). It is a powerful and important principle on Wikipedia,
>> but with content re-use it gets lost. Public domain/CC0 in combination with
>> AI lands our content for slicing and dicing and re-arranging by others,
>> making it something entirely new, but also detached from our process of
>> validation and verification. I am curious to hear if people think it is a
>> problem. It definitely worries me.
>>
>
> This conversation seems to have morphed into trying to solve some problems
> that we are speculating Google might have (no one here actually *knows* how
> the Knowledge Graph works, of course; maybe it's sensitive to manipulation
> of Wikidata claims, maybe not). That seems like an entirely fruitless line
> of discourse to me; if the problem exists, it is Google's problem to solve
> (since they are the ones in a position to tell if it's a real problem or
> not; not to mention they have two or three magnitudes more resources to
> throw at it than the Wikimedia movement would). 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to