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 > Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>