On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> When we started, the open knowledge on Wikipedia was a large piece of the > internet. Today, we have an opportunity to be the door into the whole > ecosystem of open knowledge by: > > > - scaling knowledge (by building smart editing tools that structurally > connect open sources) > - expanding the entry point to knowledge (by improving our search > portal) > Lila, Could you please explain the reasoning behind the focus on "open knowledge" and "open sources" in what you wrote above? Just to avoid any misunderstanding -- I am of course well aware that Wikipedia itself is (at its best) "open knowledge". This, after all, is what volunteers are here to build – a body of open knowledge. But I would contend that if we are talking about Wikipedia aspiring to be a *door *to something, then that aspiration is to be the door to *all knowledge*, isn't it? Not the door to *open knowledge*? This is reflected in the fundamental Wikimedia vision, which is -- to this day -- for people to be able to freely share in "the sum of all knowledge" -- not "the sum of all *open* knowledge" (i.e. knowledge that is *already* open). In line with this vision, Wikipedia for example cites all manner of sources today – from paywalled journals and books costing hundreds of dollars to CC-licensed and public-domain websites. Indeed, in terms of creating open knowledge, content based on the most exclusive, most expensive sources is arguably the most valuable content Wikimedia projects contain: it liberates knowledge that would otherwise be inaccessible to those without ample enough means -- or indeed any means -- to pay. Beyond that, there are many mainstream sources of knowledge that are "All rights reserved", i.e. not open, yet can still be consulted by anyone with an Internet connection, without payment. We all consult such sources every day. They include publications like the Guardian newspaper (whose publisher's board Jimmy Wales joined recently); the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; CNN; and thousands of others. These are high-quality knowledge sources that are "All rights reserved" -- not open -- yet freely accessible. So, if you speak of structurally connecting *open* sources, as a basis for smart editing tools, you seem to be saying that such copyrighted yet openly accessible sources, as well as all genuinely paywalled sources, should be excluded from these efforts. If that's correct, and I am not misunderstanding what you mean to say here (please correct me if I do!), how do you square it with the Wikimedia vision? Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
