What I do not understand is why? We have had maps and nearby functionality
for a very long time 2014 based on Wikidata . It has the benefit of
being of use in any of our languages much more than what Apple has to
offer. This was developed at the Hackathon in Vienna.
OSM maps have as a benefit that they serve countries like Haiti much better
. It is why Doctors Without Borders use their maps and not others .
A third reason is that by concentrating on the Apple API and kits we are
not developing for the majority of smart phones.
A fourth reason is that it will enhance the cooperation with the OSM
A final reason is that we are already Wikidatafying Commons; this will have
a geo location part as well and consequently I do not see any advantages in
anything but a Wikidata approach to maps because through queries we can
target Wikipedia articles in a language. A final argument, it will drive
more people to add labels in Wikidata in the language where our coverage is
now not so good. Including English in China.
PS I do have an iPhone.
On 11 March 2017 at 03:59, Jonatan Svensson Glad <gladjona...@outlook.com>
> Hello everyone,
> I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a
> good way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I
> thought it was a good way to see what others had to say and think.
> The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!) has recently
> released (in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a one
> of it's main feature, to find articles nearby.
> "The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which uses
> Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has
> already sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our
> project's values."
> These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against
> our values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed
> (with fair use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution
> regarding EDP's).
> Some reasons why this was done can be read here:
> I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was
> non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If
> we can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if we
> copied text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica, and
> that reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something,
> doesn't mean we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our
> 'wants', if it causes us to loose what is... 'us'.
> I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not
> our according to values, which states:
> "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging
> the development of free-content educational resources that may be created,
> used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this
> mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to
> allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use,
> and reuse.
> At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with
> freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community
> should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps.
> The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be
> distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free
> software tools."
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com