Maybe, instead of thinking about CC0 vs CC-BY-SA,
we should try to think at the goal: how can we, as a movement,
"fight" the exploitation from over-the-top players of community-generated

Of course, license is the primary tool every one of us thinks about.
But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that things changed
much from when Wikidata was not here and Google just scraped/crawled
Wikipedia for their own knowledge base. Players like Google have resources
and skill to basically do what they want, and if I recall correctly they
didn't really stop with CC-BY-SA content. So license is not an obstacle for

As much as I don't personally like this, my question is: Is this a real
I don't like the idea of Wikimedia communities giving content for free to
players so big that can actually profit hugely from this,
(huge profits always translates to huge power), but I really don't know
what we could do about this.


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <> wrote:

> 2017-11-30 11:46 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> >> Nobody suggest in no way to do license laundering nor to violates
> Wiktionaries licence,
> >
> > It's not suggestion, it's what Wikidata is already doing with Wikipedia,
> despite the initial statement of Wikidata team[1] that it wouldn't do that
> because it's illegal :
> >
> >    /"Alexrk2, it is true that Wikidata under CC0 would not be allowed
> >    to import content from a Share-Alike data source. Wikidata does not
> >    plan to extract content out of Wikipedia at all. Wikidata will
> >    provide data that can be reused in the Wikipedias./"
> >    – Denny Vrandečić
> >
> right_license_for_data.3F
> >
> > I think that the extent to which massive import without respecting
> license of the source  should be investigated properly by the Wikimedia
> legal team, or some qualified consultants.
> >
> > In the mid time, based on its previous practises, it's clear that
> promises of Wikidata team regarding respect of licenses can not be trusted.
> So even if they suggested that that kind of massive import won't be done,
> it wouldn't be enough.
> This is another personal attack, and it's unnecessary and incorrect.
> The imports from Wikipedia were done by the Wikidata community, not by
> Wikidata team.
> It's too easy to speak in retrospect, but there were these plausible
> scenarios:
> 1. Editors who strongly care about reliable sourcing, in the style of
> English Wikipedia verifiability policies, are strongly opposed to importing
> data from Wikipedia, because by itself it's a self-reference and not a
> reliable source. If it would succeed, data would not be imported from
> Wikipedia, not because of licensing, but because of content quality. I
> remember attempts to do this, but evidently this is not what happened.
> 2. Editors who strongly care about the prevention of license whitewashing
> object to importing data from Wikipedia and prevent it. This also could
> happen, but it didn't.
> 3. Editors who are good at writing bots or making a lot of manual edits and
> love seeing Wikidata getting filled with data, import a lot of data. Like
> it or not, this happened.
> Could anybody know in 2012 what would actually happen? I don't know. If you
> would have asked me then, I'd possibly guess that scenarios 1 and 2 are
> likelier, but now we know that that would be very naïve.
> Judging by what happened in the past, I can suspect that data from
> Wiktionary will be imported anyway. Public domain or not, the bots people
> will find a way around licenses. It's a certain eventuality. The bigger
> questions are under what license will it be eventually stored, under what
> licenses will it be reused, and will this contribute to the growth of Free
> Knowledge. My intuition tells me that using more CC-BY-SA and less CC-0
> will contribute more to Free Knowledge, but what do I know.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to