Hi, Did not read your whole argument, but as a collection of brute facts, it is hard to see how the content of wikidata could be in something else than public domain.
As a whole, the database could present a Sui generis database right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right) , but individual contributors would not have rights in this scheme as they have in wikipedia use case. Xavier Combelle Le 29/11/2017 à 22:45, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz a écrit : > Saluton ĉiuj, > > I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous > Wiktionary User Group talk page > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>, > because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on this > point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided or that I > might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested to know it, > so please be bold. > > Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind that I > stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I wish it a > bright future full of even more amazing things than what it already > brung so far. My sole concern is really a license issue. > > Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message: > > Thank you Lydia Pintscher > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for > taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0> > miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised. > > Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the > decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as this > inquiry on the topic > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive> > advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice > toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it > short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth > noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work. > Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, > established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft > co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1] > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>. > To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet > trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of > Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the > research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough > shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some proofs that this > claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact > that was the community that was the driving force behind this single > license choice and that it is the best choice for its future, not the > future of giant tech companies. This would be a great contribution to > bring such a happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue > alone and go back contributing in more interesting topics. > > Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia. > > Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge. > So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal. > This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible. > Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in /Our strategic > direction: Service and //*Equity*/ > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>. > Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That > is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under > this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others. > CC-0 is one step towards that. > That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to > agree without some convincing proof. > Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in that > it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more > extensively. > No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is > data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational database > or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect. Whether it's > a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset or some encoded > prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from this point of view, > no, what Wikidata store is not different from what is produced > anywhere else in Wikimedia projects. > Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things. But > this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be no > data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that ease > aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on. > > Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of > statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on a > map and much more. > Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2] > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2> > of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of > random bytes. > This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases > attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and > sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only > helped to get the result). > No, it doesn't mean that. > First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer makes > confusion between attribution and distribution of contributions > under the same license as the original. Attribution is crucial for > traceability and so for reliable and trusted knowledge that we are > targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the > sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted > knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement > goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this > goals. > Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in > Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the > "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So > attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of > your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to > history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok. It's also > have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it doesn't have > to be included in all computations, it just need to be retrievable > on demand. > What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each item > based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might help, > but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it might > comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. Now for > letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their > work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous > weight when balanced with equity concerns it resolves. > Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually > the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want to act > equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same condition" > is fine. > This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on > where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with hundreds > of data points in a mobile app). > OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do > exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item > would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is > currently impossible due to the CC0 single license policy of the > project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have this data accessible > for Wikimedia projects, but who cares? > This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them. > Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would > care first of re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal, > so surely needs of Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre > Culture in general should be considered. Do this re-users would be > penalized by a copyleft license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it > extensively as they do. So who are this re-users for who it's > thought preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy > with questions of equity and traceability? > It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in > direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge. > No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on a > computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct conflict > with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 community > consultation is going against equity and traceability. You propose > to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next > to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our > community. > Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the > jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database > rights <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for > more details. > It says basically that it's applicable in United States and Europe > on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world, > it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing. > So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be > enforceable in some jurisdictions. > What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in some > country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have. > Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often > means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal > repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading > knowledge. > Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might also > refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical > repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by > enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight > against the growing asymmetry that social structures are > concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is in direct > conflict with our goal of *equitably* spreading knowledge. > Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our > contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish legal > doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job > regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So > while associate a clear license to each data item might indeed > diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for > enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors. > Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does not > ensure that the person who made the association was legally allowed > to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of a > statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once > again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently > include many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia > versions, and claim that the derived work obtained – a set of items > and statements – is under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement > and it alarmingly looks like license laundering > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is true for > Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large scale > extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd > sourcing. > So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give > lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and > the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny. > Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make > it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources. > No there are not. They are used as /a way to try to make it harder > for big companies to profit from openly available resources/ *in > inequitable manners*. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses > give the same rights to big companies and individuals in a manner > that lower socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally > advantage the former. > The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working. > Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course > it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that copyleft > licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it works. > Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle both > the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily. > There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy > is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with > some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but > that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even > individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on > legal considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is > an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the > Lesser GPL for your next library > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is stated > /proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free > software developers need to make advantages for each other/. This > might be generalised as /big companies have the advantage of money; > free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each > other/. So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against > copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical > hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, let's > recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors > which are related to big companies. > Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or hacker > who can not deal with it. > If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just > plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual > benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters. > With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world available > for everyone. > And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be > achieved. > We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have > access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build > something amazing. > And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license. > Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as > it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added > value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an > hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed solution. > And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just like Google > did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought > the company that was running it, and after they imported it under > CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of > free curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of > all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import, > Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits > more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial > support and no hegemonic position. > Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more > places than just the few big ones. > No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to reinforce > their position in which they can distribute information manipulated > as they wish, without consideration for traceability and equity > considerations. Allowing contributors to also use copyleft licenses > would be far more effective to /collect and use different forms of > free, trusted knowledge/ that /focus efforts on the knowledge and > communities that have been left out by structures of power and > privilege/, as stated in /Our strategic direction: Service and Equity/. > > CC-0 is becoming more and more common. > Just like economic inequality > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that is not > what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement. > Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy > with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the > National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts. > Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have > their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily > meet what our community can follow. Different contexts require > different means. States and their institutions can count on tax > revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public domain works, that's > great and seems fair. States are rarely threatened by companies, > they have legal lever to pressure that kind of entity, although > conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate this > statement. > Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license is > fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an > argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw > of all their rights as single option to contribute. > All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give > attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all > parties involved. > That's it, zero legal hope of equity. > And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to > Wikidata even if they are not forced to. > Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google won't > credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating directly > answer based on, inter alia, information coming from Wikidata, which > is itself performing license laundering of Wikipedia data. > Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose not > to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do not > attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for Wikidata > and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them. > This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it had a > positive impact in term of audience and contribution in Wikimedia > project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a > positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or > maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it > is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active > contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal > feelings of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine > included of course. > Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with > a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses > its contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to > state anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are > some people satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean > they would not be even more satisfied with a more equitable solution > that allows contributors to chose a free license set for their > publications. All the more this is all about the sustainability and > fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate > feeling of satisfaction for some people. > > * > > [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed> > > > * > > [2] according to the next statement of Lydia > > Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The > motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might > participate in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and > traceability that is granted in other Wikimedia projects. > > Kun multe da vikiamo, > mathieu > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
