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 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to