Hi, Any CC license on Wikidata would be like puting a copyright on facts. I obviously strongly object on that, and therefore I also strongly object puting anything other than public domain or CC0 on Wikidata.
The whole database could have a copyright in Europe, but I am also strongly against copyright on databases, that's why Wikidata should be under CC0. Regards, Yann 2017-12-03 23:59 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz < [email protected]>: > Dear Leila > > > Le 02/12/2017 à 21:48, Leila Zia a écrit : > >> [I apologize for the longish response, and I will do what I can to take >> the rest of this offlist as needed. I just see a couple of places where I >> need to add more explanation.] >> > Then I feel somewhat bond to respond too. But too make it shorts, I don't > think I add in this email says anything that wasn't already said before. So > anyone already fed up with this thread can just skip this message with no > fear to miss any revelation. And to make it clear, I don't expect any > answer to this message on the list, but will diligently reply in private if > you are looking for more information from my part. > >> >> (Side-note. We should take this part offline but for the record: I >> couldn't find a place where transparency was listed as an agreed upon and >> shared value of our movement as a whole. There are subgroups that consider >> it a core value or one of the guiding principles, and it's of course built >> in in many of the things we do in Wikimedia, but I'm hesitant to call it /a >> core value of our movement/ given that it's not listed somewhere as such. >> btw, for the record, it's high on my personal and professional list of >> values.) >> > Here is an official Wikimedia Foundation presentation support of 2017 > related to leadership where /being transparent/ is explicitely stated in a > silde titled "Staying true to our values": https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/i > ndex.php?title=File%3AWhat_is_Leadership%3F.pdf&page=25 > >> >> While I agree that transparency is a value for many of us, it is not >> very clear, to at least me, how we as a whole define transparency to the >> level that can be used in practice. In the absence of a shared practical >> definition for transparency, each of us (or groups of us) define a process >> as transparent as a function of how big/impactful the result of a process >> is at each point in time, our backgrounds/cultures/countries-we're-from, >> how much personal trust we have in the process or the people involved in >> the process, etc. If this is correct, this means that in practice we as >> individuals or groups define what transparency means for us and we will >> demand specific things based on our own definition. So, while in theory you >> are requesting/demanding something that is likely a shared value for many >> of us, in practice, you are entering your own checklist (that may be shared >> with some other people's view on transparency in a specific case) that once >> met, you will call the process transparent. That's why I interpreted what I >> heard from you as "I" demand transparency, versus "we, as a movement" >> demand transparency in this case. >> > I completely agree with you with the lake of clear definition of some > crucial core notions we use all the time. This is also a feedback I red in > several comments in the 2017 strategy consultation. Staying vague brings > both pros and cons of flexibility. An other example is "free license", > which is for example used in the foundation bylaws < > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws>, but not defined it it. One > might argue that "free license" has a clear cultural meaning in the > free/libre culture movement, with the four famous freedom inherited from > free software. But this is a legal document, what is not clearly explicitly > stated is subject to large interpretation variations. But at list the > foundation has "free license" in its bylaws, I know that the equivalent is > not even mentioned in the French chapter similar document < > https://www.wikimedia.fr/documents-officiels/statuts-de-lassociation/>. > > >> To give you a more specific example: as an Iranian involved in Wikimedia >> movement who knows Markus through his contributions to Wikidata and at a >> professional/work level, I trusted Markus' words when he said that those in >> early stages of the project didn't think of Wikidata as a project that one >> day becomes as big as it is today. I believe it that this was a fun project >> that they wanted to see succeed, but they were not sure at all if it gets >> somewhere, so the natural thing to do for them was to spend time to see if >> they can help it take off at all as opposed to spending time on documenting >> decisions in case it takes off and they need to show to people how they >> have done things. If trust between Markus and I were broken, however, I >> would likely not be content with that level of response and I would >> ask/demand for more explanation. In case (ii), and in the absence of a >> shared practical definition of transparency, my personal priors and >> understandings of the case would define when I call the process transparent. >> > The issue has nothing to do with Markus or anyone else being an honest > sympathetic person, and just by "assuming good faith" surely we can grant > that, even without any testimony, to every contributors unless clear proof > of the contrary should make think otherwise. Also the issue is not how > Wikidata project debuted in some confidential ways with uncertain results. > > One issue remounted here is that publicly available data make apparent > that Wikidata official launch, the choice of the CC0 license, and huge > funding by three actors related to hegemonic corporations are all very > close in time. On the other hand, any reference of a community decision > regarding this license policy if it exits was not yet provided. Hopefully, > that is a formulation that will be judged factual enough to not be > interpreted as a personal attack of anyone while still letting understand > how such a concomitance might raise concerns of potential conflict of > interest. But actually, this first issue seems rather negligible. > > The main issue is "to which future such a license policy is going to lead > our community". > > One scenario might be that, thanks to Wikidata large visibility, every > single stakeholders of the knowledge economy get enlightened by the > obviously far more interesting situation of not having any information > monopoly at all, and together start heavy lobbying that leads to global > abolition of all information monopolies. Also everybody become kind enough > to always maintain traceability with references to its sources. > > An other scenario is that BraveNewWorld™, which already has a very large > user base in the field of digital answering to people requests by > redirecting to third party services, imports all Wikidata information along > many others data sources and directly generate sufficient relevant > informations so that users never need to consult a document that is out of > control of BraveNewWorld™. BraveNewWorld™ also includes in its presented > answer "improved reality" features. Because, for example, everybody knows > that BraveNewWorld™ is your most trusted source of information and some > answers could inaccurately state otherwise. But BraveNewWorld™ has made > sure that this kind of outrageous reputation damage attempt was enacted > illegal with death penalty. Some legislators was not completely convinced > with that at first, but in total coincidence most of this objectors lost > all credit soon after as people were revealed how evil this elitists were > in their private life. And now everybody on earth live happy, in great part > because of BraveNewWorld™ existence. At least if you believe the Bravepedia > autrogenerated prose article. Some old people venture in pretending that > many of Bravepedia statements come from a thing called Wikipedia. But > searching for "Wikipedia" in BraveNewWorld™ myReality will reassure > everybody as it explains that is just hoaxes and common rambling among old > persons with dementia. In any case, you trust Bravepedia articles, don't > you? Don't mind answer, your unconscious reactions already gave enough data > to BraveNewWorld™ myHappySensors that you wear. It already was computed > that everything is going to be fine. > > Of course many other scenarios, with obviously plenty of room for far less > exaggerated ones, can be depicted. > > >> Point taken. Those 3 categories and descriptions are not very carefully >> crafted, partly because I wanted to share the general signals that I've >> received from your messages (which btw, also touches on another topic: you >> may or may not mean certain things when you say them, but your audience, >> based on their own priors can understand them differently.). They are >> supposed to signal to you how in a broad sense what you had written had >> translated in my mind. I acknowledge that this thread is about one specific >> topic (not "any topic") and "right" to transparency can be much stronger >> than what you had in mind. The intention was not to exaggerate what you had >> said. Thanks for calling it out. >> >> Ok, thank you for your feedback. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
