Thanks. The key question to my mind is whether abstract content and the
resulting foreign-language text output should be CC0 (like Wikidata) or CC
BY-SA (like Wikipedia).
The difference is that with CC0, re-users do not have to credit Wikimedia
or Wikipedia for the material they use. Voice assistants like Amazon Alexa,
Apple Siri and Google's Assistant along with search engines like Google and
Bing would no longer have to say that they got the material from a
Wikimedia project. They would also be free to copyright any derivative
works.
I think both of these results are undesirable, for reasons aptly described
by Heather Ford in her Wikipedia@20 chapter, "The Rise of the Underdog".[1]
Here is one part of the chapter that speaks to this:
---o0o---
"... Wikipedia’s facts are now increasingly extracted without credit by
artificial intelligence processes that consume its knowledge and present it
as objective fact.
"As one of most popular websites in the world, it is tempting in 2020 to
see Wikipedia as a top dog in the world of facts, but the consumption of
Wikipedia’s knowledge without credit introduces Wikipedia’s greatest
existential threat to date. This is not just because of the ways in which
third-party actors appropriate Wikipedia content and remove the links that
might sustain the community in terms of contributions of donations and
volunteer time. More important is that unsourced Wikipedia content
threatens the principle of verifiability, one of the fundamental principles
on which Wikipedia was built.
"Verifiability sets up a series of rights and obligations by readers and
editors of Wikipedia to knowledge whose political and social status is
transparent. By removing direct links to the Wikipedia article where
statements originate from, search engines and digital assistants are
removing the clues that readers could use to (a) evaluate the veracity of
claims and (b) take active steps to change that information through
consensus if they feel that it is false. Without the source of factual
statements being attributed to Wikipedia, users will see those facts as
solid, incontrovertible truth, when in reality they may have been extracted
during a process of consensus building or at the moment in which the
article was vandalized.
"Until now, platform companies have been asked to contribute to the
Wikimedia Foundation’s annual fund-raising campaign to “give back” to what
they are taking out of the commons.[23]
<https://hfordsa.medium.com/rise-of-the-underdog-92565503e4af#_edn23> But
contributions of cash will not solve what amounts to Wikipedia’s greatest
existential threat to date. What is needed is a public campaign to
reinstate the principle of verifiability in the content that is extracted
from Wikipedia by platform companies. Users need to be able to understand
(a) exactly where facts originate, (b) how stable or unstable those
statements are, (c) how they might become involved in improving the quality
of that information, and (d) the rules under which decisions about
representation will be made.
"Wikipedia was once recognized as the underdog not only because it was
underresourced but also, more importantly, because it represented the just
fight against more powerful media who sought to limit the possibilities of
people around the world to build knowledge products together. Today, the
fight is a new one, and Wikipedia must adapt in order to survive.
"Sitting back and allowing platform companies to ingest Wikipedia’s
knowledge and represent it as the incontrovertible truth rather than the
messy and variable truths it actually depicts is an injustice. It is an
injustice not only for Wikipedians but also for people around the world who
use the resource — either directly on Wikimedia servers or indirectly via
other platforms like search."
---o0o---
There is a lot at stake in this discussion.
Andreas
[1] https://hfordsa.medium.com/rise-of-the-underdog-92565503e4af
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:25 PM Denny Vrande?i? <dvrandecic@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Here is a conversation and decision we need to have before launch of
> Wikifunctions:
>
> *How should the contents of Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions be
> licensed?*
>
> Since the discussion is expected to be potentially complicated, let us
> keep a single place of record for discussing this question:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion
>
> We would like the discussion to go on for four weeks and that we have some
> form of consensus by December 20th. This is not planned to be a vote
> (although it might have votes in it and it might even be closed by a vote
> in case no other form of consensus finding works out).
>
> I hope to see you all on wiki!
> Denny
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WZ5OHKJED7DGRDWTR4EAIYJ6E5Z2H7CU/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
resulting foreign-language text output should be CC0 (like Wikidata) or CC
BY-SA (like Wikipedia).
The difference is that with CC0, re-users do not have to credit Wikimedia
or Wikipedia for the material they use. Voice assistants like Amazon Alexa,
Apple Siri and Google's Assistant along with search engines like Google and
Bing would no longer have to say that they got the material from a
Wikimedia project. They would also be free to copyright any derivative
works.
I think both of these results are undesirable, for reasons aptly described
by Heather Ford in her Wikipedia@20 chapter, "The Rise of the Underdog".[1]
Here is one part of the chapter that speaks to this:
---o0o---
"... Wikipedia’s facts are now increasingly extracted without credit by
artificial intelligence processes that consume its knowledge and present it
as objective fact.
"As one of most popular websites in the world, it is tempting in 2020 to
see Wikipedia as a top dog in the world of facts, but the consumption of
Wikipedia’s knowledge without credit introduces Wikipedia’s greatest
existential threat to date. This is not just because of the ways in which
third-party actors appropriate Wikipedia content and remove the links that
might sustain the community in terms of contributions of donations and
volunteer time. More important is that unsourced Wikipedia content
threatens the principle of verifiability, one of the fundamental principles
on which Wikipedia was built.
"Verifiability sets up a series of rights and obligations by readers and
editors of Wikipedia to knowledge whose political and social status is
transparent. By removing direct links to the Wikipedia article where
statements originate from, search engines and digital assistants are
removing the clues that readers could use to (a) evaluate the veracity of
claims and (b) take active steps to change that information through
consensus if they feel that it is false. Without the source of factual
statements being attributed to Wikipedia, users will see those facts as
solid, incontrovertible truth, when in reality they may have been extracted
during a process of consensus building or at the moment in which the
article was vandalized.
"Until now, platform companies have been asked to contribute to the
Wikimedia Foundation’s annual fund-raising campaign to “give back” to what
they are taking out of the commons.[23]
<https://hfordsa.medium.com/rise-of-the-underdog-92565503e4af#_edn23> But
contributions of cash will not solve what amounts to Wikipedia’s greatest
existential threat to date. What is needed is a public campaign to
reinstate the principle of verifiability in the content that is extracted
from Wikipedia by platform companies. Users need to be able to understand
(a) exactly where facts originate, (b) how stable or unstable those
statements are, (c) how they might become involved in improving the quality
of that information, and (d) the rules under which decisions about
representation will be made.
"Wikipedia was once recognized as the underdog not only because it was
underresourced but also, more importantly, because it represented the just
fight against more powerful media who sought to limit the possibilities of
people around the world to build knowledge products together. Today, the
fight is a new one, and Wikipedia must adapt in order to survive.
"Sitting back and allowing platform companies to ingest Wikipedia’s
knowledge and represent it as the incontrovertible truth rather than the
messy and variable truths it actually depicts is an injustice. It is an
injustice not only for Wikipedians but also for people around the world who
use the resource — either directly on Wikimedia servers or indirectly via
other platforms like search."
---o0o---
There is a lot at stake in this discussion.
Andreas
[1] https://hfordsa.medium.com/rise-of-the-underdog-92565503e4af
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:25 PM Denny Vrande?i? <dvrandecic@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Here is a conversation and decision we need to have before launch of
> Wikifunctions:
>
> *How should the contents of Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions be
> licensed?*
>
> Since the discussion is expected to be potentially complicated, let us
> keep a single place of record for discussing this question:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion
>
> We would like the discussion to go on for four weeks and that we have some
> form of consensus by December 20th. This is not planned to be a vote
> (although it might have votes in it and it might even be closed by a vote
> in case no other form of consensus finding works out).
>
> I hope to see you all on wiki!
> Denny
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WZ5OHKJED7DGRDWTR4EAIYJ6E5Z2H7CU/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org