1029:
help, always expensive), track license-contaminated data throughout the mixed databases, verify all outputs to ensure only properly-licensed data goes out... It presents so much trouble many people would just not bother with it. It would hinder exactly the thing opens source excels at - creating community of people building on each other's work by means of incremental contribution and wide participation. Want to create cool a visualization based on
Wikidata? Talk to a lawyer first. Want kickstart your research exploration using Wikidata facts? To the lawyer you go. Want to write an article on, say, gender balance in science over the ages and places, and feature Wikidata facts as an example? Where's that lawyer's email again? You get the picture, I hope. How many people would decide "well, it would be cool but I have no time and resource to figure out all the license issues" and not do the next cool thing they could do? Is it something we really want to happen?
1199:
users about provenance of each piece of information. In other places it may be impossible or irrelevant, as soon as we know the information source is reliable enough for our purposes. You seem to be mixing efforts of
Wikidata and Knowledge (XXG) editors to source information and ensure its reliability (which are admirable and laudable) with restrictive licensing of Wikidata facts, which have nothing to do with it. Certainly Wikidata never changed the commitment to the former, but it in no way requires the latter. If for your dataset it is important to know provenance, "comes from Wikidata" does not work anyway - Wikidata is only a secondary source by design, so you need deeper provenance. And if you already implement deeper provenance, there's no need to force you to comply with any restrictive license, it does not help data reliability in any way. Did I miss some important part of the argument that made it work?
1522:
various dubious research papers and studies performed on us, which fail to grasp what we're about. All competitions of this scale need a "round one" that uses cheaper/informal/crowd labour, and the experts only see a selection of the best. Oh, and the other thing we learned from WLMUK was that the experts couldn't agree on their top 10 either. There is virtually no overlap. So my point is that after "round one", the selected images of POTY should all be generally so excellent that it isn't really interesting whether this expert prefers that image or that expert prefers this image. What we can say, is that the winners of POTY are very popular, and we have a pretty large sample size on which to draw that conclusion. And perhaps that is a more interesting and useful result than what some panel thinks. --
253:
268:
280:
1486:
to "recognise" the skills of our community. We have other forums that do that. And don't make the mistake of thinking the result reflects
Commons' community values -- the voting is open to anyone with a Wikimedia account and it certainly attracts those from all projects. As I browse the images in the round one of the contest, I can celebrate the fine free works that Commons offers as a repository of educational works. As a creative contributor to Commons (rather than an uploader of others' works) of course I would like to be appreciated, but Commons is more than just an image bank for amateur photography, so POTY should not ignore those who do the uploading or who negotiate free licensing. --
242:
1445:
should be judged in part on how educational (I almost wrote 'encyclopedic', but want to include value to all
Wikimedia projects) they are. In part to make up for my inability to pick between two stunning images (or even notice obvious flaws) I try to bias my votes in this way. But I 99% just love the POTY competition and think it does an OK job of picking educational-looking winners already. Still I'd love to see tweaks which make it even better, perhaps by partially disenfranchising me. On the other topic, I think CC0 is fine for Wikidata, but I'm slightly vexed to read folks who want a conditional license suggesting the FDL of data rather than CC-BY.
1797:. Obviously, if a new platform is coming up, this opens new possibilities for their business. They now could manipulate Wikidata for money, just like they manipulate Knowledge (XXG), Facebook, and whatnot. This business only works if their customers believe that this type of spam has impact, i.e., if it ends up on Google. They really would like this to happen, and they will try to prove it (to their customers). They might really be the first to find some real evidence, but they also will surely be the first to seed rumors. When you read their publications, you should not forget that it is their very business to manipulate opinion.
207:
1666:
about this before, and indeed it seems that he is now avoiding this claim in the text you cite. The fact that Google stopped working on the
Freebase imports does not seem to suggest that they are very interested in the data right now. Maybe you have new information you would like to share with us? It would surely be of interest to many people here. You mention "vain threats made by those who wish to use us as mere free labor for their enterprises". Which threats? Who made them? What are they threatening with? Are you just trying to stir the emotions of the reader, making them wish to rebel against some imagined enemy?
316:
fitly recognised. In round 1, 3678 people cast more than 175,000 votes for the 1322 candidates; in round 2, more than 4000 people cast 11,570 votes for 56 finalists (the top 30 overall and the top two in each category). While the competition does aim to encourage uploads to
Commons, it seems odd to put all into the same bag, whether the fruits of the highly creative work of community members or merely upload grunt. In any event, this year NASA images won both first and sixth places: I'm sure NASA isn't even aware of these accolades, and probably wouldn't care either way. Are we squandering our social rewards?
1623:. The text is taken in large part from the CC-BY textbook. In fact roughly 80% of it is an adaptation of that text, changed for correct tone and tense. This is also very apparent in the reference section, there is a tag on the page that it uses this content. Promoting internal images is negative to our cause â which is to spread knowledge in any way shape or form it presents itself to us. Your argument is the same as saying that if an expert group has helped in the formation of an article, then we should not feature it on our main page. But, this has already happened, in fact yesterday when the article
1229:. When you say that all those people wanting to build "the next cool thing" should not be put to too much trouble, to me that sounds exactly like saying, "Gosh, citing sources in Knowledge (XXG) is so much trouble ... people wanting to do cool stuff go elsewhere. Let's dispense with sourcing requirements so that contributing is easy and everyone can have fun participating in Knowledge (XXG)." Yes, you'd get more free information that way, but even more of it would be dross. We're trying to map reality, not simply to provide an answer so people can avoid the uncomfortable feeling of not knowing.
1478:. There are a few good ones, but compared to what normally passes at Commons FP on a daily basis, I suspect Tony, even with his unexpert eye, would also be disappointed at their choices. Some were very poor technically, and in 2013 many were very low resolution. And generally the winning photographers weren't regular at WP or Commons and didn't stay. Unlike the regulars, they submitted small, heavily-processed and arty images rather than the accurate documentary and high-resolution images that our community values. In other words, the experts didn't share our values.
1600:
would be discredited by accusations of nepotism. Second, featured picture forums already provide a significant way of judging and rewarding the best free content, internal and external. Third, I didn't propose that POTY be restricted to internally produced materialâone improvement might be to retain the current blindness to the internalâexternal divide in the round 1 category competitions and give those results more publicity, but to restrict the more prominent and symbolic round 2 to internals; and it's probably not the only solution.
231:
167:
1895:
example, share alike would prevent integrating
Wikidata with CC BY-NC content. Integration is especially important with respect to data (the most valuable applications occur only once data is integrated). Additionally, data licensing is a relatively new legal issue, with much uncertainty. I support public domain dedication (such as CC0), because it reduces the burden of content reuse. There is a growing consensus in the scientific data fields that
1759:
years (possibly predating even the time when such data became interesting for search engines). You can also check out talks by former Vulcan project manager Mark
Greaves, who has been close to project Halo at the time, and who has had significant influence on the decisions regarding the course of the project (to the best of my knowledge, the shift of focus towards semantic wikis was based on his initiative). Again, you can see that there is
1145:
special-cased in all automatic tools and code has to be validated and vetted for license compliance. Each particular instance of this may be easy to do, but doing this over many pieces of code, many source and many licenses becomes unmanageable - and some people with limited resources would rather opt not to use restricted data at all than risk getting into legal trouble over misunderstanding of the license. This does not help anybody. --
466:
121:
111:
1596:
exonerate from my point about outsourcingâthough not enough to win a top place, in my view, and I suspect that only a tiny proportion of votes were cast by people who had taken this into account). Let's also consider that the task of choosing and integrating images into an article, and writing appropriate captions, is normally greater than the energy put into writing description pages for externally sourced images.
303:
created by a
Wikimedian; second, existing images selected and improvedâoften very skilfullyâby a Wikimedian; and third, existing images merely selected and uploaded without input except for categorisation and a short description note on Commons. Items in these categories involve strikingly different levels of skill and creativity by our people, but if promoted, they're given the same featured status regardless.
1813:
And then you deduce from this collected evidence some kind of hidden agenda of large-scale organisations (Google, Microsoft, Wikimedia). You could easily find as much evidence for the opposite. Maybe it helps to think practical: Do you think I would bother to answer here on a
Saturday morning if I could somehow be making secret plots for world domination with my "buddys" at Google instead? --
223:
1569:
spread knowledge. Even when we don't take and adapt text directly we include and adapt free images, and sound-files, and videos, placing them in articles in a way where external content is part of our creations. Wikimedia should be a platform for all free content, and we should simply promote what is best, not what we happened to know is produced by a friend from Knowledge (XXG).
36:
131:
1681:
Research as well as the VP Engineering of Siri, another company in the proprietary question-answering business) provided half the original external funding, with further contributions from search engines Google and Yandex. So while the statement indeed lacks precision, it's not exactly "made up" to say that Microsoft money went into the development of Wikidata.
1225:
first link were there, the deeper provenance is lacking whenever Wikidata lacks a source citation, or merely cites "Italian Knowledge (XXG)" or something like that. Not citing your sources because of "lack of time" and "too much trouble" is tremendously harmful to information integrity, even with Knowledge (XXG). See e.g. the comments on Dickens in the recent
91:
349:, who will be well-known to Wikimedia's featured-picture communities. His work also won 11th place with an image of a basilica church in Colombia, in which ornate gothic revival protrudes from a richly structured craggy hillside. The seventh and eighth place-getters were taken from Flickr, and No. 12 was released by the British Ministry of Defence.
141:
1064:" somewhere users can see it. In fact, when Bing, Google et al. copy chunks of Knowledge (XXG) text in their SERP knowledge panels and timelines, a hyperlink to Knowledge (XXG) is all that's given. That's obviously enough to satisfy Knowledge (XXG)'s CC-BY-SA licence requirements in that use case, given that WMF Legal has shown no sign of complaining
1137:
insulting, and does not contribute to the discussion of the actual point. I believe it is completely possible to express your argument without swearing - as I and other discussion participants amply demonstrated. If you find your argument can only stand when you use words like "bullshit" - that means it can not stand at all. Now to the point.
101:
1280:". This is no different from Wikidata's case. Want to reuse Wikidata's sweat of the brow? Great! Just make sure it is publicly available. You don't need a lawyer for that, as most free software projects don't have lawyers and are able to comply with copyleft provisions without a problem. What we may be seeing here is a classic instance of
404:
1088:
interested in discussion, so be it, fencing with baseless accusations of nebulous conspiracies is not how I would like to spend my time. When you are interested in discussing my actual position and not in dismissing it by means of baseless conspiracy claims, please come back with a real argument addressing my points. Or don't.
320:
we're faced with half the image seriously underexposed almost to the point of black, the rest a bath of oversaturated colour without compositional depth. The design of the stained-glass windows does not appear to be worth highlightingânot to me, at least. With apologies to the photographer, I'm disappointed.
299:"Featured content" page. There I was first exposed to the expert opinions of our regular reviewers, and it was through reading their comments, as a weekly drop-in observer, that I could at least learn the basic criteria and even a few technical terms (alas, without impact on my flunky tourist photography).
1903:
how licenses that do not waive all copyright protections make data integration a nightmare. I strongly urge the Wikidata community to consider what option will be the best for the longterm reuse and preservation of Wikidata content. I firmly believe that the future will be built on public domain data
1863:
Methinks Markus Krötzsch doth protest too much. I find it grating to see corporations use the work of volunteers for their own profit, although we all realize than not only is this enterprise not set up to keep eyeballs and credit here, the WMF shows not real indication of caring. WMF likely sold our
1749:
in such applications (entering all relevant knowledge for such a smart system is time consuming and technology support was considered to be necessary to allow more people to contribute). Some of the programming work I did on Semantic MediaWiki as a PhD student was funded by this project (not directly
1669:
Please check the linked thread to see if the author has replied. Maybe one or the other point I make here can still be clarified by the author, who may have sources that I am not aware of. (It would be greatly appreciated if replies posted here could be sent to the mailing list as well, so as to keep
1392:
You may indeed have a good idea there, because it's not really a fair contest. As for me, I don't vote on these things because literally all the candidates are too good for me to rate. I mean, there's nothing for me to compare them to; each is unique and gorgeous in its own way, some way I've never
978:
But if someone just wants to generate a printed quiz with 20 questions, using a front end of such a database, or just by hand from Wikidata, I don't a legal framework to compel them to carry along such provenance metadata is what we want. In practice it would, I believe, have a "chilling effect": any
974:
Here's what I mean, in an example, anyway. With a few facts from Wikidata, I can make the multiple-choice question "Was Albert Einstein's birthplace (a) Bremen, (b) Munich, or (c) Ulm?" This sort of thing can and should be done on a large scale, starting from Wikidata. If I created a database of such
434:
We should not bend to the power of industry monopolists. No amount of venture capital or ill-disguised "donations"âreally investments made with certain expectations in returnâshould interfere with our goal of making knowledge accessible. In this context, accessibility means "trickling down" freedoms;
388:
As Kolbe shows, Wikidata usage by these companies lacks attribution, and this means end-users don't know the provenance of the data they are served up, and the community loses potential new editors. We are also harmed in a third way: any modifications made by others to this rich dataset do not return
319:
Kudos to all place-getters: there's some remarkable work here. However, allow me to bemoan the fact that the second round is not judged by a panel of experts after a democratic vote for the first round. In my view, the second-placed image belies the wealth of artistry in so much Islamic architecture:
1957:
Copylefting (or not) has been heavily and religiously debated for many, many years in the open source community. I have never seen strong examples why either would be better for open source. Second, data is not text and is not source code. It's different and "conspicuously alone" is a false argument
1778:
there. In fact, throughout the design and development discussions I have had with the team at Berlin and with WMF staff in the US, there has never been any mentioning of Google or related interests. It should also be fairly clear that it does not make a big difference for Google what kind of license
1699:
Perhaps the thinking at Google has changed over the past year or so; you and your mate Denny are in a much better position to know than me. So, if you know anything, tell us, rather than posting riddles. But I note that this year, Wikidata's Lydia Pintscher co-published with four Google employees a
1599:
You write: "Wikimedia should be a platform for all free content, and we should simply promote what is best, not what we happened to know is produced by a friend from Knowledge (XXG)." My responses are first that it's nothing to do with friends on Knowledge (XXG), or the whole featured-content system
1521:
Well nobody reads the instructions, experts especially so. If you hire people for their supposed expertise and judgement, then you are at the mercy of their opinion and judgement. . It's really not easy to get an external person to understand Knowledge (XXG)/Commons values -- as we all know from the
1481:
I don't think Adam's restoration images will tend to do well in any popularity contest. Appreciating the work that went into the restoration (vs the talents of the artist who drew or photographed the original) is too complex a task and not suited to pressing "Like" buttons and when faced with over a
1202:
Mixing high-quality and low-quality data may indeed be undesirable, but again, I do not see how restrictive license is going to help. If, as you claim, it does not prevent usage (and thus mixing) of data sets, nothing changes at all. If it does prevent, how would this prevention only apply to mixing
1178:
to satisfy this requirement. That is part of its beauty and a very large part of why it works to the extent it does. Wikidata appears to have jettisoned that ideal (along with the commitment to copyleft for derivatives), and everything you have said here to date only serves to deepen that perception
1144:
The problem with restrictive license, as I pointed out, is not typing three words - the problem is automatic processing and reuse of mixed data. Not by people - by automatic agents, that have no fingers and can not type anything. Each time restrictive license is used, data under this license must be
302:
In highlighting featured promotions I also became aware of a fundamental difference between featured pictures and the other featured forums: articles, lists, and topics are solely the work of Wikimedians; in contrast, featured picture candidates are of three types: first, those that have been wholly
1967:
that's the wrong way around. CCZero is a stronger license (actually, it's not a license, but a waiver): it gives people more freedom, removes many more hurdles. And exactly these strong freedoms are for me the reason to contribute my effort (time, and with that, money) to Wikidata. Wikidata, with a
1595:
It's a question of the ratio of the external sourcing and internal input of skill and effort. Yes, the balance goes both ways: you'll notice that a little time went into writing the description page for the winner (and significantly more for No. 6, which along with the noise reduction does at least
1485:
I recommend you consider POTY as just the bit of fun that it is, and accept the attributes of popularity contests, good and bad. Most of the Featured Pictures on Commons are excellent. That's the point. Don't consider the selection of a handful of images out of over a thousand as a contest designed
1466:
Any popularity contest, fully open to anyone regardless of experience and training (never mind recognised expertise), is going to choose "popular" images. Experts in most creative fields tend to have a different agenda. Think of popular music, popular fashion, art that people actually buy to put on
1444:
I really love the POTY competition but also find it slightly frustrating. I vote in both rounds but am totally unqualified. I'd love for the second round to be judged by an expert panel. Perhaps one instruction could be given (both rounds) that might favor community created/restored images: entries
1232:
This is just one aspect. Another is that volunteers work for nothing on the project, and now their project is not even credited in a minimal way, while others are earning billions from it. That's as exploitative as working arrangements in the early days of the industrial revolution. Another related
1091:
The interests of the contributors and the project itself is for the data to be widely available and used. Erecting legal barriers on the way of the users is the worst possible way to ensure it. Especially barriers that most users would require professional help to understand and comply with. Google
1087:
It is a bit of a non-sequitur. Google can put any license on anything, that doesn't mean they have the rights that you think they claim. And I am not going to seriously discuss the claim that my argument is "smoke and mirrors designed to protect the interests of commercial reusers" - if you are not
1032:
And all that trouble to no benefit to anyone - there's absolutely no threat of Wikidata database being taken over and somehow subverted by "enterprises", whatever that nebulous term means. In fact, if Google example shows us anything, it's that "enterprises" are not very good at it and don't really
970:
I don't think you need to call me naive. You are talking about an effect created by a lack of critical thinking (of some people). I'm talking about a chilling effect on reuse, in schools short of resources for example. If what schools taught about the Internet was more up-to-date, critical thinking
927:
conformed to the GFDL by adding many pages of attribution, just to quote WP; neither Phoebe or I (mostly Phoebe) would want to go through that again. If you go seriously into the data reuse question in education, though, you can see why CC0 might be a good idea (allows lightweight reuse in cases of
385:" sheds light on several troubling trends regarding the usage of Wikidata by third parties. Google and Microsoft, who secured well over half of Wikidata's initial funding, are now enjoying the fruits of our community's hard work with absolutely no strings attached. No considerations of public good.
315:
However, the double-round annual Picture of the Year competitionâopen to raw uploads of external images, apparently on equal footingâis huge by comparison, and affords much more opportunity to corral those three types of images so that the design and photographic skills of our community can be more
1812:
we need to get beyond in these discussions. You look at small "signs" that you find on the internet: a quick sentence I write on some minor project page, a suggestive sounding remark on IRC, a joint research publication about a small (and completely public) collaboration, a claim by some SEO blog.
1773:
I don't know why people distrust donations so much. Maybe they think that the donors could influence the project in some way? I don't think this has ever happened in Wikidata, especially not related to licensing, which is a very important topic to the WMF and to us personally. I remember us having
1339:
As the uploader of the winning image... Eh, screw it. I'm disappointed that won too. It's a fantastic image, and I was excited to find it, but I believe that's the only image I've ever had the slightest connection to to even make it into the final round. I work in image restoration, and, no matter
1206:
I am not sure what is "commitment to copyleft", but I certainly do not see it as a worthy ideal. Copyleft is a tool, the purpose is to create and distribute free information. If certain license does not serve it, it should be jettisoned mercilessly and without any hesitation, license itself has no
1925:
As AI becomes more important with Sundar Pichai speaking about the AI first world, that AI needs access to data to work. That data should be freely accessible to both small companies and large companies. Having a permissive license allows everyone to use the data and build productes without first
1769:
The question is not if Google will make use of Wikidata at some point (it's free, they can do this if they feel like it; and they probably won't notify me when they do). The question is whether this makes Wikidata anywhere near as relevant for their business as the post suggests here. The picture
1758:
directly. I still hope that our data can contribute to their ambitious goals at some point, but as far as I know there is no ongoing collaboration. Microsoft has nothing to do with any of this, and I think you should be able to trace much of the goals and doings of Vulcan/AI in this area for many
1665:
You say that Microsoft donated to Wikidata. Is it possible that you have just made this up since it fits the picture you want to paint? No concerns about misinforming your readers here? You claim that Google is using Wikidata content. I have not seen any proof of this. I have challenged Mr. Kolbe
1568:
article which to a large degree builds upon the CC-BY textbook CNX: Anatomy & Physiology, which is currently undergoing GA review. I would be devastated if it failed that review only because it uses content produced externally. That goes against the very nature of Knowledge (XXG)'s mission to
1224:
Of course you need that. But Wikidata fails on both counts. "Comes from Wikidata" would be the first link in the provenance chain enabling the end user to trace the information source. Even that first link is broken when re-users don't have to say they got the info from Wikidata. And even if that
1028:
restrictive) makes a lot of trouble for any people using the data. This is especially true for data that is meant for automatic processing - you will have to add code to track licenses for each data unit, figure out how exactly to comply with the license (which would probably require professional
1680:
Microsoft qua Microsoft did not fund Wikidata development. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's AI institute (which includes in its board of directors both Allen and the Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science & Engineering, and whose Advisory Board includes the Director of Microsoft
1198:
I am not sure I can follow your argument here. I agree that Knowledge (XXG) and Wikidata both have idea of providing provable and reliable information, though currently they/we are not completely in agreement with this ideal yet. I also agree that it might be beneficial, in some cases, to inform
1169:
And I don't see it as progress for humanity if machines mix and match high-quality and low-quality data from an array of sources so "unmanageable" that in the end no one can figure out any more which source any item of information comes from. Knowledge (XXG) is deeply flawed in many ways, but at
1136:
I'd ask you to tone down a bit. You use a lot of swear words and much less arguments. Throwing around words like "bullshit" and "poppycock" does not make your argument stronger. In fact, it doesn't make argument at all, just running your mouth (or in this case, fingers). Your tone is abusive and
906:
So re-users of data who don't indicate their sources will lose credibility, no? If their "business model" is simply to claim they have "authoritative" data, without giving adequate referencing, they become like, well what? Tabloid newspapers, that is one thing that comes to mind. Plagiarists, is
306:
I don't mind lumping images of these three types together in a single forum, whether on the English Knowledge (XXG) or on Commons, which has its own featured process: there, the throughput and number of active reviewers are just too small to fractionate them into categories. All the same, I must
1627:
was featured. It incorporated: text, reviews and discussions that were held entirely off-wiki as well as those that were held on-wiki. We have to stop pretending there is a value in promoting sub-standard work onto our main pages. The same is true for some awful anatomy images that took ages to
1804:
as an evidence of the interest of Google. This is extremely naive. Of course neither Denny nor Lydia have lost interest in Wikidata, but that does not tell you anything about the business strategy of the multi-billion dollar company that is Google. The paper in fact is mainly about the Primary
1894:
As a potential Wikidata contributor, I am driven by the following consideration: I want to contribute to Wikidata, so no one will ever need to repeat my efforts. Were share-alike or attribution stipulations placed on Wikidata, I would not contribute. Share alike creates incompatibilities. For
857:
Argument by analogy with Knowledge (XXG) text is certainly not convincing, nor should it be. Attribution is actually different from referencing, even though both are of interest in the general matter of understanding "provenance", which does indeed matter. I would say the way forward is with
725:
Current legislations do not support the licensing of individual facts, only of databases as a whole, and only in some countries. What you are asking for is Wikidata to lobby for the introduction of new notions of "copyright" which do not exist today. Yes, you could use these laws to enforce
438:
Ideally, this should not be a controversial point. Among all Wikimedia projects, Wikidata is conspicuously alone in not being copylefted. Perhaps we should start asking why that is the case and whose interests benefit from weak licensing choices, and start to organize ourselves to fix this.
886:'s strongest arguments to my mind was one I did not make in my December op-ed: that derivatives from Wikidata should also be open and free and traceable, rather than forming the content of a black box marked "proprietary". The latter is, unfortunately, exactly what is happening, isn't it.
1695:
As I recall, you yourself wrote that Wikidata would have "a prominent role as an input for Google's Knowledge Graph" (https://archive.is/O8h8K) â and then deleted that sentence from the Wikidata description on your institute's website when I pointed it out to you. That did happen, didn't
879:: External referencing in Wikidata won't help much if re-users are under no obligation to indicate those references, or indeed that they got their data from Wikidata. We owe it to consumers, for all sorts of reasons, to enable them to verify the provenance of the data they are given.
1593:. I was referring to the overwhelming majority of article content, which is text. Text that is quoted has to be marked clearly as such, or it's plagiarism; external text that is (non-closely) paraphrased must also be attributed, which still takes significant skill by Wikimedians.
858:
WikiCite, i.e. trying to standardise and solidify sourcing from external references. Which is what everything rests on. If you think about the potential of data-mining, e.g. the ContentMine project, the key aspect would seem to be machine-readable referencing styles everywhere.
1563:
I just wanted to point out that there is a fundamental error in the second section of this piece. Articles are not at all only the work of Wikimedians â often we use or adapt other CC or PD content, which is the very same thing as what you highlight. I've been involved with the
1140:
Provenance and reliability is important, but restrictive license does not improve the reliability or provenance of information in Wikidata. If anything, it may only make it worse by dissuading contributors that will be unable to reuse the results and thus will see no point in
1110:. Do you think people will break a finger typing "Powered by Wikidata"? It's just emotionally manipulative poppycock. On the other hand, there is a very real potential for harm in inundating end users the world over with "information" of unknown and untraceable provenance. --
290:
I should say up-front that I'm neither photographer nor photographic critic; indeed, my last international trip amply showed a talent for turning great photographic opportunities into forgettables. However, I do have a passing acquaintance with the English Knowledge (XXG)'s
1237:
as well; that's the idea that underpins the whole "information wants to be free" credo. Abandoning it is essentially selling out, opening the back door to the precise opposite. What volunteers are ending up with is proprietary black boxes they've fed, but now can't look
1033:
want it. Would they benefit from the free and open data? Of course they would, as would everybody. The world - including everybody, including "enterprises" - benefited enormously from free and open participatory culture, be it open source software or free data. It is a
734:
express the fundamental opposition that free culture proponents have against putting terms and conditions on data items. By suggesting that laws should be more restrictive, the article is arguing against some of the basic freedoms we are supporting with our movement.
1462:, I caution against thinking that "a panel of experts" would do better. I remember reading an aphorism about photo competitions (which concerned those who enter their own images, but I guess the same is true of those who have their own favourites among the entries):
1341:
311:
coverage towards highlighting the work of Wikimedians over raw uploads from elsewhere. It seemed proper to give more oxygen to creative skill and originality in the community than to great images just grabbed from out there because they happen to be freely licensed.
1353:
1968:
strong mechanism for sourcing data, and identifiers, can play a criticial role in connecting scientific knowledge. That is greatly inhibited by changing Wikidata to a copylefting license. It would be a significant step back. Finally, I disagree with this point:
1962:
Two possible reasons why this is and should be the case I just discussed. Add to that that in many jurisdictions, facts are not copyrightable in the first place, though in many jurisdictions too, a collection of facts can be (like in The Netherlands). About:
327:, taken from an external site, is indeed striking technically and artistically in several respects, although the gendered and vaguely sexualised title was clearly not thought through ("Milky Way lying above a lady"). At least there's a human in the picture.
1411:
What's wrong is it's a photo contest set within an illustration system. Commons has a few different uses but the biggest one is to illustrate articles. Yes an art contest brings out beautiful art. However its relevance is incidental rather than essential.
1753:
Project Halo has ended, but the wiki-related activities have been pursued further by the newly created AI, though not as a long-term effort. The institute has now a range of own projects, some in the spirit of the original "digital Aristotle", but it
395:
is the only assurance we editors have that our work will not be proprietarized (privatized, in plain English) down the line by third parties, who only truly care about free culture insofar as they can cash in on it, completely ignoring the spirit of
426:
We should not fear vain threats made by those who wish to use us as mere free labor for their enterprises. Wikidata's mission is not "to be the most used dataset in the industry". Its purpose goes way beyond that: we are translating knowledge into
1429:
I share the concerns of Tony1 about imported images winning the contest. The contest should promote Wikimedia contributors. If Creative Commons hosted such a worldwide contest, that's fine, but we should focus on our community of collaborators.
803:
Knowledge (XXG) has a long history of insisting on commercially reusable resources. I think this actually makes a lot of sense because otherwise, you're saying that what you're building is just a hobby, but people who want to do something
1349:
910:
I think those comparisons show something about the idea of imposing obligations or constraints on users. Frankly, there are shameless people out there anyway, and it is better not to get too involved with them, when one can avoid that.
1992:
Would it require much more than a bold edit? Is it as simple as changing the copyrights template for Wikidata? IF-so, yeah, do it. No reason not-to that I can see, and some real reasons that Wikidata needs to conform to the rest of us
1822:
Just on a tangent, I have strong reason to believe Facebook uses Wikidata without attribution. Or I came across an example that proves they do, but missed out on documenting it. If anyone is interested I can probably reproduce it.
1467:
their walls, books that people read in the millions, vs the kind of bands that only music critics love, clothes that only supermodels could wear, art that common people don't understand, books that are worthy but dull, etc, etc.
1059:
had (or has) a Creative Commons Attribution Licence, so it was clearly "possible" for Google to "copyright facts" when it was their own project. As far as attribution is concerned, you could simply ask people to put "Powered by
726:
attribution and share-alike, but companies will also use the same laws to enforce conditions on using "their" facts. This is not desirable. Plain data is free from such legal control, and this is the position of the EFF (see
360:'s picture of RĂ„dhuset metro station in Stockholm, in which symmetry, straight lines, and reflection sit astonishingly within earthen walls and ceiling, challenging our preconceptions of railway stations as industrial forms.
1770:
that is painted here is that Google is exploiting Wikidata without giving anything back. At the same time, the post complains about the fact that they donated money to support Wikidata. Isn't this a wee bit contradictory?
1729:
So you believe that AI is pursuing business goals of Microsoft because it is run by people who have connections to Microsoft? That's simply not true. If Microsoft wanted to donate to Wikidata, they would just do so. The
1482:
thousand excellent alternatives. I agree with him that the two lightbulb winning images in previous years, though great works of art, aren't the finest example of educational images, being contrived and manipulated.
1363:
It's disenheartening. Commons offers monthly contests - but they're only open to photographers. POTY tends to value prettiness at thumbnail over any other consideration, meaning we get situations where, for example,
853:
Of various points Andreas made about Wikidata, I thought the area raised about commercial reuse was the weakest, really. And of the points made above, I think the non-copyright nature of "facts" is the strongest.
1245:âend users first and foremost, but volunteer contributors are people too. End users' and contributors' interests are served by transparency, and that's why attribution and ShareAlike are important concepts to me,
975:
questions (and this is a project of mine) it would be helpful to record both the authoring of questions (say user-generated and bot-generated), and the source of Wikidata facts (dated, for maintenance purposes).
808:
have to go and pay somebody for a real version. If you want to strike a blow for free culture, find one of those lawyers who sue illegal downloaders and give him an ISIS style flying lesson if you want, but
337:
at Trinity College Library gained fourth place and exemplifies this Wikimedian's prolific contribution to our repertory of article-ready picturesâand his talent for capturing grand interior perspectives.
1092:
can handle any license, they probably have many more lawyers than Wikidata has developers. Hobbyist researchers, hackers and data users can not. That's who you will be hurting with restrictive licenses.
1929:
A huge advantage of Wikidata are the translations. That means that nonwestern countries are more likely to profit from AI developed on the basis of it, because the translation into other language get's
1692:
last year, for example, that Wikidata would be "one source among many" for the Knowledge Graph. As someone working on the Knowledge Graph at Google, he can be assumed to know what he was talking about.
1779:
we pick in the end. They integrate (copyleft) Knowledge (XXG) information as well as data coming from many different websites and databases into their knowledge graph displays without any problems.
500:
1166:
if Wikimedia asks Wikidata re-users for attribution (just as Knowledge (XXG)'s "restrictive licence" has always asked re-users for attribution), but they cannot be "hurt" by your asking for this.
1631:
I'm all for holding internal competitions, but then we can't call them picture of the year, or featured images or featured articles â which are for the best stuff we have, regardless its source.
1068:
To me, all of this reads like smoke and mirrors designed to protect the interests of commercial reusers, rather than those of volunteer contributors or end users, or indeed the project itself. --
1864:
efforts to buy furniture and pay people who don't work there anymore. But yes, Andreas has been doing the legwork on this beat for years but don't let that dissuade you from calling him a liar.
515:
495:
490:
200:
196:
192:
77:
1738:(another company run by Mr. Allen). The goal of project Halo was to create a smart system dubbed "digital Aristotle", which should be able to answer common knowledge questions on basic topics.
1994:
1972:
There is nothing to fix. CCZero without copylefting gives more freedom and for me that main reason to invest my time. Before you start talking about "fixing", realize you will also loose.
1203:
with low-quality data and not with high-quality data? I do not see any way that the license may be of any help here. It is certainly an issue, but not one solvable in any way by licensing.
505:
1368:(the image is a composite: it shows an event that can only happen while electricity is flowing, but removed the source of electricity in photoshop to make the picture more interesting).
483:
1378:
I think Commons is a wonderful project, but what it most heavily promotes and what it seems to get used for most outside of itself and Knowledge (XXG) seem to be very different things.
1162:, when you're talking about "restrictive licences" that "hurt" people, then we have well and truly entered the hyperbolic domain of political spin. Let's be real: People can at most be
363:
Despite my misgivings about the structure of the competition, it has been a pleasure as usual to view so many entries of technical and artistic beauty. Congratulations to all involved.
659:
546:
419:. ODbL's "ShareAlike" provisions (much like those of CC BY-SA) would be a tremendous step forward for our project, as it would ensure that Wikidata and its contributors are credited
2033:
1371:
POTY could handle this; indeed, even if it simply emphasised the winners of the various categories (and accurately categorised them - this year, all sorts of non-paintings were put
1360:- but the work done is completely invisible at POTY; for all the POTY voting pages indicate, they may as well be images just grabbed from elsewhere because they're free-licensed.
931:
In any case, we here have plenty of experience of the hazards of using unreferenced material, and very little in the sort of direction you suggest. Looks like Stallmanitis to me.
477:
55:
44:
1222:
If for your dataset it is important to know provenance, "comes from Wikidata" does not work anyway - Wikidata is only a secondary source by design, so you need deeper provenance.
1174:. In theory, at least, it places very great value on informing the end user of the origin of the information contained in it, and expects contributors to go to a great amount of
928:
AGF). I wouldn't like to think that fairly generic tables of the world's longest rivers, or time-series of rainfall data in Australia, would have to carry compliance overheads
30:
Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing: Two for the price of oneâdo the popular Commons image contest and Wikidata licensing serve the community as well as they should?
1357:
1233:
aspect is that Wikidata abandons the ShareAlike principle that volunteers have signed up to. The whole point of ShareAlike is to ensure that those who use licensed work make
452:
382:
662:. An interesting question is whether the mass imports of Knowledge (XXG) data to Wikidata that have been happening are a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s licensing terms;
520:
1024:
possible to copyright facts, I think using restrictive license (and make no mistake, any license that requires people to do specific things in exchange for data access
763:
The arguments for an attribution licence â which Google's own Freebase had!!!!! (so much for the argument that facts can't be copyrighted ...) â are the same as ever:
979:
mention of intellectual property does. We should in this case be thinking that such quizzes could, more slowly and "by hand", be taken from Knowledge (XXG) pages.
2086:
1688:(with screenshots of the Knowledge Graph panel before and after updating a company's Wikidata profile). Google staff have made statements to that effect; Denny
982:
In any case I don't intend to lose sleep over Google's Knowledge Graph. I think prioritising Wikimedia's brand in terms of easy reuse is worth more attention.
1464:"If your image does well, the judges were wise and had a good eye for what makes an outstanding image. If your image does badly, the judges were blind fools."
21:
1372:
2061:
1922:
Big monopolists can use Wikidata for free but so can small companies. Big monopolists could pay money to develop their own data sets. Small startups can't.
2056:
2051:
218:). The structure is within the Milky Way, distant from us by about an eighth of the galaxy's radius. The pillars are an astounding five light-years tall.
1704:
about "The Great Migration" from Freebase to Wikidata. This makes it sound extremely unlikely that Google has abandoned its interest in Wikidata, no? --
279:
629:
We have to require attribution eventually, because copyright grants can be recinded after decades. It's better to get it over with sooner than later.
1734:
is very different, and I can tell you about it if you care to hear it. The whole thing came out of a previous project called "Halo" that was run by
1040:
Wikidata data is meant for free use and reuse. Let's not erect artificial barriers to it out of misguided fear to somehow benefit somebody "wrong".
252:
170:
First place went to this high-resolution enhanced-colour view of Pluto taken by NASA on 14 July 2015; 658 out of 4019 people voted for this entrant.
1278:
Licensing compatibility problems exist primarily because people insist on making proprietary software, but still want to benefit from free software
267:
2046:
1926:
paying huge sums of money to license data. Google, Microsoft or Facebook can afford to pay large sums of money for data but small startups can't.
769:
Visibility for Wikidata when its data appear in commercial products â assuring that volunteer labour is credited, and aiding editor recruitment.
1340:
how carefully one restores an image, it's never going to get that much visiblity in any Commons promotions or contests. For example, I'd argue
603:. It's a very common trend in tech to see proprietary companies spend money on permissive-licensed projects at the expense of copylefted ones (
572:
Requiring attribution and the same license for derivatives for Wikidata seems like common sense. Is there a good reason we are not doing this?
1684:
In SEO circles, it's taken as read that Wikidata informs Google's Knowledge Graph. People have published experimental evidence of that, e.g.
1470:
We had experts judging the final stages of WLM UK in the two years it ran, and I have to say I was very disappointed with their choices. See
184:
1953:
As a contributor to and user of Wikidata, I feel strong about keeping Wikidata under a CCZero waiver. The original op-ed article ends with:
1241:
The purpose of the entire effort to me is not the creation and distribution of free information for its own sake: the purpose is to serve
241:
389:
to the community at large: as far as Google and Bing are concerned, Wikidata is very much there to exploit as "free" as in "free labor".
1583:
1540:
1365:
1662:
and maybe it is best to keep replies there. But for the benefit of readers here, let me quote the main points I replied to the author:
599:
I'm not sure Silicon Valley would've poured money into Wikidata if it had a copyleft license. Google could've simply continued work on
950:
effect is not that people think Google is a tabloid, but that the statement X = Y is widely believed to be accurate, and propagated.
670:
2041:
1998:
465:
206:
49:
35:
17:
1628:
delist, even though there were better images that could replace them, just because the replacements weren't created by Wikimedians.
1207:
value, only what it can be used to achieve. As I argued, Wikidata goals are better achiever without use of restrictive licenses. --
1272:, I'd just like to contribute to this discussion (regarding so-called "restrictive" licensing) with this enlightening comment by
727:
585:
353:
284:
1714:
1259:
1189:
1120:
1078:
960:
896:
841:
782:
754:
687:
971:
everywhere would be in a better state. The naivety doesn't lie with those like me who have written on information literacy.
1933:
I'm more motivated to contribute to Wikidata when the impact is bigger and the impact is bigger with a permissive license.
744:
Wikidata, as a Freebase successor, has commercial re-users who import â or aim to import â the whole database, doesn't it.
772:
Assurance that derivatives are also published under a copyleft licence, rather than appearing as a proprietary black box.
203:, for example. But this year feels like the right time to take a look at a fundamental issue concerning the competition.
1911:
1000:
1689:
1685:
1281:
589:
1977:
1539:
An expert panel? All photos in the contest are featured, and these are selected by consensus on strict criteria. --
987:
946:
Don't be naive, Charles. If Google says in a Knowledge Graph panel or answer box that X = Y, as it does today, the
936:
866:
324:
188:
1345:
1450:
2067:
1872:
1212:
1150:
1097:
1045:
663:
1316:
Switching Wikidata to ODbL would be a terrible idea. ODbL isn't compatible with most Creative Commons licenses
1907:
1544:
1814:
1671:
1417:
736:
334:
1319:
so we would be hurting our own ability to reuse the data at least as much as we would be hurting Google's.
230:
2016:
2002:
1981:
1942:
1915:
1879:
1856:
1852:
1837:
1833:
1817:
1718:
1674:
1645:
1641:
1613:
1579:
1548:
1516:
1493:
1454:
1439:
1421:
1402:
1386:
1328:
1297:
1263:
1216:
1193:
1154:
1124:
1101:
1082:
1049:
1012:
991:
964:
940:
900:
870:
845:
822:
786:
758:
739:
720:
706:
691:
638:
624:
593:
923:
1973:
1938:
1273:
983:
932:
876:
862:
702:
412:
1366:
an attempt at making the image more artistic means it's misleading and can't be used in an encyclopedia
615:), so that they can profit from freedoms without having to release their modifications freely as well.
166:
1790:. Not sure what is the purpose of hiding this fact from your readers here. Doesn't fit your argument?
1589:
Thank you, Carl, it's a good point to raise. I presume you're referring to the images in the article
1446:
1246:
1208:
1159:
1146:
1107:
1093:
1065:
1041:
674:
415:(ODbL), for instance, was designed for datasets such as Wikidata, and has been used most notably on
1866:
1226:
581:
211:
1475:
1471:
1742:
1709:
1435:
1413:
1254:
1184:
1115:
1073:
955:
919:. Well, I suppose at some point this is an issue on which people may have to agree to disagree.
891:
836:
777:
749:
682:
94:
1624:
1381:
1324:
1008:
634:
542:
124:
1175:
1934:
1787:
697:
346:
272:
256:
215:
1342:
File:Billy Strayhorn, New York, N.Y., between 1946 and 1948 (William P. Gottlieb 08211).jpg
1317:
292:
104:
1750:
by Vulcan, but by the German company Ontoprise which was their subcontractor at the time).
1608:
1527:
1511:
1491:
716:
620:
134:
1955:"Among all Wikimedia projects, Wikidata is conspicuously alone in not being copylefted."
1659:
2007:
It would likely require more discussions, and if it gains traction, a site-wide vote. ~
1849:
1830:
1638:
1576:
655:
645:
612:
573:
356:. Here, light and shape combine to produce a serene, fog-streaked landscape. Tenth was
342:
260:
1285:
1171:
2080:
1705:
1701:
1431:
1398:
1269:
1250:
1180:
1131:
1111:
1069:
951:
887:
832:
818:
773:
745:
731:
678:
416:
378:
1774:
discussions about this topic, and to look at the legal situation in this field. The
861:
Legal status is going to be less important than "audit trails" for purported facts.
671:
Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Wikidata_in_infoboxes,_opt-in_or_opt-out?
1320:
1004:
630:
114:
829:
Knowledge (XXG) has a long history of insisting on commercially reusable resources
435:
every downstream user needs to have the same guarantees we are granting upstream.
1904:
rather than data encumbered with incompatibility- and legalese-ridden licensing.
1221:
828:
144:
1958:
that suggests that for data the same arguments apply as to other content types.
1735:
357:
330:
245:
234:
1375:) - then it would at least make a start on recognising the variety of content.
669:
Speaking of Wikidata, there are two other discussions that may be of interest:
222:
2011:
1601:
1523:
1504:
1487:
1459:
1292:
1284:: no one will be "hurt" by "restrictions". But people and companies that want
883:
712:
651:
616:
442:
366:
158:
154:
1843:
1824:
1723:
You reply to two of the three points I have raised. So let me reply to both:
1632:
1570:
666:, compiled by WMF Legal, is the best summary of the legal issues I've seen.
1900:
1394:
1056:
814:
600:
392:
1350:
File:Frances Benjamin Johnston, Self-Portrait (as "New Woman"), 1896.jpg
696:
Is it too late to switch now because I would assume CC0 is irrevocable.
411:
A solution for this problem would be to move to a copyleft license. The
248:
The Long Room of the Old Library at Trinity College Dublinâfourth place.
175:
Commons Picture of the Year: Wikimedians crowded out by external uploads
1277:
730:) and also of many people in our community. Concepts like the infamous
214:
was captured by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2014 (noise reduction by
711:
CC0 grants users *all rights*, including the right to relicense it.
191:
competition in "News and notes" or as a "Special report", as we did
423:
that any derivations of this work will be released freely for all.
1658:
I have commented on some important factual issues in this post on
1590:
1565:
608:
165:
831:": Then why not use a licence equivalent to Knowledge (XXG)'s. --
403:
1896:
374:
Copyleft matters: Why Wikidata should move from CC0 to the ODbL
54:
1503:
a panel-judged set of prizes to a set of technical criteria.
464:
34:
1842:
Found an example of absolute proof, mail me if interested.
1965:"and whose interests benefit from weak licensing choices,"
1106:
Don't give me that phony bullshit about "hurting" people,
352:
No. 9 was of a pine-forest in Brazil just after dawn, by
766:
Clear traceability of data provenance for the end user.
558:
551:
531:
658:; it was their decision, according to Denny's post at
179:
I could have written the usual, relatively uncritical
1960:"Perhaps we should start asking why that is the case"
1499:
Colin, thanks. Good reason to have a people's choice
210:
Sixth place, NASA again. This composite image of the
556:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1897:any stipulations regarding data reuse are damaging
1761:no relevant connection to Microsoft's business ops
660:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed
1784:removed the claim that Google is using Wikidata
1747:overcoming the knowledge-acquisition bottleneck
72:Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing
1805:Sources project that Google has now abandoned.
1020:Copying my ML post: Added to that, even if it
813:put extra copyright restrictions on our data.
307:admit to a slight bias in my featured content
1970:"and start to organize ourselves to fix this"
1654:"Copyleft matters"? Facts should also matter.
8:
1776:interests of Google have never played a role
1061:
1802:a research paper written by Denny and Lydia
1559:Articles aren't only created by Wikimedians
1558:
1170:least it has traceability of provenance as
675:User_talk:Iridescent#Infobox_&_Wikidata
1890:Why public domain makes sense for Wikidata
400:that is the cornerstone of our community.
2087:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2016-06
323:To return to the theme of astronomy, the
295:from the two years for which I wrote the
402:
278:
266:
251:
240:
229:
221:
205:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
915:really can be treated differently from
559:
535:
71:
237:'s RĂ„dhuset metro station in Stockholm
1808:I think there is a recurring type of
29:
7:
1995:2601:80:4002:8E3D:CCFA:4983:B4C:4293
1288:will need to keep that labor free. ~
341:Fifth place went to an image of the
259:'s Sunset view from the back of the
1352:is a massive improvement over both
1745:has been funded as an approach of
1346:a different restoration being sold
568:Requiring attribution for Wikidata
56:
28:
1373:into a category named "Paintings"
1037:, not something to be afraid of!
541:These comments are automatically
275:, Las Lajas Sanctuary in Colombia
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
1227:Times Literary Supplement piece
1670:the thread complete there.) --
664:meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights
552:add the page to your watchlist
226:Second place: Nasir-al molk -1
1:
1358:the best copy we formerly had
1987:What would it take to do it?
381:'s thought-provoking piece "
283:Brazilian pines at dawn, by
1756:no longer supports Wikidata
2103:
1732:history for the AI funding
2017:03:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2003:01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
1982:12:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1943:20:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
1916:13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
1880:19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1857:15:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1838:14:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1818:10:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1782:You know well why I have
1741:As part of this project,
1719:18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
1675:22:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1646:08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
1614:05:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
1584:15:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1549:16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
1517:04:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1494:12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
1455:21:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
1440:17:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1422:17:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
1403:00:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
1387:00:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1329:09:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
1298:15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
1264:12:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
1217:06:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
1194:05:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
1155:04:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
1125:03:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
1102:18:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
1083:12:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
1050:02:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
1013:13:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1001:blogged and explained why
992:09:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
965:18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
941:18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
924:How Knowledge (XXG) Works
901:17:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
871:08:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
846:02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
823:00:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
787:18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
759:02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
740:22:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
721:21:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
707:21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
692:19:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
639:14:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
625:02:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
594:00:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
354:Heris Luiz Cordeiro Rocha
345:waterfall in Iceland, by
285:Heris Luiz Cordeiro Rocha
1949:Wikidata is a connector
1901:personally experienced
549:. To follow comments,
469:
408:
293:featured picture forum
287:
276:
264:
249:
238:
227:
219:
171:
39:
1702:Google research paper
468:
413:Open Database License
406:
282:
270:
255:
244:
233:
225:
209:
169:
38:
1810:irrational reasoning
1795:about the SEO people
1235:public contributions
948:empirically observed
545:from this article's
263:waterfall in Iceland
1918:Daniel Himmelstein
1354:the original source
728:this recent article
607:Apple's funding of
212:Pillars of Creation
189:Picture of the Year
1908:Daniel.himmelstein
1743:Semantic MediaWiki
1176:trouble and effort
650:You'd have to ask
536:Discuss this story
470:
409:
325:third place-getter
288:
277:
265:
250:
239:
228:
220:
172:
45:â Back to Contents
40:
1786:. I explained it
1717:
1625:Pancreatic cancer
1262:
1192:
1123:
1081:
999:You are wrong. I
963:
917:authored material
899:
844:
785:
757:
690:
560:purging the cache
446:
407:Sharing is caring
383:Whither Wikidata?
370:
333:'s photograph of
50:View Latest Issue
2094:
2070:
2015:
1974:Egon Willighagen
1878:
1875:
1869:
1855:
1846:
1836:
1827:
1788:to you in detail
1727:(1) "Microsoft".
1712:
1708:
1644:
1635:
1611:
1606:
1582:
1573:
1514:
1509:
1385:
1296:
1257:
1253:
1223:
1187:
1183:
1135:
1118:
1114:
1076:
1072:
984:Charles Matthews
958:
954:
933:Charles Matthews
894:
890:
877:Charles Matthews
863:Charles Matthews
839:
835:
830:
780:
776:
752:
748:
685:
681:
649:
578:
563:
561:
555:
534:
501:Featured content
488:
480:
473:
456:
440:
364:
183:coverage of the
161:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
62:
60:
58:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2066:
2064:
2059:
2054:
2049:
2044:
2037:
2025:
2024:
2008:
1989:
1951:
1892:
1873:
1867:
1865:
1848:
1844:
1829:
1825:
1815:Markus Krötzsch
1710:
1672:Markus Krötzsch
1667:
1656:
1637:
1633:
1621:I mean the text
1609:
1602:
1575:
1571:
1561:
1512:
1505:
1447:Mike Linksvayer
1379:
1344:is better than
1337:
1289:
1255:
1247:Smalyshev (WMF)
1209:Smalyshev (WMF)
1185:
1160:Smalyshev (WMF)
1147:Smalyshev (WMF)
1129:
1116:
1108:Smalyshev (WMF)
1094:Smalyshev (WMF)
1074:
1042:Smalyshev (WMF)
956:
892:
837:
778:
750:
737:Markus Krötzsch
683:
643:
574:
570:
565:
557:
550:
539:
538:
532:+ Add a comment
530:
526:
525:
524:
481:
476:
474:
471:
460:
459:
454:
448:
376:
187:of the Commons
177:
163:
162:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2100:
2098:
2090:
2089:
2079:
2078:
2065:
2060:
2055:
2050:
2045:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2027:
2026:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
1988:
1985:
1950:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1868:Chris Troutman
1861:
1860:
1859:
1806:
1798:
1791:
1780:
1771:
1764:
1763:on this level.
1751:
1739:
1724:
1697:
1693:
1682:
1664:
1660:a mailing list
1655:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1629:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1406:
1405:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1239:
1230:
1204:
1200:
1167:
1164:inconvenienced
1142:
1141:participating.
1138:
1089:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
968:
967:
904:
903:
880:
851:
850:
849:
848:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
770:
767:
667:
641:
627:
569:
566:
540:
537:
529:
528:
527:
523:
518:
516:Traffic report
513:
508:
503:
498:
496:Special report
493:
491:News and notes
487:
475:
463:
462:
461:
451:
450:
449:
375:
372:
343:Seljalandsfoss
261:Seljalandsfoss
176:
173:
164:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2099:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2082:
2069:
2063:
2058:
2053:
2048:
2043:
2035:
2031:
2018:
2014:
2013:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1966:
1961:
1956:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1889:
1881:
1876:
1870:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1847:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1793:I don't know
1792:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1772:
1768:
1767:(2) "Google".
1765:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1707:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1663:
1661:
1653:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1612:
1607:
1605:
1597:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1567:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1541:88.147.31.142
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1528:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1510:
1508:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1483:
1479:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:Jim.henderson
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1393:seen before.
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1383:
1376:
1374:
1369:
1367:
1361:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:John Sullivan
1271:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1228:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1036:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
972:
966:
962:
959:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
929:
926:
925:
920:
918:
914:
908:
902:
898:
895:
889:
885:
881:
878:
875:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
859:
855:
847:
843:
840:
834:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
807:
802:
788:
784:
781:
775:
771:
768:
765:
764:
762:
761:
760:
756:
753:
747:
743:
742:
741:
738:
733:
732:illegal prime
729:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
705:
704:
701:
700:
695:
694:
693:
689:
686:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
661:
657:
653:
647:
642:
640:
636:
632:
628:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
577:
567:
562:
553:
548:
544:
533:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
485:
479:
472:In this issue
467:
458:
447:
445:
444:
436:
432:
430:
424:
422:
418:
417:OpenStreetMap
414:
405:
401:
399:
394:
390:
386:
384:
380:
379:Andreas Kolbe
373:
371:
369:
368:
361:
359:
355:
350:
348:
344:
339:
336:
335:The Long Room
332:
328:
326:
321:
317:
313:
310:
304:
300:
298:
294:
286:
281:
274:
269:
262:
258:
254:
247:
246:David Iliff's
243:
236:
232:
224:
217:
213:
208:
204:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
174:
168:
160:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
2029:
2010:
1969:
1964:
1959:
1954:
1952:
1906:
1893:
1845:Carl Fredrik
1826:Carl Fredrik
1809:
1801:
1794:
1783:
1775:
1766:
1760:
1755:
1746:
1731:
1726:
1686:this article
1668:
1657:
1634:Carl Fredrik
1620:
1603:
1598:
1594:
1572:Carl Fredrik
1562:
1506:
1500:
1484:
1480:
1469:
1463:
1458:
1443:
1428:
1382:Adam Cuerden
1380:
1377:
1370:
1362:
1338:
1291:
1249:. Cheers, --
1242:
1234:
1172:a core ideal
1163:
1039:
1034:
1031:
1025:
1021:
1019:
981:
977:
973:
969:
947:
930:
922:
921:
916:
912:
909:
905:
860:
856:
852:
810:
805:
703:
698:
604:
575:
571:
510:
506:In the media
484:all comments
478:15 June 2016
441:
437:
433:
431:knowledge.
428:
425:
420:
410:
397:
391:
387:
377:
365:
362:
351:
340:
329:
322:
318:
314:
308:
305:
301:
296:
289:
180:
178:
57:15 June 2016
2068:Suggestions
1935:ChristianKl
1736:Vulcan Inc.
699:OhanaUnited
543:transcluded
358:Arild VĂ„gen
347:Diego Delso
331:David Illif
273:Diego Delso
257:Diego Delso
235:Arild VĂ„gen
2032:. You can
2028:It's your
1286:free labor
1035:good thing
1003:. Thanks,
907:another.
429:structured
297:Signpost's
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2016-06-15
2062:Subscribe
1800:You cite
1690:indicated
656:Eloquence
646:Doc James
576:Doc James
547:talk page
2081:Category
2057:Newsroom
2052:Archives
2030:Signpost
1432:NaBUru38
1270:Jayen466
1268:Echoing
1132:Jayen466
1062:Wikidata
1057:Freebase
601:Freebase
586:contribs
455:Previous
393:Copyleft
309:Signpost
271:Also by
181:Signpost
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
2034:help us
1930:easier.
1899:. I've
1706:Andreas
1610:(talk)
1513:(talk)
1321:Kaldari
1251:Andreas
1181:Andreas
1179:in me.
1112:Andreas
1070:Andreas
1005:GerardM
952:Andreas
888:Andreas
882:One of
833:Andreas
774:Andreas
746:Andreas
679:Andreas
631:EllenCT
611:versus
457:"Op-ed"
398:sharing
185:results
115:Twitter
1348:, and
1243:people
216:Crisco
199:, and
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
2047:About
2012:nmaia
1993:asap.
1591:Heart
1566:Heart
1524:Colin
1488:Colin
1460:Tony1
1293:nmaia
1238:into.
1055:Bof.
913:Facts
884:NMaia
811:don't
713:NMaia
652:Denny
617:NMaia
609:Clang
590:email
511:Op-ed
443:NMaia
367:Tony1
159:NMaia
155:Tony1
69:Op-ed
16:<
2042:Home
1999:talk
1978:talk
1939:talk
1912:talk
1874:talk
1619:No,
1604:Tony
1545:talk
1507:Tony
1476:here
1474:and
1472:here
1451:talk
1436:talk
1418:talk
1399:talk
1356:and
1335:POTY
1325:talk
1213:talk
1151:talk
1098:talk
1046:talk
1022:were
1009:talk
988:talk
937:talk
867:talk
819:talk
806:real
717:talk
677:. --
673:and
654:and
635:talk
621:talk
582:talk
521:Blog
201:here
197:here
193:here
157:and
145:Digg
1715:466
1696:it?
1501:and
1395:Wnt
1282:FUD
1276:: "
1260:466
1190:466
1121:466
1079:466
961:466
897:466
842:466
815:Wnt
783:466
755:466
688:466
613:GCC
605:cf.
421:and
153:By
80:â
2083::
2009:â
2001:)
1980:)
1941:)
1914:)
1853:đ§
1850:đ
1834:đ§
1831:đ
1711:JN
1642:đ§
1639:đ
1580:đ§
1577:đ
1547:)
1453:)
1438:)
1430:--
1420:)
1401:)
1327:)
1290:â
1256:JN
1215:)
1186:JN
1153:)
1117:JN
1100:)
1075:JN
1048:)
1026:is
1011:)
990:)
957:JN
939:)
893:JN
869:)
838:JN
821:)
779:JN
751:JN
735:--
719:)
684:JN
637:)
623:)
592:)
588:·
584:·
453:â
195:,
2036:.
1997:(
1976:(
1937:(
1910:(
1877:)
1871:(
1543:(
1526:°
1490:°
1449:(
1434:(
1416:(
1397:(
1323:(
1211:(
1149:(
1134::
1130:@
1096:(
1066:.
1044:(
1007:(
986:(
935:(
865:(
827:"
817:(
715:(
648::
644:@
633:(
619:(
580:(
564:.
554:.
486:)
482:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
