[OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Simon Poole]

Am 20.09.2017 um 20:55 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:

>     While the WMF does not claim any rights in wikidata contents, it
>     does not make any representations (one way or the other) as to
>     third party rights in the data. As an illustration: you could dump
>     all of OSM in to wikidata and the WMF would not need to change or
>     do anything. 
>
>
> But the same works in reverse, doesn't it?  Wikidata project, just
> like WP and OSM, is user contributable. If a user uploads data that
> violates project's license, it should be deleted. And for that reason,
> both Wikidata and OSM state the license under which the data is
> contributed and shared. If I make an edit to OSM by copying data from
> Google, wouldn't that be the same thing?
The WMFs doctrine is that data (even more than one item) is not
protectable, the wording on the WD edit page is ambiguous and the ToU
don't really address the issue at all. Further the WMF is not known for
policing wikidata (contrary to the OSMF and OSM)  and it is doubtful if
it could even be done in any reasonable way. Skipping that lots of WD
data was originally derived from WP with its own set of issues.

That said, as long as we don't start using wikidata instead of data from
OSM contributors, it really is just the WMFs  problem. not ours. We
really really have better use for brain power than trying to fix the
WMFs problems for them.

>  
>
>>     (CC0), but the reverse depends on if the OSM contributor agreed
>>     to dedicate their edits to public domain.
>     There is not really a practical and meaningful way in which an OSM
>     contributor could do that, outside of facts that they have
>     surveyed themselves and kept separate.
>
>
> How I hate to diverge from the main topic, but alas... :)  This does
> sound like a severe problem (that should be taken to a separate
> thread) - if I, as a user, set the Public Domain checkbox, my
> assumptions are that my contributions are PD. If I trace something
> based on some image data, I need to specify that source, otherwise I
> am in violation of the source's license. If I did not specify the
> source, and I checked the PD box, it can be assumed that I am donating
> under PD. If this is not the case, it is a violation of my
> contributor's rights - because otherwise my intention is not being
> honored (i want other people to be able to use my work unrestricted). 
> If anyone wants to comment, please start a new thread :)

This has really been beaten to death: at best the PD flag can be taken
as an indication of sentiment. Fixing it would require re-wording the
actual text, going back to 4 million odd users and asking them to
reconsider their choice. This however would not address the already
mentioned fundamental issues with data prior to such a change (assuming
that it would be practical to implement all the technical measures that
you are suggesting going forward) and further would still run afoul of
the fact that the OSMF doesn't have a mandate, is not even allowed, to
distribute contributed data on any other terms than those compatible
with the contributor terms.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN (at least not on volunteer time).

Note on the side: If we were to undertake anything even remotely on the
scale of what the above would imply, it is likely that we would review
our current licence instead. However as has been pointed out many times
that would not result is us switching to a non-attribution licence (aka
CC0 or similar), so it wouldn't really help with wikidata compatibility.

>
>>     Without it, OSM data is licensed under ODbL, and cannot be
>>     copied. We should make it easier to detect what piece of OSM data
>>     is in PD.  I do like your USB analogy :) About names - you will
>>     be surprised to discover that MB and other places are actively
>>     pursuing Wikidata integration because WD tends to have a huge
>>     names list, possibly bigger than OSM itself?
>>
>>
>     That is nice for MB, but problematic in more than one way for OSM.
>
> Please elaborate, I know of at least one more company that is actively
> doing that.   Sigh, another side topic :D

Very simple: use of wikidata is not declared and not obvious to the end
users, errors in wikidata get attributed to OSM but can't be fixed in
OSM, well can't be fixed without a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo that you
cannot expect non-seasoned hands to know. And even if the user in the
end finds out where to fix an issue, they are spending time fixing
wikidata, not OSM.

It is completely clear that we are in a competitive situation for mind
share, money and contributors (more exact: for contributors time) with
many other players. Now OSM proper has been loosing out big time on the
first point as of late, but luckily hasn't had great requirements on the
2nd (that is why we are still around), but even OSM is not so daft to
want a situation in which it actively has to redirect potential OSM
contributors to a third party to fix "its" core data.

Simon

PS: the good thing about this discussion is that it has reminded me to
submit a PR that removes the PD checkbox from the UI and the
corresponding data from the database.

>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>     [turning on broken record mode :-)]
>
>     On 20.09.2017 17:54, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>>
>>
>>     * Oleksiy, OSM can use any data from Wikidata because of the
>>     public domain dedication
>     While the WMF does not claim any rights in wikidata contents, it
>     does not make any representations (one way or the other) as to
>     third party rights in the data. As an illustration: you could dump
>     all of OSM in to wikidata and the WMF would not need to change or
>     do anything.
>>     (CC0), but the reverse depends on if the OSM contributor agreed
>>     to dedicate their edits to public domain.
>     There is not really a practical and meaningful way in which an OSM
>     contributor could do that, outside of facts that they have
>     surveyed themselves and kept separate.
>
>>     Without it, OSM data is licensed under ODbL, and cannot be
>>     copied. We should make it easier to detect what piece of OSM data
>>     is in PD.  I do like your USB analogy :) About names - you will
>>     be surprised to discover that MB and other places are actively
>>     pursuing Wikidata integration because WD tends to have a huge
>>     names list, possibly bigger than OSM itself?
>>
>>
>     That is nice for MB, but problematic in more than one way for OSM.
>
>     Simon
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170921/aeb818c4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170921/aeb818c4/attachment-0001.sig>