The BBC representative has now confirmed to me that they thank us for access to these welsh-language names for the map tiles on this service - that they found it very helpful, and have now transitioned to a longer-term solution with all their required languages. Therefore they are no longer using this API and have said we are welcome to remove the special exception that was put in place for them.

I am confused by the distinction between "prefer not to say" and simply not replying to the question at all - do we treat these pieces of data differently? or, do we consider both to be a null response?

Note that there exists this user-right already in the software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Event_coordinator
It is not highly utilised, so could perhaps be usurped

Hello @Mitar - and sorry for the wait. I wasn't aware of this ticket, apologies on behalf of the team. I'll make sure others see it.

This issue (two missing dumps) has been noted on our Meta talkpage. Note to self to update that conversation when the issue is resolved.

In T297968#7807725, @awight wrote:

Awkwardly, I went to bbcrewind.co.uk to get an idea of whether they're running MediaWiki and generally how they plan to host Kartotherian-backed maps, but I'm served a page explaining that it's firewalled to just the UK. Maybe they can make an exception to let our user base view the site once we serve their maps ;-)

When implemented, could the appropriate attribution text also be provided/clarified too, please. So that the BBC team can implement that from the start.

Request has been received from applicant that they be given a definitive answer to this request by Mid-February, in order that they may make alternative arrangements if it is rejected. Is that possible?

For those commenting with concerns about 'slippery slope' and 'mission alignment' - I should clarify some context here:

• The Maps API used to be available for anyone to use for any purpose, but was restricted when it was found that commercial users had been overwhelming it, to the detriment of its usability by all. A 'tragedy of the commons' situation.
• This is a specific BBC project, not the whole BBC, of a temporary website featuring geolocated archival footage, for a forthcoming anniversary of the broadcaster. Moreover the need is quite specific: Welsh language map tiles. [FYI @Jason.nlw ].
• The developers of the site approached the relevant Wikimedia Affiliate (WM-UK) to ask advice/help (having read the 'external usage policy). They couldn't, but forwarded the request to me - in Wikimedia Enterprise - the project specifically for third party [especially high-volume & commercial] re-users.
• Enterprise, however, does not have an equivalent to the Maps API. And so I forwarded the request to the people running the current API with a request for this temporary and scope-limited exception.

Thank you very much everyone!

@Lionel_Scheepmans I am not sure what the relevance of the Meta RfC that you opened - and was recently closed by community-consensus - relating to the existence of the Wikimedia Enterprise project has to this discussion.

Sometimes I wonder if the foundation is aware of the dangerous game it plays with big tech companies...

This argument appears to be a fallacy - connecting this specific technical topic to a separate topic which has independent [valid] considerations. It is a truism that the companies you're referring to are already using Wikimedia projects' content for commercial profit, and that they have that right as per our free-licenses. Furthermore, they will continue to do so, independently of whether an API built for the speed/volume needs of commercial organisations is created. The argument that Wikimedia should not work with 'big tech companies' is moot - since they are already using our content and we (as is evidenced by this Phab. ticket) are already wanting to use theirs. The outcome that their paying for the [optional] Enterprise API would create is that Wikimedia would no longer be financially subsiding "big tech's" business model - instead, they would be financially supporting our movement.
But - these are quasi-philosophical issues independent from the specific technical concern of this Ticket. As you have previously raised your concerns about Enterprise in the projects's Meta talkpage (and the aforementioned RFC), I invite you to add any new comments on those threads.

Just in terms of timeline... We need to be able to announce this at the same time as the access via Cloud Services (already live), and other documentation/board resolution which will be BEFORE the commercial website launch (tentatively for 15 October). Therefore, If we can get unblocked by the end of September that would be very useful.

@RBrounley_WMF / @Protsack.stephan - FYI. See related conversation on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Reviewing_pending_changes

Based on a brainstorming of the 'worst case' risks, it seems that the existing technical limitations of CS are sufficient to mitigate against commercial activities which would compete with Enterprise's business model - based on speed and stability.
However, we have identified a separate risk of [subsequently] deleted revisions being visible in the hourly diff files - a PII/libel etc. I will followup with Stewards and WMF T&S to investigate further. @RBrounley_WMF will be creating a separate ticket for that topic, linking it to here, as it is not explicitly a concern of the business model.

Talking with legal, there are - in effect - four options here:

Regarding the issue of Enterprise appearing in CS (and also the Dumps) and how that might require special adjustments to the ToU, we'll be meeting with Legal to discuss it next week. FYI

Can I get clarification about what is meant, practically, by "splitting scholarly articles out"?
Does this mean something in the backend that is about how that content is stored/accessed by the query system (but is otherwise invisible to the general reader of Wikidata). Or, does it mean removing these items from WD completely?

In T280631#7044162, @Krinkle wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe both of these are indeed protected against also by the (current) Wikimedia Cloud's ToU. In that (I think) they forbid commercial use, forbid creation of tools that mainly serve external users, and forbid abuse of our infrastructure/compute/access priviledges for purposes that don't benefit our community.

In T280631#7042588, @Bstorm wrote:

Dumps are commonly mirrored on third party servers. Should we ask people not to mirror the fortnightly materials to-be-shipped to the dumps.wikimedia.org systems, or is that bit fine?

On a wider point (not just, but also including this I.A. example), we're going to need some extra wording in the existing Terms of Use, or a separate ToU just for accessing this dataset. Not sure when it needs to be undertaken (since that's a legal question not a tech question) but just flagging it here as it's related. Most specifically it needs to emphasise that the service (as separate from the content) can't be used for commercial purposes (either by themselves, or by on-selling the feed).

Thanks for your efficient work @BBlack!