I think it's a good practice to put a template layer between the module API and the the article, it brings much flexibility. Not adding it in the VE default layout might actually be presented as a "feature not a bug". Not bothering article writers with too much technical complexity is great.

Hi @Aklapper, is there something more I should do to make this ticket go forward?

I re-open the task, as from my understanding of the documentation this is a legit action from my part as the task creator, all the more when questions are pending.

Hi @Lydia_Pintscher , I join your concern on not wasting valuable resources.

As an example of the limits perceived with our current infrastructure, even staying in the frame of a single Wiktionary, you can think about creating glossaries using existing definitions.

So to answer a few questions I received in feedback to this ticket:

In a first time, I mean on fr.wikitionary, as I'm prototyping data separation from displaying layer there. If that happen to work well, we can see with other wiktionaries later, does that make sense.

Clicking the link toward https://riot.im/app/#/room/#mediawiki-general:matrix.org respond me that the channel doesn't exists. Maybe I need some additional configuration though. I already accepted a spontaneous request by Freenode to join what I guess was a bridge, maybe on my laptop client (Fractal), but I guess that anyway it's synchronized in the browser client and it's not the problem.

On the Wikisource global community telegram group, there was a suggestion to create a Meta page to coordinate this efforts. So that should be something to do. :)

Possibly related tickets:

Hi @Pintoch if a license is compatible with CC0 requirements, then yes it can be imported into any dataset covered by CC0, including Wikidata.

For some reason @Aklapper is on most task I create (I guess for triage reasons) but not on this one. Please let me know if I should or not add you manually in that kind of case.

I looked at the Probox documentation but didn't saw anything related to the "join" button and the role list.

The list of activity is given on Commons:

I set up the probox template

So either someone already skilled on this installation process should claim/be-assigned this task, or it will wait that I can have time to read the documentation, and possibly get sufficient privileges on corresponding targeted wikis.

Hi @Denny any news regarding this? What's your mind concerning my additional more precise questions on lexical data?

In T193728#4234449, @TomT0m wrote:

Said differently: the fact that the informations are in Wikipedia would
prevent to have them in Wikidata or any other database.

In T193728#4234062, @ArthurPSmith wrote:

based on the fact that we have ~42M “imported from” references and ~64M sitelinks in Wikidata

Hmm, I've added likely over 1000 of those "imported from" items myself by hand, for example for organization "official website" entries. So I would say "imported from" gives us an over-count of "bot" work, if that's the main issue here. Or is thousands of individuals adding these entries by hand also a concern?

In T193728#4233267, @Denny wrote:

"what are the benefit for the Wikimedia community of using exclusively CC-0 for its single Wikibase instance usable in the rest of its environment?"

This question is, I think, less suitable for a lawyer. I think this is a very interesting question, but I'd rather focus now on answering the question that is directly pertinent to this ticket.

In T193728#4231659, @TomT0m wrote:

As far as I understand copyright, if by a pure random event I happen to
write exactly one page of Harry Potter, I can’t publish this as easily as I
would want. The stuff is protected whatever the way it was created. So it
does not matter if we actually imported datas or it happens we
substancially have the same result by over means.

In T193728#4232253, @ArthurPSmith wrote:

Some references on why CC0 is essential for a free public database:

In T193728#4231932, @MisterSynergy wrote:

Users of Wikidata can compile datasets of any form and content with the query service, and re-use it according to the CC0 license (i.e.: do whatever they want to, particularly without attribution).

In T193728#4228561, @Micru wrote:

In a way Wikipedia already has a "contribute-alike" agreement, it is just not explicit, but tacit. Users come to the site, access it as they wish, and they are asked to make a donation every once in a while. It is not a contribution in the same way as writing an article, but it is still a contribution which is also necessary to keep the project alive.

In T193728#4214437, @MisterSynergy wrote:

If any of those happened (or had to happen), I’d be out here and I guess many other Wikidata editors would also discontinue their efforts. There is great support for CC0 in Wikidata, since anything else that required attribution would render it useless; large-scale purging would tear down so much content that we would basically have to start again from the beginning. We are 5.5 years into this project and many of us have spent thousands of hours of effort into it, based on the unchallenged assumption (by WMF) that Wikipedia imports as we are doing them are legally fine.

In T193728#4212631, @Denny wrote:

@Rspeer
But even ignoring that, Wikidata does *not* store the same expression anyway. So what exactly is the copyright asserted on?

In T193728#4205401, @Denny wrote:

@Rspeer regarding the ontology: the ontology of Wikidata is genuinely unique and not copied from any Wikipedia project, or any other project. It has been created on Wikidata.

In T193728#4204779, @Denny wrote:

@Nemo_bis thanks, I agree with your point a lot.

But regarding your question - just because there is a database which happens to reproducible should not trigger any right issues.

To give an example: it is easy to imagine a company that sells the list of all countries and their capitals as a dataset that is easy to process and that has a guaranteed quality and support level, to other companies, under a proprietary license that does not allow the dataset to be reshared.

Now just because it happens that we can reproduce that list from Wikidata with a SPARQL query should not mean that we have to act in any way.

On the other side, if we had used that list to import the data - then that would in my understanding be a breach of the rights of that company. But if we did not and the result happens to be the same - well, that's how it is.

If the example is too simple, it could be easily extended to be larger and more substantial. My argument would still be the same.

What do you think?

In T193728#4204771, @Denny wrote:

@Psychoslave sorry to disagree on the questions, but are we in any disagreement on these three questions?

We should not allow the (significant) import of data from databases which are licensed under a license incompatible with CC-0.
We should enforce that.
We should document the licenses of imported databases.
We should remove data that has been imported from databases which are licensed under a license incompatible with CC-0.

That would be my answers. I don't expect you to disagree with that.

In T193728#4204019, @TomT0m wrote:

The more I personnaly dig into this questions, the more issues are opened and the less clear it becomes that there is an actual issue, and if there is an actual issue if there is a legal risk. Or even if there is a moral or ethical issue: I think we will all agree here that pure facts can be used by anyone (beyond private life one).

Sorry, I've been busy on other activities lately, I'll catch up and give feed back as soon as I can.

To give more context, the goal would be to enable archiving this discussion on Meta, where the license is a requirement.

Seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Probox is exacltly what we need :)

I just endorsed a project on Meta with a button which already do what we should aim: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/UG_ELiSo/Outreach_leaflets_2018

In T193728#4203583, @EgonWillighagen wrote:

In T193728#4189219, @Psychoslave wrote:

Let's recall that whether this transfer is done by automation or crowdsourcing doesn't matter, it's the quantity of transferred data

Of all things I read about copyright law (IANAL but very interested), this is not what I have been told... in NL there is the provision that allows to replicate a database if the content is aggregated independently (the famous case is the Dutch phonebook which was manually copied in India; sorry cannot find an online description quickly).

Hi @Denny, here are a small set questions that are hopefully simple and concrete:

T115691 have something about the white line

@Ivanhercaz any news on this?

In T193728#4202938, @Simon_Villeneuve wrote:

I think that Jarekt has expressed the position of most of the Wikidata contributors : facts can't be copyrighted.

In T193728#4200647, @Tgr wrote:

Do editors have rights over infobox data? Individual facts are not copyrightable; collections of infobox data could maybe be copyrighted if they were curated by an organization with a legal personality, or a well-defined group of authors, but that is not the case. "The Wikimedia community" is not a legal entity that could hold copyright or neighboring rights. Community curation seems to me like a legal black hole, a bit like the monkey selfie: there is an activity that is clearly protected by IP rights, but there is no one to assign those rights to, so in the end the work/data does end up in the public domain.

That's different from copying, say, map data from Google, in which case there is a well-defined legal entity which might or might not have sui generis database rights which Wikidata might or might not want to respect.

Also I think that if we want to really expand our community outside Europe and North America, it would be important to provide an infrastructure that ease contribution and reuse without too much legal concerns in places where we expect to make serious outreach to improve our community diversity.

Thank you @Tgr for bringing more clarification through distinction in the discussion. (also I'm not sure if thanks messages are welcome on phabricator tickets, but on the other hand I see no way to "thank" an individual answer…

In T193728#4188820, @Denny wrote:

I will start a discussion on the Project Chat, in order to gather more visibility.

In T193728#4188828, @Denny wrote:

Re Psychoslave:

Having a statement in Wikidata with a reference, where the referenced work is not published under CC-0, is entirely fine in my understanding.

For 3. we might promote it in a different manner that don't limit the topic to Valentine day, but also other day of love. Actually, we could turn it to "day dedicated to love".

We could have also

Book covers is tricky, we have to be sure the book cover is not a ongoing copyrighted material. But >100 books are probably ok. So I would say, we promote that as "cover of ancient books related to love" and we give more information in details:)

Whatever list we come from at the end, I think we should keep one or two extra "yet to determine" categories in mind, and take care to have resource for prizes on it. We don't really what to expect, so it's better if we can give ourself a bit of flexibility.

In T193728#4182350, @Denny wrote:

@Psychoslave, I am not sure I entirely follow.

You said "there are contributors of Wikidata that do make massive imports of external data banks, regardless of the corresponding terms of use."

Then you refer to an email on a closed list that I cannot access in order to point out that there are some contributors who might or might not do that in the future. So it's not about things that have already be done? But you said that there already are contributors who have done it?

In T193728#4182296, @Ivanhercaz wrote:

by removing them from Wikidata, or by some other solution yet to identify.

Items with statements that only has references to Wikipedia are not as reliable as those with external sources.

In T193952#4184530, @Ivanhercaz wrote:

I will check it tomorrow to know if my knowledge I am able to do this or if I can learn to do it. For the moment, I am going to claim this task.

The current indication to edit this section would no work anymore if the section is just moved to the subpage, at minimun, the link that invite to edit the support section should be changed.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhercaz/Tests seems perfect to me as far as the appearance goes, than you @Ivanhercaz we only need to add the functional part edit the page, possibly first checking if user is logged.

Until we have a wll at wikimedia dot org or something like that, @Wikilover90 created wikiloveslove at gmail dot com

I think that before we launch that, it would be better to have a simple "support" blue button, that directly edit the page, without requiring to type any wikitext.

I started something on the second point, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Love/Appreciation

Well, that's a good point @Denny. I can point to a message on the Wikidata WMfr mailing list where @Karima clearly explain how some contributor envision that point and promote a //adventurous beyond legal attitude// regarding license issue. The terms of use of the list don't allow to share it (plus it's in French, obviously :P). But maybe @Karima will be OK to express again this point of view in the current ticket.

The second point is purely about writing some promotional, isn't it?

Ok. So far I thanked people who signed the support section on Meta through the Mediawiki "thank" feature.

I'm not sure to understand the exact feature exposed here.