Semantisches Wiki lobt Preis für besten Inhalt aus

18. April 2007 um 22:09 6 Kommentare

In Wikimetrics habe ich auf einen Preis von “Centiare”, einem semantischen Wiki für (Personen-, Organisationen-, etc.)-Verzeichnisse hingewiesen. Einerseit eine schöne Sache (sowohl der Preis als auch die praktische Anwendung von Semantic MediaWiki, andererseits ist die in Centiare praktizierte Mischung von freien und nicht-freien Inhalten problematisch.

6 Kommentare »

RSS Feed für Kommentare zu diesem Artikel. TrackBack URI

  1. [...] (If you want to comment then please do it at jakoblog.de) [...]

    Pingback by Wikimetrics » Prizes in a doubtful-free Semantic Wiki — 18. April 2007 #

  2. Während wir nicht vom Sekundär-GFDL Auftreten von Encyclopedian.com cognizant waren, werden die Seiten in Centiare “Hauptraum” [Main Space] (wie der Artikel über “Feuer” ["Fire"]) unter den Bezeichnungen des GFDL freigegeben. Der einzige Teil von Centiare, das nicht “geöffnet” Gemeinschaftzum redigieren ist, sind die “Verzeichnis-Raum” [Directory Space] Artikel, die ausschließlich über zugelassene Wesen, wie lebende Personen, Korporationen und städtische Regierungen sind.

    Was die “ursprüngliche” Quelle des Inhalts in einigen von Centiares Hauptraumartikeln als seiend richtig zitieren anbetrifft Wikipedia (als das Material wirklich von Encyclopedian.com kopiert wurde), würde das nahe bei unmöglichem zu richtig sein und sein würde, daß Encyclopedian.com den Inhalt gerieben hat, ohne die genaue Version des Wikipedia Artikels zu zitieren, der kopiert wurde. Wenn die Wikimedia Grundlage eine Beanstandung unterbringen sollten, sollte sie gegen Encyclopedian.com zuerst sein.

    Dann möchte ich die Grundlage sehen, mir die GFDL Verletzung auf dem Löschung- und Wiederherstellungprozeß auf dem Artikel zu erklären, der zwischen Januar 23 und März 18 an gefunden wurde:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_J._J._Altizer&diff=115453191&oldid=101701959

    und

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Thomas_J._J._Altizer

    Nachdem sie zeigen, daß was geschahen, es innerhalb der Grenzen der GFDL Lizenzbezeichnungen gab, dann könnten wir anfangen, genehmigende Bedingungen bei Centiare zu treffen.

    Bis diesen Tag begrüßen wir wiki Herausgeber, um Versuch ihre Hände bei semantischem Mediawiki zu kommen und erwerben Anzeige Einkommen und gewinnen prize Geld, während sie an ihm sind!

    Kommentar by Gregory Kohs — 19. April 2007 #

  3. Hi Gregory, thanks for your quick comment! You’d better write in English – youir German translation is rather…confused – but I think I got your point.
    I understand your position but how do you want to teach your users the complicated difference between “owned” content (in the directory space), content that is public domain or has been written by the author (so it can be used freely), and content that is licensed as Free Content, for instance GFDL? It’s not Encyclopedian.com’s fault (although their use of Wikipedia content is neigher unproblematic). As I have shown with the “Fire” article your users do not understand the differences and how to reuse GFDL’ed content. You’d better put all of Centiare under GFDL like Wikipedia does. Community restrictions (POV, user-space etc.) are ok, but spoiling free content is not, and if the Wikipedia community gets pissed off with Centiare then you’ll have a problem. I think Centiare is an interesting project but the licenses are a problematic.

    Kommentar by jakob — 19. April 2007 #

  4. Blast that Babelfish English-to-German language translator!

    Jakob, I want to emphasize three things here, without being or sounding hostile or defensive.

    (1) One of the biggest problems that Wikipedia is having right now is with unaffiliated vandals editing the articles about legal entities — living persons and corporations, for the most part. The Wikimedia Foundation has been the target of two different libel/defamation lawsuits in just the past month alone, and I expect that they will be seeing many more soon. They will attempt to deflect these cases with the Section 230 protections extended to “service providers”, but there is no telling if that will be successful or not in court, being that Wikipedia could fairly easily be described as a “content publisher” (rather than a service provider), which would not be so protected under S.230. Centiare cannot afford to be deflecting possible libel/defamation cases to anonymous editors, so we just said, “Enough is enough”, and we request that everyone register with a real e-mail address, and that ONLY THE LEGAL ENTITIES THEMSELVES edit the pages about legal entities. Sort of the opposite of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. We won’t get sued by Viacom if Viacom agents are the only ones allowed to edit the page about Viacom! I honestly don’t see how GFDL can be compatible with this policy, and frankly I don’t care to support the “philosophy” of Free Content if that means assuming the disproportionate risks of libel/defamation. Agent-ownership of our Directory space is also one of the many attractive marketing features of our site. So, we’re not going to budge on that. Directory editors hold the copyright to their pages, while Centiare reserves (non-exclusive) publishing rights.

    (2) If Centiare visitors can’t understand that non-legal topics (like “fire”, “rain”, “Pacific Ocean”, and “swimming”) are still offered under the terms of the GFDL, then that’s their misunderstanding, and really THEIR problem. (Though, I will admit that we could/should probably clean up that copyright explanation page.) If somebody wants to edit “rain” to say “Rainfall killed my mother”, nobody from Rain, Inc. is going to come sue Centiare. Change “rain” to “Barack Obama”, though, and we have a serious legal problem. THAT is why some parts of Centiare are available under GFDL, and some parts are not.

    (3) If somebody is pissed off at how I have copied GFDL content from Encyclopedian.com into Centiare’s GFDL Main Space (to my knowledge, only concerning subjects that are not legal entities), then somebody from Encyclopedian.com should contact me. I don’t think any court in California is going to expect that a third-tier re-user of GFDL content (two degrees removed from Wikipedia) should be expected to credit the actual version-edit, date, time, and author of THAT PARTICULAR content as it first appeared on Wikipedia at some time in the past, before it was scraped by Encyclopedian.com (without, I might add, any reference to ITS actual version-edit, date, time, and author). It might serve as an interesting real-world test-case of GFDL re-use and re-publishing rights, but I’m confident that Centiare would come out without owing any kind of damages to a plaintiff. Worst case is that we’d either have to properly credit the original cited version-edit (from Wikipedia, if it can even be trusted that Wikipedia was in fact the original source), or just take down the content. Case closed.

    Finally, try to understand that Centiare is in the formative stages, where we are playing a bit loose with licensing issues, so that we may effectively DEMONSTRATE to visitors how things will “sort of” look when Centiare matures. I really don’t expect that copying from Encyclopedian.com or from Wikipedia.org is going to be an ongoing “best practice” at Centiare. No, rather, we anticipate getting lots of creative and informative authors to come and write their OWN original content in both our Directory and Main space articles. These authors will be at liberty to use Google AdSense and Amazon Associates links, or even sell T-shirts, to help “pay” for their time and effort. Once that “critical mass” begins to take form, I will be happy to backtrack and remove and/or re-write any material that any rightful author properly notifies us is violating their copyright or the terms of GFDL. Until that moment, I’m going to take the example of Wikipedia and ignore/deflect/hide/bury/sweep-under-the-rug any concerns about how we’re treating the copyrights of others. I’ve had my copyrighted content not only erased, but replaced with defamatory accusations that were never supported with any evidence. When I complained by e-mail and postal letter, my complaints were rebuffed by Brad Patrick and the State of Florida’s Consumer Affairs, who said I’d have to pursue my case in a court of law, if I wanted to go any further. So far, nobody from Wikimedia Foundation is suing Centiare about anything, and they’d be foolish to do so.

    I hope that this better explains our position for now.

    Kommentar by Gregory Kohs — 19. April 2007 #

  5. Thanks for your detailed answer and for the courage to discuss this publically! First let me stress that nobody should want to sue anyone and that I am not a lawyer so I cannot give legally binding answers!

    (1, vandalism): You wrote “Viacom agents are the only ones allowed to edit the page about Viacom! I honestly don’t see how GFDL can be compatible with this policy” – GFDL does not imply WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO or any other of the Wikipedia community policies. You can both make your own restrictions on who and what to edit on pages at and what or how to write at Centiare and license all of it under GFDL. GFDL only gives right to copy and modify the content somewhere else – for instance in Wikipedia. If you free the directory space under GFDL then people will be able to reuse the content in Wikipedia. Elsewise Centiare is not free content and the phrase “the free directory” seems to be a wrong, deceptive allusion to Wikipedia’s subtitle “the free encyclopedia”.

    (2, legal stuff): Yes and no. If you want to avoid to use and explain GFDL and its difficulties then you just shoud not use GFDL. GFDL is a pretty annoying license, so maybe a Creative Commons license or your own license might be a better for Centiare. Of course I prefer free content (GFDL, CC without NC/ND) a lot, but its your choice. However you might get in trouble if you try to mix GFDL’ed content and non-free content like you currently do.

    (3, copying GFDL’ed content): The “Fire” article is not the main problem, it was just an example to show the complexity and where problems might occur. The way Wikipedia->Encyclopedian->Centiare is not right without refering to the original authors but its probably tolerated by most Wikipedia authors. But giving the Wikipedia community the impression that Centiare is a commercial, non-free project that don’t cares about GFDL but calls itself “free directory” should definitely not be of your interest.

    My advice: Just choose a Creative-Commons Share-Alike license for all of of Centaire and add editing restrictions for the directory namespace in your Terms of use. Wikitravel does also use this license, you can share content with them (see their help page, that you can copy), you avoid problems with GFDL and you can still call your project “free”. Your projects will be praised as open and innovative and everythings fine. :-)

    Kommentar by jakob — 20. April 2007 #

  6. read this…

    Semantisches Wiki lobt Preis für besten Inhalt aus « Jakoblog — Das Weblog von Jakob Voß…

    Trackback by read this — 27. Januar 2016 #

Entschuldige, das Kommentarformular ist zurzeit geschlossen.

Powered by WordPress with Theme based on Pool theme and Silk Icons.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^