4 ms·

A worthy cause. Too bad they feel the need to run their own platform instead of contributing to wikidata. They're using the same software, and the data falls s

A worthy cause. Too bad they feel the need to run their own platform instead of contributing to wikidata. They're using the same software, and the data falls squarely within Wikidata's scope. Even worse that they feel the need to stamp this with a CC license. Not only does this make it incompatible with the CC0/public domain requirement. I consider it borderline offensive to assert copyright over the basic facts of someone's life: https://enslaved.org/record/person/Q405665 https://enslaved.org/record/person/Q405665 This project obviously involves a lot of work. And, taken as a whole, some of that work is creative in nature. But individual records are not. Luckily, US law does not recognise copyright for databases.

huskyr 6y ago
I think there's something to be said for putting this data in their own Wikibase instance. There are a lot of items here, including many items like 'Inventory of person X in year Y'. Adding so many items to Wikidata would not have been without its controversy. Also, i could imagine they need a lot of properties that are not available, or aren't used in the same way on Wikidata. There is a reason why all museums and other heritage institutions use their own databases and thesauri instead of putting it all in the same database. However, the beauty of using a linked data platform is of course that it's easy to link back to other sources, like Wikidata. I could definitely see that in the future Wikidata could do an import of many of these items, or link properly to them using a new property. I do agree that it's unfortunate that they're licensing everything under CC-BY instead of CC-Zero.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Yes, there are legitimate reasons here, and the presentation is, indeed, very nice. There's some momentum enabling various hybrid models for wikibase, and allowing projects such as this to enjoy the freedom of an individual platform, while still using Wikidata as the backend for some or most or all of the data seems promising. I disagree with the idea that this data is inferior in some way to what is expected for inclusion in WD. Their sourcing seems to be impeccable, better than maybe 80 % of WD at the statement-level ("Imported from cebwiki") and certainly adequate on the item-level. Data on individual slaves also strikes me as far more useful for the possibilities that Wikidata offers than academic papers. The latter are important in their own right, but metadata on journal articles is of little use unless you're studying impact factors, academic careers, or the rise and fall of academic disciplines. Structured data on slavery neatly connects with geography, economics, culture, and really any aspect society today. I imagine there were changes in regions of origin over time, for example, and it'd be interesting to see if these can still be found in, say, regional culinary preferences, language, or music.
  - huskyr 6y ago
    I'm not arguing that the data is inferior (because it's definitely not, the sourcing is properly done like you mentioned), just that any large import of so many data items (whether it is about streets, academic papers or people) will first need to be discussed with the community. Also, Wikidata always refers to existing sources, and this website is just that: an excellent source for future reference on items.
maxerickson 6y ago
They want to publish it in an academic setting. Curation is important and reasonable in that context. And under US law, the copyright on a database would apply to the collective work and not to the individual facts, so your frustration and analysis are sort of strange (they can't copyright the facts and whether the collective work would gain copyright is an open question without an obvious answer).
zozbot234 6y ago
> They're using the same software, and the data falls squarely within Wikidata's scope. The data only falls within Wikidata's scope if "every single enslaved person" can be described using reliable sources. That's a very dubious position. And Wikidata has scaling problems already due to their scholarly-article data - but at least that comes with plenty of surrounding info about authors, topics, citations etc. etc. that's uniquely suited to a general-purpose knowledge base. Can one make the same claim about the micro-level archival history of slavery in the antebellum U.S.?

huskyr 6y ago

I think there's something to be said for putting this data in their own Wikibase instance. There are a lot of items here, including many items like 'Inventory of person X in year Y'. Adding so many items to Wikidata would not have been without its controversy. Also, i could imagine they need a lot of properties that are not available, or aren't used in the same way on Wikidata. There is a reason why all museums and other heritage institutions use their own databases and thesauri instead of putting it all in the same database. However, the beauty of using a linked data platform is of course that it's easy to link back to other sources, like Wikidata. I could definitely see that in the future Wikidata could do an import of many of these items, or link properly to them using a new property. I do agree that it's unfortunate that they're licensing everything under CC-BY instead of CC-Zero.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Yes, there are legitimate reasons here, and the presentation is, indeed, very nice. There's some momentum enabling various hybrid models for wikibase, and allowing projects such as this to enjoy the freedom of an individual platform, while still using Wikidata as the backend for some or most or all of the data seems promising. I disagree with the idea that this data is inferior in some way to what is expected for inclusion in WD. Their sourcing seems to be impeccable, better than maybe 80 % of WD at the statement-level ("Imported from cebwiki") and certainly adequate on the item-level. Data on individual slaves also strikes me as far more useful for the possibilities that Wikidata offers than academic papers. The latter are important in their own right, but metadata on journal articles is of little use unless you're studying impact factors, academic careers, or the rise and fall of academic disciplines. Structured data on slavery neatly connects with geography, economics, culture, and really any aspect society today. I imagine there were changes in regions of origin over time, for example, and it'd be interesting to see if these can still be found in, say, regional culinary preferences, language, or music.
- huskyr 6y ago
  I'm not arguing that the data is inferior (because it's definitely not, the sourcing is properly done like you mentioned), just that any large import of so many data items (whether it is about streets, academic papers or people) will first need to be discussed with the community. Also, Wikidata always refers to existing sources, and this website is just that: an excellent source for future reference on items.

maxerickson 6y ago

They want to publish it in an academic setting. Curation is important and reasonable in that context. And under US law, the copyright on a database would apply to the collective work and not to the individual facts, so your frustration and analysis are sort of strange (they can't copyright the facts and whether the collective work would gain copyright is an open question without an obvious answer).

zozbot234 6y ago

> They're using the same software, and the data falls squarely within Wikidata's scope. The data only falls within Wikidata's scope if "every single enslaved person" can be described using reliable sources. That's a very dubious position. And Wikidata has scaling problems already due to their scholarly-article data - but at least that comes with plenty of surrounding info about authors, topics, citations etc. etc. that's uniquely suited to a general-purpose knowledge base. Can one make the same claim about the micro-level archival history of slavery in the antebellum U.S.?