Wikitravel And Wikimedia Are In A Legal Battle... But Not Over Creative Commons

from the misrepresentation-may-be-an-issue dept

Late last week, a bunch of folks passed along an interesting blog post by David Gerard about a legal dispute between the company Internet Brands and the Wikimedia Foundation (the folks behind Wikipedia). By Gerard's account, Internet Brands -- a company that runs a bunch of content sites, including Wikitravel.org, which it bought in 2006 -- was suing some volunteer admins of the site for "forking" the content on that site and taking up with the Wikimedia Foundation to create a new travel wiki there. As noted, Wikitravel content has a CC-by-SA license (Creative Commons ShareAlike). In response to all of this, the Wikimedia Foundation took it upon itself to proactively file for declaratory judgment that creating a "fork" of Wikitravel is not breaking the law (confusing matters just slightly -- a bunch of former Wikitravel admins had already forked the content and created a separate site in 2006 called Wikivoyage, which is merging into this new travel wiki under the Wikimedia Foundation).

Now, let me be clear: I think that suing your volunteer admins is unbelievably stupid and shortsighted. It pretty much guarantees that it's going to be difficult to attract such help in the future. Similarly, some of Internet Brands' actions in trying to stop this new travel site seem at least somewhat questionable. But... in looking over the details of the initial lawsuit, it seems that Gerard and the Wikimedia Foundation (who I almost always agree with) are not telling the full story, and are being slightly misleading.

The actual lawsuit against the volunteer admins (and again, it's stupid to sue those admins) isn't because of the "forking." In fact, Internet Brands makes it clear in its own filing that the content is CC-by-SA and can be copied with attribution. Instead, the concerns are over how the admins presented themselves and their relationship to Wikitravel in convincing others to move over to the new project. Specifically, Internet Brands suggests that these admins implied that they were speaking for Wikitravel and the entire community there, by saying that the community was moving over to the new operation.

For example, on August 18, 2012, Holliday improperly and wrongfully emailed at least several hundred of Wikitravel members, purporting to be from Wikitravel and informing members that the Wikitravel Website was "migrating" to the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is Internet Brand's version of things, but you can see how their complaint might be a bit more legitimate if Holliday really suggested that it was Wikitravel itself that was "migrating." Of course, the text of the actual email (at least the text shown in the filing) suggests that Holliday didn't go quite that far -- though he was at least somewhat vague.

Specifically, Holliday's email contained the Subject Line, "Important information about Wikitravel!" and its body stated, "This email is being sent to you on behalf of the Wikitravel administrators since you have put some real time and effort into working on Wikitravel. We wanted to make sure you are up to date and in the loop concerning big changes to the community that will affect the future of your work! As you may already have heard, Wikitravel's community is looking to migrate to the Wikimedia Foundation."

That's not quite as clear-cut as IB stated in the preceding paragraph. He doesn't claim to necessarily be "from Wikitravel." He notes that he's writing on behalf of "Wikitravel administrators," which is slightly different, since many of the administrators are volunteers, not employees or representatives of the site. That's part of what makes this tricky. Separately, he doesn't directly say that the entire Wikitravel website is migrating... but rather that the "Wikitravel community" is "looking to migrate." It's a subtle difference, and one could read the email in multiple ways. However, even in the interpretation that favors Holliday the most, you can certainly argue that he was unnecessarily vague, and at least implies that he's speaking for the site and the community as a whole, when he's really just speaking on behalf of some admins and some portion of the community.

Finally, IB also complains that even with the CC-by-SA license, the new site failed to provide proper attribution. This is always a bit tricky too, because people disagree over what constitutes proper attribution. But for all the people jumping immediately to Wikimedia's side in this dispute, it's worth noting that on this point, if you're a Creative Commons supporter, you might be interested in IB's argument, because if they're right here, it could provide ammo to others who seek to enforce any CC "attribution" license in situations where people don't attribute.

Nothing in the lawsuit really, directly, appears to be about the fact that these guys were creating a "fork" -- despite Wikimedia's claim about the legal fight. Now, you could argue that this is the true intention of the lawsuit -- that it's designed to intimidate these admins and try to throw a wrench into this competitive effort. But, at least on its face, the actual legal filings seem to have a bit more merit than Wikimedia's initial claims suggest. In the end, I (once again) think that Internet Brands is making a tactical (if not legal) mistake in suing, because it will likely tarnish the brand and may make it difficult to attract new admins. And, conceptually, I'm all for Wikimedia Foundation setting up a fork of Wikitravel and trying to do more, and create value that brings the community from Wikitravel over to the new site.

But the lawsuit is about these specific activities, in which the filing makes a reasonable argument that a few admins implied they spoke for Wikitravel (or for the wider community) when that was not necessarily the case. Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens, but I hope that people read the details before automatically assuming the spin that's been making the rounds is entirely accurate. The claims that these admins are being sued for forking Creative Commons content appear to be simply incorrect.

Similarly, in my read of Wikimedia's lawsuit seeking default judgment, it seems like they may be going a bit too far. The filing tries to argue that Internet Brands is seeking to prevent the use of the content itself, but the actual filing does no such thing. Thus, it's possible that Wikimedia Foundation may run into some problems, if the court doesn't believe that an actual "controversy" is being presented here. For what it's worth, courts don't always look kindly at declaratory judgment cases if there's no real controversy, as they see them as a waste of time. While there is perhaps the germ of a controversy here, I could definitely see the court reading Wikimedia's filing and Internet Brands' actual lawsuits, and realizing that what Wikimedia describes is wholly different than what IB actually said in its lawsuit, and then just dumping the case.

Filed Under: creative commons, forking, misrepresentation, share alike, trademark, travel, wikis, wikitravel
Companies: internet brands, wikimedia foundation

Journalism Professor Adds Wiki Sensibility To Crowdsourced Fact Checking: WikiFactCheck

from the that-seems-useful dept

We've talked about the public's desire for more real fact checking, as opposed to he-said/she-said style news reporting. And we've mentioned various programs that have brought crowdsourcing into the fact-checking game. And, now a USC journalism professor has put this all together to create a fact-checking wiki-based site, appropriately called WikiFactCheck.

Digging down to facts tends to be what crowdsourcing is good at. The problem, of course, is that there often are some blurry lines around what is actually a "fact" and what is not. But, given the (some would say excessive) cultural focus at Wikipedia on forcing a "neutral point of view," I could see how a similar group of people could somewhat vehemently focus in on specific facts that can be proven true or false, rather than getting too bogged down in opinion vs. facts debates.

Filed Under: fact checking, journalism, news, wikis
Companies: wikifactcheck

Google Inches Toward Wikified Maps

from the community-needed dept

I've been saying for a few months that Google should begin wikifying Google Maps, so that users can make corrections and add missing information to Google's map database. Google took a tentative step in that direction this spring when it allowed people to edit business locations. But now John Battelle reports that Google has unveiled technology that would allow Google to turn Google Maps into a full-blown geographical wiki, with "roads, lakes, parks, points of interest, businesses, cities and localities" all fully editable. Not surprisingly, Google is rolling this out cautiously, making the functionality available first in obscure places like the Bermuda, Grenada, and Jamaica where Google hasn't been able to acquire good map data of its own.

Playing around with the site, the technology is a little clumsy to use, but it works and I'm sure it will get better as Google's UI wizards get some user feedback. The really hard part, I think, will be cultivating the community that's required for a successful peer production effort. People tend to think of Wikipedia as a website, but as Clay Shirky points out, it's better to think of Wikipedia as a bureaucracy for arguing about edits that happens to produce a website as its byproduct. Wikipedia depends on a dedicated core of Wikipedians who referee the editing process, combat vandalism, and resolve disputes. Without them, Wikipedia would dissolve into chaos in a matter of days. So Google needs to figure out how to cultivate an analogous community of Google Map editors. There's a chicken-and-egg problem because they need to let people edit their own neighborhoods to really draw on local knowledge, but the site could be destroyed quickly if they don't have enough public-spirited editors in place beforehand. The incremental strategy they're pursuing so far seems like the right one: get people familiar with the technology, recruit people interested in map editing, and most importantly develop the processes and principles that allow the editing process to proceed smoothly.

Google will also want to think hard about licensing. Wikipedia uses the GNU Free Documentation License, which gives anyone the freedom to reuse Wikipedia content. This serves as a kind of social contract with users, ensuring that the data generated by the community continues to be available to the community. Google may find that it needs to make similar commitments before a significant number of people would be willing to participate in the editing process. On the other hand, freeing the map data might prove different if the vendor currently selling Google mapping data sees it as a threat. In that rather sticky situation, Google might be forced to start from scratch, creating a parallel site created entirely by users.

Filed Under: local information, maps, wikis
Companies: google

Wikia Search May Have Trouble Achieving Critical Mass

from the notability dept

Mathew Ingram notes that Jimmy Wales's company, Wikia, has unveiled a new version of its search engine. The basic premise of the search engine, allowing users to edit search results the way they can edit Wikipedia pages, is clever. But I think Wales is going to have difficult making the project successful. The fundamental problem, I think, is a matter of raw mathematics: there are far, far more potential web searches than there are pages in Wikipedia. Last month I critiqued the business model of Biographicon, a site that's attempting to create a Wikipedia-style page for everyone. I argued that they're likely to have trouble making it work because any given page is unlikely to have the critical mass of contributors necessary to make the wiki model work. I think Wikia's search engine is likely to suffer from an even more serious case of the same problem. Wikipedia achieves this critical mass by limiting itself to subjects that are "notable." But a search engine can't have those kinds of limits. People want a search engine to have good responses even for (maybe especially for) obscure searches. And by definition, it won't be possible to get a bunch of people to contribute to the page for an obscure search term.

Closely related is the problem of bias. Wikipedia strives to take a neutral point of view, presenting all viewpoints fairly and accurately without passing judgment on which one is correct. This often leads to pages being longer than they would otherwise be, but they tend to be reasonable representations of what various people think on the subject at hand. This approach won't really work with a search engine because people expect the most important search results to be at the top, and deciding which results are the most important is an intrinsically subjective decision. If Wikia's search engine ever became popular, it could be beset by edit wars that would make the infamous Danzig/Gdansk edit war look tame. Companies pay search engine optimization firms thousands of dollars to improve their Google ranks, a successful Wikia search would likely succumb to the same kinds of pressure, and the site appears to lack Wikipedia's well-defined procedures for resolving disputes.

Filed Under: search, user generated, wikia, wikis

Google Maps Becoming Even More Like A Wiki

from the User-Generated-Geography dept

A few months ago, we noted that Google had taken some tentative steps to make Google Maps more wiki-like, and we encouraged them to take further steps in that direction. Now Techcrunch reports that they're doing just that, giving users more ability to edit the data on Google Maps. Now, not only can you move the pin showing the location of a particular address, but you can edit the information associated with that address. Best of all, Google allows you to delete markers that are inaccurate or inappropriate, and even to add new ones. This is going to make Google Maps even more valuable. The next challenge Google is likely to have is dealing with vandalism. They've got some tools to deal with that already, but I think they could improve things even more by making the editing process more transparent. For example, as far as I can tell, there's no way to see all of the markers in a particular small section of the map (say the block where I live). There also doesn't appear to be any easy way to automatically monitor changes within a certain radius of a particular location. These features (analogous to Wikipedia's watchlist feature) would make it a lot easier for public-spirited Google Maps users to keep tabs on map changes and quickly revert vandalism. I'd personally be happy to help police edits in the area around my apartment, but there's currently no easy way for me to do that.

Filed Under: local information, maps, wikis
Companies: google

Two Wikipedia Spinoffs In The News

from the more-reliable? dept

Wired has a roundup of two Wikipedia spinoffs that have been in the news recently. Both sites, Citizendium and Veropedia, were launched because their founders felt that Wikipedia had reliability problems that could only be addressed by an independent project. But their approaches are very different. Citizendium is what the open source software world would call a fork. They launched the site with some Wikipedia articles as the baseline, but they're not contributing their changes back to the Wikipedia project. That means that the two projects are diverging over time, and in a few years the content on the two sites will be quite different. It also means that there's going to be a lot of duplication of effort: the content in Citizendium and Wikipedia will largely be redundant. In contrast, Wikipedia is, in open source terms, "upstream" from Veropedia. Just as distributions like Ubuntu and Red Hat take Linux code, improve it, and then package it for public consumption, making a profit in the process, so Veropedia is going to take a subset of Wikipedia, do some additional work to ensure it's reliable, and then publish it on an ad-supported site. Unlike Citizendium, Veropedia is planning to contribute its changes back to Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's a pressing need for either effort, and I'm particularly skeptical of Citizendium. I think Clay Shirky is right to question the underlying rationale for Citizendium, and while founder Larry Sanger has touted some modest successes over the last year, they're going to need some massive growth to catch up to Wikipedia.

Filed Under: encyclopedias, wikipedia, wikis
Companies: citizendium, veropedia, wikipedia