Alexa - By Barbara Page

[Zoloft]

New blog post — Alexa by Barbara (WVS) (T-C-L).

Barbara Page, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, contemplates the creepy, exploitative nature of Alexa, which monetizes the work of Wikipedia editors.

Let's have some nice comments on the blog post, please!

[Johnny Au]

IBM Watson now has competition!

RIP HitchBOT

[Bezdomni]

And she didn't even give you a hard time about your last blog-post! Welcome Barbara. I was sad to see what your "squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism" title got neutered into. ^^ Nice work recruiting another Signpost writer, Mr. Zoloft. Looks like your escalator might just be jolting into action!

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I was interested by the first paragraph – "I knew it the very minute after my contributions entered the public domain". Unless she did something special, her contributions to Wikipedia were not placed in the public domain, but instead were licensed, under a licence that permits commercial reuse but imposes specific conditions on that use, including attribution. So unless Alexa gabbles off a list of contributors to the Wikipedia article, Amazon is breaking the terms of the licence by repeating it. She should sue,

[thekohser]

Google Home (Assistant) says "According to Wikipedia..." before spouting off the first sentence or two of a Wikipedia article. I suppose Google brokered a financial deal with the Wikimedia Foundation that this "counts" as CC-BY attribution, or at least that the WMF will look the other way while Google violates the CC-BY terms. I suppose we could test this problem by "remixing" a Google Home unit reading Wikipedia articles, and then selling our derivative product under the same level of attribution that Google provides.

[Kingsindian]

I was also interested in how Amazon or Google finessed the CC-BY attribution issue.

Still, I think one should act on the assumption that anyone can use anything you write on Wikipedia for any purpose whatsoever. If that's not the way it works in theory, it's probably the way it works in practice.

[Poetlister]

Still, I think one should act on the assumption that anyone can use anything you write on Wikipedia for any purpose whatsoever. If that's not the way it works in theory, it's probably the way it works in practice.

That tends to be what happens to a lot of stuff posted on the Internet. Very few people have the resources to sue.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Google Home (Assistant) says "According to Wikipedia..." before spouting off the first sentence or two of a Wikipedia article. I suppose Google brokered a financial deal with the Wikimedia Foundation that this "counts" as CC-BY attribution, or at least that the WMF will look the other way while Google violates the CC-BY terms. I suppose we could test this problem by "remixing" a Google Home unit reading Wikipedia articles, and then selling our derivative product under the same level of attribution that Google provides.

You may well be right, but if so it is interesting that WMF thinks itself able to broker a deal that involves WMF selling my intellectual property rights. I suppose that's consistent with their whole approach to IPR.

[Mason]

Is there such a deal? Or is Amazon just calling it fair use?

[thekohser]

Is there such a deal? Or is Amazon just calling it fair use?

I don't literally know of any deal between Amazon and the Wikimedia Foundation or between Google and the Wikimedia Foundation that would ease or eliminate their corporate need to provide CC-by-SA attribution to their machine-readings of Wikipedia content. I offered that notion as a bit of tongue-in-cheek. I do know that Google is financially invested in the Wikimedia Foundation and in Wikitribune, and that Amazon is financially invested ($10,000,000) in Wikia; all ventures of Jimmy Wales. Both for-profit corporations enjoy tens of thousands of back-links (probably hundreds of thousands, as the "cap" on searching for them tops out at 60,000) from Wikipedia to their own site networks that monetize web traffic.

[Earthy Astringent]

I use Alexa to control my lights. When she starts spouting something from Wikipedia I have to yell "Alexa... SHUT UP."

[Zoloft]

What do you do if you're a young girl named Alexa?
linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -name.html[/link]
linkhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/alexa-stop ... 1485448519[/link]

Well, then, change the name to 'Computer.'

That won't cause any problems at all, Data.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Two interesting points emerged in the discussion, each of which deserves further attention.

The first is the issue of the general decay in attribution -- I'm not saying that our guest blogger is anything other than perfectly competent to summarise medical research articles, and translate them into other languages, but the traditional ecosystem for attribution is not equipped to handle anonymous and pseudonymous attribution. When the results are then disseminated by an artificial intelligence system, all attribution is lost. We may add to that the fact that Amazon, Google and the other providers of free AI are in business to make a profit, not to dispense accurate information. There comes a point at which additional accuracy starts to cut into profit margins, and that point comes much sooner for them than it would for a conventional educational charity, professional or leanred society, or academic institution.

The second is the point about copyright in Wikipedia articles being essentially impossible to defend under US law. (I have expressed my opinion of it elsewhere.) Probably this is true as well in other countries that adhere more closely to the spirit of the Berne Convention. To sue for infringement of the attribution clause of a CC licence would require me to show some kind of financial damage, and the loss to me of having my copyright violated in something I actively want to give away for free is going to be zero. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that CC licences of this kind are essentially meaningless.

[HRIP7]

Mailing list discussion:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... html#88118

[thekohser]

Mailing list discussion:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... html#88118

I love when Simon Poole comes in on his high horse to say how foolish others are being, ups the ante, and then is shown to be ignorant himself.

Expect no apology.

Which leads me to ask... who is Simon Poole?

[Midsize Jake]

Which leads me to ask... who is Simon Poole?

I suspect this is his Twitter account, but if so, it doesn't appear to lead directly to anything substantive about him - it's easy to discern from his tweets that he's an IT person of some kind, is super-interested in mapping software (and related subjects), probably lives in Australia and also speaks German, but I think we knew those things already.

Edit: Ah, this is him. Lives in Switzerland, but from Australia originally. Also, he's a former Atari ST enthusiast, so he can't be all that bad a guy, at least in my book.

[thekohser]

Heilman continues to demonstrate that he doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than". With this being about the 8th or 9th time I've noticed it with his public writing, just saying that it's a negligible typo or a simple mistake no longer cuts the mustard. I believe he truly doesn't understand (or maybe care) about the difference. And this is the guy leading the charge for medical accuracy in Wikipedia?

[Vigilant]

Mailing list discussion:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... html#88118

I love when Simon Poole comes in on his high horse to say how foolish others are being, ups the ante, and then is shown to be ignorant himself.

Expect no apology.

Which leads me to ask... who is Simon Poole?

Linkedin
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... rev=search

The reason he's retired
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2007 ... rmance-ag/

Poole.ch domain information

Domain name:
poole.ch

Holder of domain name:
Simon Poole
Heitersbergstrasse 1
CH-8962 Bergdietikon
Switzerland
Contractual Language: German

Technical contact:
Simon Poole
Heitersbergstrasse 1
CH-8962 Bergdietikon
Switzerland

Registrar:
METANET AG

First registration date:
1998-07-06

DNSSEC:N

Name servers:
he.poole.ch [46.163.119.192]
ns.poole.ch [212.254.75.189]brbr

[Bezdomni]

In the tldr; spirit

The question of correctly citing authors of wiki-text has always troubled me. Attention to the authorship of articles got me in trouble recently: a comment I made on the talk page of the "bibliography" of the sitting1 US president got me indefinitely banned.

Rogol is right to point out the error in the blog post (contributions to Wikipedia are licensed as CC/BY/SA, they are not public domain and so should be cited to their authors rather than to Wikipedia). As Graaf Statler has pointed out, it's not clear which "supra-static" int'l tribunal has approved the licensing of content in this way, but for the moment let's not dive into the thick weeds of copyright law, and instead just focus on the common sense argument that Barbara Page seems to be making: Alexa is citing her own words without giving her (or Wikipedia) credit for them.

As a result, she is being alienated, perhaps not entirely willingly, from her labor.

Let's suppose that you want to write an essay critical of Wikipedia and you want to cite the following extract from the page Wikipedia:WikiSpeak

• *There are no legal threats on Wikipedia. Threatening legal action is one of the few things for which an editor may be blocked instantly – no warnings, no second chance, no Mr. Nice Guy. A remark that may be interpreted as a legal threat is a legal threat, such as "my sister once dated a lawyer." Thinking about someone who has a similar name to the lawyer that your sister once dated is a legal threat.
  *If you make a legal threat, Wikipedia will sue you for everything you're worth.

In order to determine who to credit, it is necessary to use the tool "Wikiblame," which is hosted on a server in Germany. While the WMF provides a link to this tool on every article history page, it renames the tool "revision history search" (perhaps with the permission of the tool's author, perhaps not).

1. *Gandalf61 (2009) (first bullet point)
   *Dekkappai (2009) (second bullet point)
   *Robert G. (2012) (minor reformulation of the first bullet point)

Interestingly only Dekkappai has had the good sense to retire from "The Projects" (Wikipedia likes to refer to itself as a project.)

While it may seem strange to use a tool which assigns "blame" to give "credit", those accustomed to Wikispeak (where "criticism" is referred to as "harassment") will probably not be surprised by this evaluative inversion.

Any citation of this passage without correctly assigning credit blame should be, at least from a strict legal perspective, a copyright violation.

---

Rogol also recently pointed out a WMF blog post related to the Google v. Equustek case before the Canadian Supreme Court. In the amicus brief the WMF hired lawyers to file, the argument refers implicitly to theories associated with the linguists Karl Bühler & Roman Jakobson emphasizing the role of speakers and listeners in communication:

This Honourable Court should determine a decision-making framework that fully considers the rights of all persons implicated, speakers and listeners, and it should do so mindful of the fact that those affected by the order are not merely the litigants, but strangers to the dispute.

The WMF lawyers do so because they feel that the Canadian court is exceeding its jurisdiction in attempting to "censor" Google internationally because it is (at least in Canada) disseminating material unlawfully. (because the content violates Canadian trade secrets laws)

An interesting parallel can be made to the WMF's habit of promulgating "decisions" of its wiki-roo "courts" internationally. Many critics of Wikipedian practices have been labeled "harassers". In my case, this was done for nothing more than attempting to assign credit to the author of Wikipedian articles on the talk page of the "bibliography" that links to these articles (as an aid to the listeners (readers)).

In Wikispeak, credit = blame, and criticism = harassment.

The fact that the WMF is itself exceeding its jurisdiction and promulgating their "decisions" internationally should be legally challenged by "listeners" who have had "fake news" forced into their ears. ^^

Except that if you threaten to sue the WMF, "Wikipedia will sue you for everything you're worth." (This, too, seems like an inaccurate claim, but hey... it's a brave new world, isn't it...)

---

1 Some may wish to add an "h".
2 Cf. Greg's thread on "what to do with a philosophy degree" ^^

edited to shorten confusing quote from the amicus brief

[lonza leggiera]

…

The second is the point about copyright in Wikipedia articles being essentially impossible to defend under US law. (I have expressed my opinion of it elsewhere.) Probably this is true as well in other countries that adhere more closely to the spirit of the Berne Convention. To sue for infringement of the attribution clause of a CC licence would require me to show some kind of financial damage, …

This is certainly not true in Australia, where I live. Besides causing financial damage, infringement of authors' moral rights can also affect their reputations. Infringing the right of integrity of authorship is, by definition (of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968, sections 195AI and 195AJ), an act which is "prejudicial to [that] author's honour or reputation". And infringing an author's right of attribution might, for instance, deprive him or her of recognition as being the genius responsible for producing what might have been widely acknowledged as a masterpiece.

To obtain relief against infringement of moral rights by taking action under section 195AZA of the above-mentioned act, an author merely has to prove that the infringement has occurred, not that he or she has necessarily suffered any particular damage as a result. Of course, the nature of the relief granted by the court will certainly depend on whether any such damage has occurred, and, if so, how serious it is.

…. and the loss to me of having my copyright violated in something I actively want to give away for free is going to be zero. …

Under Australian copyright law, authors' moral rights do not constitute part of the copyright. Only original authors, or their explicitly authorised representatives, can waive those rights. Copyright owners cannot do so unless they are the authors themselves, or acting with the latters' explicit consent. The mere transfer of copyright does not imply that such consent has been given.

Of course, the relief one might obtain by taking action for infringement of one's moral rights in any Wikipedia article is hardly likely to be worth the expense.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that CC licences of this kind are essentially meaningless.

Under Australian copyright law, the influence of a CC licence on an author's moral rights is effectively nil.

[HRIP7]

Of course, the relief one might obtain by taking action for infringement of one's moral rights in any Wikipedia article is hardly likely to be worth the expense.

Doesn't this demonstrate once more how advantageous it is to the big players (including the WMF itself, arguably) that volunteers are not organised and there is no union or similar body representing them?

While the relief an individual might obtain is indeed far too small to be worth the legal expense and risk, the relief the volunteer community as a whole (or at least a substantial part of that community prepared to fight for its rights) might be entitled to could be quite substantial. As it is, the volunteer community is powerless.

It's divide et impera in action, isn't it?

[lonza leggiera]

Of course, the relief one might obtain by taking action for infringement of one's moral rights in any Wikipedia article is hardly likely to be worth the expense.

Doesn't this demonstrate once more how advantageous it is to the big players (including the WMF itself, arguably) that volunteers are not organised and there is no union or similar body representing them?

…

Somewhat indirectly, perhaps, since I was referring to Australian copyright law, which has the following provision:

Only individuals have moral rights

and the relief available is limited to one or more of the following:

(a) an injunction (subject to any terms that the court thinks fit);

(b) damages for loss resulting from the infringement;

(c) a declaration that a moral right of the author has been infringed;

(d) an order that the defendant make a public apology for the infringement;

(e) an order that any false attribution of authorship, or derogatory treatment, of the work be removed or reversed.

Presumably (since I have no legal qualifications or training whatsoever, I'm speculating here), a group of Wikipedians could get together and take a class action to enforce their several individual rights, but, even then, I doubt if any remedies obtainable would be worth the expense, and I don't think I would ever consider being a party to such an action myself.

[Zoloft]

Of course, the relief one might obtain by taking action for infringement of one's moral rights in any Wikipedia article is hardly likely to be worth the expense.

Doesn't this demonstrate once more how advantageous it is to the big players (including the WMF itself, arguably) that volunteers are not organised and there is no union or similar body representing them?

…

Somewhat indirectly, perhaps, since I was referring to Australian copyright law, which has the following provision:

Only individuals have moral rights

and the relief available is limited to one or more of the following:

(a) an injunction (subject to any terms that the court thinks fit);

(b) damages for loss resulting from the infringement;

(c) a declaration that a moral right of the author has been infringed;

(d) an order that the defendant make a public apology for the infringement;

(e) an order that any false attribution of authorship, or derogatory treatment, of the work be removed or reversed.

Presumably (since I have no legal qualifications or training whatsoever, I'm speculating here), a group of Wikipedians could get together and take a class action to enforce their several individual rights, but, even then, I doubt if any remedies obtainable would be worth the expense, and I don't think I would ever consider being a party to such an action myself.

Under the vague wording of Wikipedia:NLT (T-H-L) I believe this means we are all banned.
Actually, reading it now, it's a bit more clear than I remember. But that's not funny.

[Bezdomni]

... infringement of authors' moral rights can also affect their reputations. Infringing the right of integrity of authorship is, by definition (of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968, sections 195AI and 195AJ), an act which is "prejudicial to [that] author's honour or reputation".

Very interesting point. Of course, we're not painting prose masterpieces... still...

The fine print of the CC license does say that it does not affect authors' moral rights, and yet the CC/BY/SA license does allow derivative works.

Doesn't this demonstrate once more how advantageous it is to the big players (including the WMF itself, arguably) that volunteers are not organised and there is no union or similar body representing them?

While the relief an individual might obtain is indeed far too small to be worth the legal expense and risk, the relief the volunteer community as a whole (or at least a substantial part of that community prepared to fight for its rights) might be entitled to could be quite substantial. As it is, the volunteer community is powerless.

It's divide et impera in action, isn't it?

There's a discussion bordering on this question over at WR... (couched in some admittedly rather sharp rhetoric ^^) On wiki, there was recently a Category for Deletion (CfD) debate that virtually nobody knew was happening, about a category (Wikipedians on strike) first created just after the election shenanigans (specifically on the Clinton Foundation page), and with a fascinating history. The closing admin for the CfD discussion pointed out in the most recent edit to that page that in all of wikipedia, there is only one idiosyncratic Wikipedian on Strike. Why is that? Why did that admin chose the word "idiosyncratic" instead of the nobler word "hapax"? Why did someone nominate that category for deletion and prevent it from seeping into article space?

We should call for a general strike! (too bad this board doesn't allow css resizing of black cats on the fly ^^)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

What do the other "free" AI products do? Has anyone studied Siri, Cortana or O.K. Google?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

…

The second is the point about copyright in Wikipedia articles being essentially impossible to defend under US law. (I have expressed my opinion of it elsewhere.) Probably this is true as well in other countries that adhere more closely to the spirit of the Berne Convention. To sue for infringement of the attribution clause of a CC licence would require me to show some kind of financial damage, …

This is certainly not true in Australia, where I live. Besides causing financial damage, infringement of authors' moral rights can also affect their reputations. [...]

A good point -- we have moral right in the UK as well, I had forgotten about those. They also include the right to attribution.

[thekohser]

What do the other "free" AI products do? Has anyone studied Siri, Cortana or O.K. Google?

Both "Okay, Google" requests on mobile phones and on Home Assistant "pods" preface Wikipedia-based answers with, "According to Wikipedia..."

[Poetlister]

Under the vague wording of Wikipedia:NLT (T-H-L) I believe this means we are all banned.
Actually, reading it now, it's a bit more clear than I remember. But that's not funny.

WP:NLT seems to be clear enough. "A complaint in cases of copyright infringement is not a legal threat." This is in the context of others' use of your copyright material on Wikipedia, but we can quote it out of context.

[thekohser]

Holy crap... this is perhaps the most professional and effective thing I've seen any WMF staff member do, in at least a couple of years!

Hello,

I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Foundation.

We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions raised on
this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have an
update.

All the best,
Adele

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Prediction: nothing more will be heard of this from Adele Vrana or anyone else at the WMF ever again.

[tarantino]

Barbara has a humour (?) piece on the signpost now.

[thekohser]

Barbara has a humour (?) piece on the signpost now.

Unfortunately, I didn't laugh out loud even once.

[Vigilant]

Barbara has a humour (?) piece on the signpost now.

Unfortunately, I didn't laugh out loud even once.

Jesup fucking Christ, she's unbearably unfunny.

The female version of the insufferable D&D nerd who imagines themselves witty and constantly interjects their feeble brand of humor into random conversations whenever possible.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Well, I thought it was funny, and anyone who get an article into Wikipedia entitled Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism (T-H-L) has banked a lot of credit. Come on, people, is this how to treat newcomers? Anyone would think you were trying to drive them away.

[Zoloft]

I chuckled. I guess you had to be there (IGYHTBT).

[Bezdomni]

The clowns were fun (I'm betting that might have been Ritchie333, though I could be wrong). Since there isn't a navel-gazing Wikipedia article for "socks all the way down," ending with an HTD metaphor following "turtles all the way down" was kind of cool (unmask those clown turtles!).

Oh wait, the article did continue after that... maybe it could have ended with the apocalypse. Before such events, you're meant to be speechless at the ineffability of the thing, after all. in.effing.effability.

There is quite a bit that looks like it cannot be said in Pravda at the moment. Will it evolve?

[tarantino]

Well, I thought it was funny, and anyone who get an article into Wikipedia entitled Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism (T-H-L) has banked a lot of credit. Come on, people, is this how to treat newcomers? Anyone would think you were trying to drive them away.

My question mark was mostly for the British spelling of humour, but looking at Ritchie's user page, I learned he's from the U.K. and that he and his wife are almost famous musicians.

[Zoloft]

Barbara has a humour (?) piece on the signpost now.

Unfortunately, I didn't laugh out loud even once.

Jesup fucking Christ, she's unbearably unfunny.

The female version of the insufferable D&D nerd who imagines themselves witty and constantly interjects their feeble brand of humor into random conversations whenever possible.

Barbara's humor is more subtext and context. Notes from the inside.

[Vigilant]

Barbara has a humour (?) piece on the signpost now.

Unfortunately, I didn't laugh out loud even once.

Jesup fucking Christ, she's unbearably unfunny.

The female version of the insufferable D&D nerd who imagines themselves witty and constantly interjects their feeble brand of humor into random conversations whenever possible.

Barbara's humor is more subtext and context. Notes from the inside.

We're going to have to disagred here.
The entire screed is unfunny and cliche.

"Talk like a pirate. You WANT this."

She's just missing a fedora.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

You know, sometimes I don't find the jokes here entirely funny either.

[Poetlister]

You know, sometimes I don't find the jokes here entirely funny either.

That's quite OK. Under the site rules, you're not obliged to find any jokes funny other than those from Midsize Jake.

[Midsize Jake]

That's quite OK. Under the site rules, you're not obliged to find any jokes funny other than those from Midsize Jake.

To be fair, we generally avoid the term "obliged" in favor of the more accurate "required under penalty of being forced to read more jokes."

[thekohser]

We seem to have been noticed by a grown-up.

[Kingsindian]

Btw, here is another angle to Alexa taking stuff from Wikipedia.

You might recall that there was lot of drama over the Chelsea/Bradley Manning stuff, with an ArbCom case on the matter. Another area was the Caitlin/Bruce Jenner stuff. In this context: see this video from right-wing Youtube personality Steven Crowder (T-H-L), complaining that "Amazon’s Alexa is a CRAZY SJW LIBERAL!". The video has over a million views.

The hosts initially say something to effect that Siri just points to Wikipedia, while Alexa has a "far-left bias". But they fail to realize that when they ask the Bruce Jenner query, Alexa is simply repeating the lead of the Wikipedia article (without attribution). I also recognized that the question for "Aisha" repeats the lead for the Wikipedia article on Aisha (T-H-L) (complete with a mind-numbing number of transliterations which people like to put in the lead), and the query for "Palestine" goes to this Wikipedia page, which is one of the disambiguation pages.

However, there is some sort of weirdness going on, because the questions for "Jesus Christ" and 'Mohammed" don't match the Wikipedia entries, nor does the question for "gender". Also, the query for "Jerusalem" simply says that it's the capital of Israel, and doesn't repeat the Wikipedia page. I'm guessing that Amazon hard-coded some stuff directly.

[CrowsNest]

However, there is some sort of weirdness going on, because the questions for "Jesus Christ" and 'Mohammed" don't match the Wikipedia entries, nor does the question for "gender". Also, the query for "Jerusalem" simply says that it's the capital of Israel, and doesn't repeat the Wikipedia page. I'm guessing that Amazon hard-coded some stuff directly.

Seems a more likely explanation is that Alexa also takes information from other WMF properties, for example a certain sister project to Wikipedia that has a growing reputation for not dealing well with nuances, like what Jerusalem is the capital of.

[Kingsindian]

That is perhaps true. See also this thread.

[Poetlister]

not dealing well with nuances, like what Jerusalem is the capital of.

Jerusalem is undoubtedly the de facto capital of Israel; it's where their Parliament and main government offices are located. Here's a photo from Encyclopedia Britannica:

What else is it the capital of?

[Zoloft]

not dealing well with nuances, like what Jerusalem is the capital of.

Jerusalem is undoubtedly the de facto capital of Israel; it's where their Parliament and main government offices are located. Here's a photo from Encyclopedia Britannica:

What else is it the capital of?

I think we can safely ignore CrowsNest until his next sock.