Wikidata:Property proposal/rights statement

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RightsStatement status[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Motivation[edit] is an international effort among major cultural heritage institutions to create a global standard for rights statements for works. It has already been implemented by major repositories such as Europeana and DPLA, and many others. Adding this property will allow us to add the correct rights statement to a work's Wikidata item when the authoritative source (e.g. owning institution's catalog record) has already tagged it as such. Many works which have rights statements have already been added to Wikiedata, especially through Sum of All Paintings. This shouldn't be used for Wikidata editors to add statements to works that have not already been marked by their repositories, in my opinion. For marking copyright status or licensing, we already have copyright license (P275) and copyright status (P6216), but this is a distinct, if overlapping, concept. Dominic (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  •  Support I was worried this would be a string property, I'm glad to see there's a standard and we can use item datatype. Presumably in other jurisdictions there may be additional rights statements that could apply? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • These are intended to cover a wide array of possible situations, but aren’t really exhaustive. If there is a situation that does not fit these defined statements, then the institution would need to use a note field to add a qualification, or use a non-standard rights statement. (Many institutions not yet in compliance with the standard do this for all rights statements.) I’m not sure how we would approach non-standard rights statements, but I’d see that as a different property from this, which should contain only the statements. Dominic (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose This can't handle situations where a work is copyrighted in some regions but out of copyright in others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @EncycloPetey: I think you’re confused about the intention here. This is not about modeling all possible copyright situations on Wikidata. It’s about being able to add a particular system of standardized rights statements in use by cultural heritage organizations to mark their own works. Dominic (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Still oppose. This is incompatible with the other rights statements efforts currently under development, such as copyright status (P6216). If this set of statement is to be limited to a specific set of items, then how will that limitation be enforced? What prevents someone from mistakenly labeling a book, film, album, or other work with one of these statements? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • EncycloPetey The “copyright status” property is about us trying to capture and structure all the information we can about the work, and it’s an excellent property I’m looking forward to using more widely. However this is separate and not-conflicting with the possibility of a property for RightsStatement. The RightsStatement framework is a series of clear, fixed, machine readable statements [not licenses!] that a cultural institution can place on their digital objects to make it clear what kind of re-use is allowed. Even if wikimedians might sometimes disagree with the legal interpretation of what the cultural organisation might be stating (e.g. if we say something’s PD and they say that it’s in-copyright) it’s still useful and machine readable information that we can capture and represent. It is not a conflicting method of how wikidata can model rights information - it’s a system of structured data statements that GLAMs are increasingly using to express their institutional policy. Wittylama (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • If this property is separate from "copyright status", then why is every example value for this property a statement concerning copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • the options provided by definitely are about in-or-out of copyright - and also related concepts like 'orphan' works, 'unknown' and even contractual restrictions that the GLAM might have made (e.g. non-commercial use contract because of a license with the private digitisation company e.g. googlebooks). None of these latter things are not things Wikidata would mode in the "copyright status" property (which refers to the original work) - they are things which the institution is stating about their digital versions of those works. As Wikimedians we might disagree with contractual restrictions of digital works added 'on top' of PD original works, but it is nevertheless good for us to be able to note that "this is what the institution declares". Moreover, some of these Statements are machine-readable versions of things which are very-often marked in GLAM databases in various unstructured free-text phrases (e.g. "unknown" or "orphan work"). This 'negative' statement is quite useful for them to declare and for us to capture - but definitively different from the "copyright status" property. Wittylama (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support David (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For now  Oppose because I think the proposal is incorrect. From their page: " currently provides 12 different rights statements that can be used by cultural heritage institutions to communicate the copyright and re-use status of digital objects to the public.". Digital objects are the jpegs and tiff's on their website. The example entities used here represent the actual work. User:Dominic, I think you should have File:Aneta Hodina, Portrait of Mrs. Georgieva Stefanka.jpg as an example instead of Portrait of Mrs. Stefka Georgieva Otmarova (Q22953670). What do you think? Multichill (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment This is an important proposal and I’m hoping to see the RS system able to be represented here. However, @Multichill:’s comment is a valid one... Because R.S. applies to the ‘’digital object’’ that the GLAM is sharing (not the original/underlying creative work) it is rarely applicable to wikidata items about these creative works. I can’t imagine we would ever have many wikidata items specifically about individual “notable” digital representations of creative works. The corollary, though, is that a RS statement WOULD be a useful thing to include in the Wikibase thst will be on Structured Data on Commons - because THAT WILL be referring to individual digital objects (jpegs, tiffs etc). I don’t understand enough about how SDoC will operate to be able to say in which way this will happen. Perhaps @SandraF (WMF): can comment on that. Also I’m pinging @Hannolans: who first created the items for these RightsStatements, and I’m sending a link to this discussion to my Europeana colleagues (as mentioned in the proposal Europeana is a partner of the RS consortium - keen to work closely with wikidata) for their comments on this issue and proposal in general. Wittylama (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I renanmed the property into "RightsStatement status" to make it more clear that it refers to the RightStatement authority. ChristianKl❫ 17:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Based on some of the commentary, perhaps GLAM digital Rights Statement status would be more explicit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I disagree... “GLAM” is just a cute acronym that we use a lot in Wikimedia, it does not have a formal meaning/scope in the cultural sector. Also, an more importantly, Rights Statement is a proper noun - meaning that it is more like an external identifier than a flexible WD Property with many diverse constraints etc. See I think your proposed new name makes it sound more synonymous/intrchangable with the recently created “Copyright status” property which would be confusing. Wittylama (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Our data is rife with Wikimedia jargon, so the fact that something is jargon is not reason in itself not to use it. Rights Statements is not a proper noun: this is clear from the way the term is used on " currently provides 12 different rights statements that can be used by cultural heritage institutions. . ." The term "rights statements" is here qualified with a numerical quantifier and an adjective, which indicates the term is a common noun, not a proper one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Interesting. I was not aware that those statements relates to the digital representations. The page of right statements also says that it describes 'works'. Confusing: "The rights statements fall in three categories: Statements for works that are in copyright, statements for works that are not in copyright and statements for works where the copyright status is unclear.". So, the main categories relate to the underlying original works of arts that are represented in the digital objects and the subcategories relate to the digital objects.... It would mean we could use the three main categories to the artworks, and the underlying subcategories to the files? --Hannolans (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Hi everyone, @Wittylama: pinged me and I'm going to contact the Technical Working Group at so that we can (hopefully) bring some answers... Antoine_Isaac (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Although I would call it " statement" to make it more clear that this property is for storing values assigned by external institutions. --Jarekt (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That sounds like a more sensible title to me. It's more clear that this is something that the external org says, not something that we 'model' ourselves. Wittylama (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Dominic, Wittylama: I would go further, and label it "RightsStatements status according to source website", to make it quite clear that this is not an assessment we have made ourselves, and indeed may be an assessment with which we do not agree.
A further question is, what if the source website does not have one of the RightsStatements marks, but instead text from which a RightsStatements status could be clearly inferred. Are we agreed that this property should not be added unless there is explicitly an RS mark on the page? Is this something that a bot could feasibly be programmed to confirm?
Also if the source item is given eg a PD mark, or a CC0 mark, can we confirm this property is not appropriate to convey those, even though RS sometimes see those marks as part of the RS "extended family" ? On the other hand, if a source institution is making statements with those marks, is that something that we should be tracking with some statement?
(Side note: some institutions sometimes add a CC0 mark, even if they may not believe they have any rights to waive, just in case in some jurisdiction under some legal scheme they might have rights.) Jheald (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As an answer for the first question: this is a quote from the homepage: "The rights statements have been specifically developed for the needs of cultural heritage institutions and online cultural heritage aggregation platforms and are not intended to be used by individuals to license their own creations. (If you are looking for a tool to license your own works you should consider using one of the Creative Commons licenses)." Therefore, I would say that no one should be declaring, removing, or changing RS labels other than the cultural institution which has the item in their collection. For the second question: There is no RS statement for "PD" nor for any of the CC licenses (including the CC0 mark) - and therefore you are correct to say that this property is not appropriate to convey those. There are only 12 applicable options for this property (those listed above). See also, at the bottom of the "documentation" page: "Our rights statements have been developed to be used alongside the Licenses and Public Domain Tools provided by Creative Commons. Our rights statements can be applied in situations where the Creative Commons tools and licenses cannot be used. Works that are known to be free from copyright and related works across the globe should be labelled with the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark. Works that for which the institution publishing the work is the sole rights holder and intends to make them available for re-use should be labelled with one of the six Creative Commons licenses or with the CC0 Public Domain dedication." Wittylama (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also agree with Multichill that this property might be more useful to specific digital representations of the artwork, like specific file instead of artwork item, so maybe it should be Commons-only property. If it become Commons-only property, than only files with few of the values would be allowed, due to Commons policies. It looks to me that in case of some statements the copyright status of the artwork and it's digital representation is clear, while for others is not, so I compiled the table below, with my interpretation of each value:
item relates to artwork relates to digital representation digital representation comply with Commons policies?
In Copyright - EU Orphan Work (Q47530688) copyrighted no information no
In Copyright (Q47530729) unclear if it is the artwork or the digital representation that is copyrighted, or both no (without additional information)
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted (Q47530757) unclear if it is the artwork or the digital representation that is copyrighted, or both, but we know parent institution is the copyright holder no (without additional information)
In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted (Q47530780) unclear if it is the artwork or the digital representation that is copyrighted, or both, but we know parent institution is the copyright holder no (without additional information)
In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable (Q47530802) copyrighted unclear no
No Copyright - Contractual Restrictions (Q47530853) no copyrights no copyrights, but other restrictions apply yes (with caution)
No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only (Q47530884) no copyrights copyrighted no, but might be OK for 2D works
No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions (Q47530902) no copyrights no copyrights, but other legal restrictions apply yes, if other legal restrictions are also compatible with Commons policies
No Copyright - United States (Q47530911) no copyrights in US no copyrights in US yes, if also not copyrights in the country of origin
No Known Copyright (Q47530955) presumed public domain no copyrights yes (with caution)

--Jarekt (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[note: I've moved a table that Antoine_Isaac created here to the [current] bottom of this conversation to facilitate chronological reading (even though it was in response to this table by Jarekt.) Wittylama (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC) ]Reply[reply]

  • Regarding a couple of the issues brought up here, especially about what specific types of items to apply this property to, Antoine indicated above that reps will consult to provide some clarification soon. I think we should hold off on characterizing this property too much until we have the most informed opinion. It does seem like there is a lot of support for the concept, but we certainly want to make sure we are representing it correctly. Dominic (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question What happens if the RightsStatement indication on the source GLAM webpage is one with which we do not agree? -- e.g. claims of copyright by the institution for simple scans of works that are copyright-expired (yes, I am looking at you here, CANMORE). Qualifier nature of statement (P5102) = copyfraud (Q683251) ? Jheald (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As you've indicated in your earlier suggestion (re. "status according to source website") I agree that it should be made clear that this is the *institutions' own declaration* and not something that Wikimedia either confirms, approves of, or, disagrees with. The R.S. system is a way for the institutions to declare their perspective - which in some cases might align with wikimedia's ideological positions and legal framework, and in some cases might not. It would be important in the Property's useage guidelines, in my opinion, to emphasise that a mandatory part of using this Property is to add a reference to the URL where the RS label has been applied to that specific work by that specific institution. As for marking that someone disagrees with a statement (e.g. your example of a copyrfraud qualifier statement!) I don't think that would be appropriate for this Property. It would be more appropriate for the 'copyright status' property, qualified with "statement supported by" or "statement disputed by" and then with references to cite/prove that disagreement. It is not appropriate, in my opinion, for us to add a "we disagree with what you state" statement on a property whose scope is merely to represent what the GLAM has stated. Wittylama (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Wittylama: I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think I agree. Where a statement gives what we believe to be incorrect or misleading information, IMO it is very important to indicate that, so as not to confuse or mislead our readers. Generally if the information given by a source is outdated or incorrect, we do that by giving the statement a rank of deprecated, with qualifier reason for deprecated rank (P2241) = error in referenced source or sources (Q29998666). Amongst other things this avoids the incorrect statement being returned in the simplest types of queries. Here I think that is not appropriate, because (as you say) the statement would nevertheless be an accurate record of the RightsStatement appearing on the source website. But if we think the statement is incorrect or misleading, I think we have a duty to make that very clear to our readers so that they are not mislead, if we still repeat it; a nature of statement (P5102) qualifier may be the neatest way to do this. copyfraud (Q683251) may be rather a strong value, and perhaps something more diplomatic like error in referenced source or sources (Q29998666) might be preferable. But then again in some cases perhaps not. Sometimes the mislabelling of rights is so egregious and so systematic and so entrenched that perhaps it deserves to be called out for what it is. Jheald (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Jheald: I think this really needs to be a broader conversation about how we represent data from "authoritative" sources. Any number of data fields in collections databases, authority files, or other types of third-party sources can be determined to be inaccurate—or improved in some way, such as with increased specificity. For example, consider a case where a museum's catalog misidentifies the figure depicted in a photograph or the date of a painting's production. I think these are similar cases, and apply to rights statements as well. We need a way to allow Wikidatans to make necessary edits or additions to items while still preserving the integrity of the original metadata from the authority on the subject, which should be marked as such somehow, so it is not simply overwritten by subsequent editors. Dominic (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @Dominic: As I set out above, such a mechanism is already in place and established. If a depicts (P180) value from an authoritative source is not correct, it should not be deleted. Instead it ought to be given 'deprecated' rank, with qualifier reason for deprecated rank (P2241) = error in referenced source or sources (Q29998666). Here are some examples (for various properties) where exactly that has been done: Other reasons for deprecation are also available, see for current uses. Here there is a slight difference, because the proposed property asserts that it is about what the external website says, rather than about what is actually true.
(Added) In the case where the value from a source is correct but less specific than some better more precise value, then the original statement can be left at normal rank, with the more precise value given "preferred" rank. Jheald (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original work or digital representation[edit]
  •  Comment Inspired by our discussion here, The team have now published a blogpost DO THE RIGHTS STATEMENTS APPLY TO WORKS, DIGITAL REPRESENTATIONS OF WORKS OR BOTH?. I strongly recommend that anyone following this Property proposal read it in full and then comment below with your thoughts on how Wikidata should account for this. I am thankful to the that they have reacted quickly to our discussion and are trying to respond with details (and at this time of year with many people on holidays). They also conclude stating, “In the new year we will publish a follow up post that will dive deeper into the technical details of how our statements can be applied to the different layers discussed in this post.” Wittylama (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It seems clear at least some of the statements are useful both applied to the original work and to digital representations. Is there any reason to wait further before creating this property? Details of use can be hashed out on its talk page, but the need seems clear. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As an employee of Europeana - one of the founding members and implementer organisations of statements I will not be !voteing on this proposal even though I have a desire to see it implemented here in general. However, I would have thought that fundamental questions of “how will this property be used?” are important to be confirmed and agreed upon at the ‘proposal’ stage, not retroactively. Wittylama (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that on Wikidata the we have items for original works, so only the subset of rights statement that applies to original works will be relevant, unless used as a qualifier to Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765). On the other hand on Commons (once structured data is up and running) it will be usefull for describing specific digital representations. --Jarekt (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following a discussion at and the publishing of a blog to clarify the situation, and on suggestion by SandraF (WMF), I've tried to make an updated version of Jarekt's table, leaving out the Commons aspect. I hope it helps.
item relates to artwork relates to digital representation
In Copyright (Q47530729) copyrighted
In Copyright - EU Orphan Work (Q47530688) copyrighted but EU Orphan
In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable (Q47530802) copyrighted
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted (Q47530757) copyrighted (but statement shouldn't be used on original work) copyrighted and educational use permitted
In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted (Q47530780) copyrighted (but statement shouldn't be used on original work) copyrighted and non-commercial use permitted
No Copyright - United States (Q47530911) no copyrights in US for both
No Copyright - Contractual Restrictions (Q47530853) out of copyright (but statement shouldn't be used on original work) other restrictions apply
No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only (Q47530884) out of copyright (but statement shouldn't be used on original work) non-commercial use only allowed
No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions (Q47530902) out of copyright (but statement shouldn't be used on original work) other legal restrictions apply
Copyright Not Evaluated (Q47530926) copyright not evaluated
Copyright Undetermined (Q47530946) copyright undetermined
No Known Copyright (Q47530955) no known copyright

Antoine_Isaac (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here's my attempt at making a table - specifically for how Wikimedia would be able to apply the RS property in Wikidata and/or [structured data on] Commons. To note specifically:
- as I've said above, these RS statements are for recording when that the GLAM itself describes their own works - this is not a Property which Wikidatans can use to structure our own copyright-assessment of a work. We have copyright status (P6216) (and all its qualifiers) for that.
- Consequently, when I've listed that the RS is/isn't applicable for Commons, that does not override our community's own policies on assessing whether something is PublicDomain or 'free'. This difference between the institution's own assessment and any potential disagreement with Wikimedia Commons' policies is acknowledged with the "" in the final column. Wikidata, by contrast, is able to have items about artworks regardless of their actual copyright status, so it can accept any of the statements which apply to the original work.

All that said, Is this table accurate??

item relates to original artwork,

or digital representation

Applicable to Commons File,

or Wikidata Item

In Copyright (Q47530729) Original
In Copyright - EU Orphan Work (Q47530688) Original
In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable (Q47530802) Original
No Copyright - United States (Q47530911) Original +
No Known Copyright (Q47530955) Original +
Copyright Not Evaluated (Q47530926) Original +
Copyright Undetermined (Q47530946) Original +
No Copyright - Contractual Restrictions (Q47530853) Reproduction
No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only (Q47530884) Reproduction
No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions (Q47530902) Reproduction
In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted (Q47530780) Reproduction
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted (Q47530757) Reproduction

-- Wittylama (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wittylama, I think that is about right. One concern is that many institutions might be as confused about those statements as we were, so I would not trust their ability to add for example In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted (Q47530757) only to items where the original work is still copyrighted. I think it would be likely to find it on copyrighted photograph of PD item. So all of them might be useful on Wikidata and Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multichill, you were the main voice of opposition (for now) to this property. Could you look at this again and see if your concerns were answered? --Jarekt (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was just until it was cleared up. That seems to have happened now. Let's see how this works out. Multichill (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Jarekt, Dominic, ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Multichill: @Wittylama, Hannolans, EncycloPetey, Isaacantoine, Jheald: ✓ Done: statement according to source website (P6426). − Pintoch (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Great to see that there's been progress! Wittylama, sorry I had not seen your table before the last ping. I am not sure I understand it. For example for the first line, are you saying that 'in copyright' is not applicable to the Commons file? Our blog post and my table state that this statement can indicate the status of the digital representation (thus of a file on Commons) so I'm a bit confused.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isaacantoine (talk • contribs).
    • Ciao Isaacantoine - My table is an attempt to take the explanation of the RS labels - as described in the blogpost and your table - and apply that to the practices on Wikimedia projects. So, using the example of the RS Label In Copyright (Q47530729): Commons' only cares about digital-objects and its policy is not have ANY files which are In-Copyright (even that which could be considered Fair Use). Meanwhile, Wikidata only cares about the original object but its policy allows items about ANY artwork regardless of copyright status. Therefore, as I understand it, Wikidata can have Items which use the In Copyright (Q47530729) tag, but it would never be applicable to Commons Files. Does this make sense, is this a fair assessment? Wittylama (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • hey Wittylama ok this is clearer now. I guess it is the terminology that confused me. To me, a lot of statements like NoC-CR "relate" to the original work as well as the digital representation, even if they shall not be used in metadata to describe the rights of the original artwork. And statements like IC "relate" both to original artwork and digital representation (in my table the cell on that row spans over two columns). Even though, yes, indeed by virtue of Commons' rules, there should never be a representation with that statements loaded in Commons. I guess the same sort of terminology issue made it harder to understand the "applicable" in your second column. though here maybe I was mislead by anticipating the results of the SDoC project, i.e. when there could be items in Wikidata representing files in Commons. When this happens then there could be more Wikidata icons in the table, couldn't it? This being said, it looks like your table is fine, but I guess I should pass it to our group for double checking. But before this, maybe my remarks would trigger you to make some adaptation to your wording? It may make a difference for the communication, so I'm going to wait for your answer.Antoine_Isaac (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Ciao Antoine. How SDoC at its full extent will actually work in practice is not yet fully defined - or so I believe. Best ask user:SandraF (WMF) that. While there's no cases when Commons would begin accepting content which is copyrighted, AND Commons will simply ignore any claim to copyright in digitised version of a PD painting, it MIGHT be possible in the future that Commons could implement a template that says the equivalent of 'We believe this is PD but the institution that owns the original object thinks that their scan is Copyrighted, here's the tag that they published it with even though we disagree. Feel free to make your own legal determination'. That would be more of a community policy question than a legal one. Wittylama (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Hi Wittylama no need to bother user:SandraF (WMF), my point was just that my anticipation of SDoC biased my understanding of the second column. But now I'm clear about the current intention. This said my question on possible change of wording, based on my other remarks, stands. Waiting for you before pinging the group! Antoine_Isaac (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]