 in this session called updating the Open Definition to meet the challenges of today. So exciting to see all of you. And we are so sad that we cannot be there. We are super jealous of people like attending in person day event. Okay, so basically I'm going to explain a little bit what's this session about and what our goals here. And then Kato, one of my partners is going to explain what is the dynamic of the workshop. The workshop, it is about like thinking and the Open Definition in the context of the new times that are arriving. And I'm going to explain a little bit the beginning just to make sure that everyone understand what the Open Definition is. And then I'm going to explain what are the goals of the session. What is the Open Definition? And the Open Definition is a set out principles that define openness in relation to data and content. And it's important to remind this now that it's openness in relation to data and content. One thing is an open door and another thing is an open data. And you should take it that in mind when discussing about like the Open Definition. There is always in relation with data and content. In a summary, right now the Open Definition can be seen, can be explained as open means anyone that can freely access, use, modify and share for purpose, for any purpose. And subject at most to requirements that preserve provenance and openness. This is kind of like how we summarize nowadays the Open Definition. The Open Definition was first published in 2005 by the Open Knowledge Foundation. And it has been maintained under the Visory Council of Experts. And in 2015, version 2.1 has been released. It has been translated to 41 languages. It has reached Wikipedia. And the most important thing is that it has become like the base for open databases licensing. And it has influenced a lot on policymaking, academia and beyond. But since 2015, the conversation about Open have expanded both in geography and complexity. The world in 2015 was completely different to what is now. And there is a new generation of thinkers, academia, activists with an agenda that addresses issues that were not fully disclosed when we first started discussing what Open means. Basically, the world has changed that much. The concepts like data extractivism, digital colonialism, Russian and gender, racial and gender, violences were not, or even climate justices, were not even taken into consideration when we were discussing Open in the beginning. So we think it's time to revisit the definition, having all the things in mind. Also, the other huge thing that happened since 2015 is that there were a lot of emerging new technologies that critically challenged the definition and the concept of Open. Like, for example, intellectual property on medicines to tackle war pandemics. We have, like, after the post-COVID-19 crisis, blockchain technologies has emerged and has widespread, and supposedly they're based on Open principles. And the hot topic today is artificial intelligence, which often bases the learning of its models on Open data. So that triggered a whole discussion on what Open means in terms of artificial intelligence. So that's kind of like the context of this workshop. We have an Open definition. It has worked perfectly in the past. It has created a lot of consensus, but the world has changed. And we need to revisit it, and we need to see what can be upgraded and what can be adapted to face the new challenges today. And with that, I'm going to pass the word to Carol, which is like the partnership leads in the Open Data Foundation, which is going to explain to you what is going to be about the workshop today, how it's going to be the dynamic. Over to you, Carol. Hi, all. Thank you for being here to discuss this important topic with us. We were really happy to be able to participate in Wikimania because we do understand that the Open definition is a topic that is very important for both our communities. And it's the base for everything we do. So right now, what do we want to do? We want to listen and learn from the Wikimedia community, from you guys. What do you think we need to rethink? What is the concept of Open right now? And how can we redefine it for the future, the current and the future generations? How can we generate consensus? We want to understand what are the main points of interest and the points that deserve more attention from the present, the current moments. And we really want to collect suggestions. So this workshop is about listening, is about getting a place for us to discuss about the Open definition in a very open and free way and learn from you. How can we generate more broad and diverse consensus on this topic? Next slide, please, Pato. So what are the examples of what we can discuss here? We can talk about what's missing in the definition, what's incomplete, what needs clarification. We can talk about problematic words or even what should not be changed because at the end of the discussion, we can all agree that this shouldn't be changed, that this is OK as it is. So we talk a lot about Open today in the world. For example, there is Open AI, there's Open Banking, there's Open Relationships, there's lots of Open things. But let's keep the focus on Open data and Open content as Patricio explained at the beginning. So and what's the different meanings of Open for different cultures, right? Because we did the session at the beginning of the year at MostFest, which was online. And that had slightly more European-centered context. And then we facilitated the same session at Wright's Con in Costa Rica in June, where we got to have the perspective from Latin American audiences. And now we want to have the perspective from the Wikimedia community and, of course, the Asian communities that are present in the event. So we want to know how different cultures can be acknowledged by these consensus and how the definition can be useful for everybody in the current times. Next slide. So the first step is to getting familiar. So at the first slide, we had a QR code, but there's a website for the Open definition, the 2.1 version. In the last workshop we held in Costa Rica's participants, they are indicated which were the Open definition topics that most deserve to be revised. And for today's session, we are going to work on that top six hot topics that they define as the most important ones. Of course, we'll have also the opportunity to discuss a topic that's not among the six hot topics defined in Costa Rica because this is a different time place in community. But the complete documentation for this session can be found in the link. We'll share this presentation afterwards so you can access all the links. So let's talk a little bit about what happened there. What happened is that we gave the participants all the topics and asked them to choose the four most important for each person. And then from that, we got the six more chosen ones that were more problematic or that people wanted to discuss the most. And right now what we are going to do is that we are going to break into groups and you guys get to decide which topic is more important for you to discuss today. And then we'll facilitate like we give you another paddling and I'll next slide please so I can explain the fashion dynamics. So right now what we are going to do is that we're going to put on the screen the six topics that were defined in Costa Rica at RightsCon and you guys get to choose one topic to discuss and gather into a group to discuss that topic. The groups can have most six people. I think we don't have a very full room so that's not gonna be a problem. Just choose a topic, choose and gather with people that share the same interests. And the facilitators, Angie from Wikimedia Argentina is there and also the Wikimedia guys are there so they can help you break into groups. And what do we want? We want you to go to the other paddling and of course first discussing but we do need that one person per group to be a note taker. So we can write down like the main outtakes from this discussion. Next slide. So here are the six most discussed topics from the last session, which are machine readability. While machines changed a lot since 2015 and we do feel that we need to talk about it because now there's the machine learning for AI machines are using the open data to train them. So this was a very hot topic there. Application to any purpose, non-discrimination, attribution, source, no charge. And we leave that's not among those six. You get to choose from the open definition and just input your thoughts in the document. Next slide. Just we are going back to that. So that's the after paddling. So it's after paddling media, open definition, Wikimedia. So each group should elect a note taker. And at the end, we're coming back here for you to report back. We have the mic and we can talk about the topics. So we'll leave you 15 minutes for this discussion. Maybe, Patricia, you could go back to the screen with the topics. People just choose a topic. You can choose a topic and gather into groups. So let's start moving in the room and gathering with people that have the same interests. Of course, if you will have the time and there's not much people we can also discuss more than one topic. Another thing is that we have three volunteers with us who want to just listen in. So if you could also maybe join these groups just to listen in and get a feel of things that would be great as well. So if I could request the both of you to join this group I think we have about four people in that, four people here, which makes a decent group and you all can divide yourself amongst the groups. If we could have the etherpad link once again on screen, that would be great. And if I request, do you want to ask who the one is? Sorry, thank you. Also, if you want to go to the Open Definition website it would be opendefinition.org and there you can choose other topics if you want. I think we can move back to the topics because both groups have the etherpads open. Thank you. Yeah, no worries. Let me know anything you need or if we need to explain something. Anyone has any doubt, please let us know. I'm also leaving the mic here if you have any questions for the speakers who are listening in and I'll just leave it in the middle. I just want to say that if there is more than one group per topic please acknowledge that in the etherpad putting group one, two and three as it is. Hi guys, we are already 10 minutes in. I see you are really working it on the etherpad so let's leave five minutes more for discussion and then we come back, okay? Okay, two more minutes before we come back. Okay people, let's resume the conversation in the groups and bring it back to the general audience. As we are not much people in the room we can have the discussion and report back with the microphone. Rashid, maybe you can help us with that group one. Okay, thank you for that. We're gonna move to group one. Who would like to, group one says the conversation just got started, but- Really? Well, I think we can have five more minutes. If you'd like, it's okay because we are not much people. So yeah, let's give you guys five more minutes. No, I think with reference to time we'll move on in a quick, we'll move on with some reporting but of course it's not going to finish as well, all right. Oh, just on a side note we are going to leave the etherpad open until the end of Wikimania so you can keep feeding that afterwards. So for group one we basically have more questions and answers. We have been discussing several issues with possible issues with the open definition in terms of the machine readability criteria. So we have raised questions about whether portability is something that should be included explicitly in the definition and also whether machine readability includes, for example, things that are shared as in a format that is technically machine readable like an image but it's not, for example, accessible to screen readers. So not just machines cannot access the data inside but even people who are using screen readers cannot read the content there. So accessibility, portability, these are topics that we are raising here but we are not really sure that maybe they are covered elsewhere in definition. We are not experts in it and we try to do a quick scan and I'm not sure if I'm missing lots of things like content can be in a platform and it's technically licensed in an open license but if it's not easily ported to some other platform, if it's doable but it's not easily doable, is that something that we should still consider open? So these are the questions that we are raising and perhaps they have easy answers but none of us have them. I think it's pretty good to have more questions than answers right now because that's the kind of discussion we are looking for and I participated on whose knowledge session prior to the Wikimane events and accessibility was a huge topic because yes, today open data serve for that purpose also. So thank you for acknowledging that. Shall we go to the other group? Yes, please. Thank you, Angie. So we actually approached the question of application to any purpose and we discussed three aspects in there. So the first one is like that open may be a problem from the point of view of indigenous groups or indigenous communities. There has been the voicing of fear of inappropriate sharing by third party institutions, for example, heritage institutions that don't have a connection to the communities concerned. There are currently approaches that are pursued in this area, one is like the fair and care principle movement and then there's also an initiative called local contexts. So we believe that we don't need to change to the open definition as such but we need an explanatory note that indigenous communities interests need to be accounted for in the decision making process of releasing content as open content. So that's for the first point and the second point that was kind of put forward in your inputs to spark the discussion. It's about limitations regarding universal maxims or specific preferences of authors that could enter the open definition and respective licenses and we believe that if you don't want to share freely, just don't share it under a free open license and we should not kind of adapt the license to try to cover stuff that is neither free nor open in the definitions that have been accepted so far. And we don't believe that we will solve the issue of armed conflicts or genocide or whatever through respective licensing texts. Then the third point we just started to raise, we didn't have the time to actually discuss it in more detail. This equation should licenses try to resolve the issues arising from monopoly players using the content or the software commercially. So are we trying to introduce some, or do we accept that clauses are introduced in licenses that prevent monopoly players like Amazon or Microsoft to use software or content for their purposes even against the commercial interests of those releasing that software or content. And so far we haven't reached consensus on that but we didn't have proper discussion. Thank you. Thank you so much for your inputs. Actually during the session in Costa Rica, the indigenous topic came out a lot. We had representatives from various communities from Central America there. And not only they wanted to be, to have representation among the council for this decision and this consensus, but they also brought some insights about what open means to their communities, to their culture and it's really, really different from other communities and from what it's acknowledged in the definition. So yeah, this is an important topic that needs to be discussed. Anything else? We do have some time to talk about other topics. I see that you are citing findability also on the etherpad. Does the other group wants to add anything else or anyone from the team? No, just like, of course, like thanks to everyone for like the inputs on the second input of the last group to talk about like the limitations regarding universal maxims. It's also something that happens like a lot in the discussions and sometimes it's difficult to understand in the discussion, okay, what is open and what should be open and maybe they're like completely different discussions but sometimes are like really interconnected between each other because here we are trying sometimes to define, okay, if something is open, what should we understand by open versus that thing should be open. There are like completely different discussions but it's difficult to have one without another sometimes. So yeah, I appreciate that input because it reflects a little bit of the problem we have when discussing it. Any other thoughts here in the groups? More time to discuss. Well, actually we would like to be discussing this a lot with much more time, okay. I'm not sure if how many of these sessions are being held but this is clearly an issue that should be taken into account when we have these discussions. The time was really too short and perhaps even the preparation, at least I came to the session interested in this topic but I didn't do any like homework. So I think it might have been more productive if he had not just a little more time for the discussion but also a bit more guidance before coming into the session. Nice, thank you. Thank you for your input. That's really thoughtful. Maybe using communication channels for sharing the link for the open definition. Yeah, I have. But, okay, the one, sorry. Sorry, yeah, I have a background question probably do we want to make it easier or more difficult to mark something as open? And maybe it depends on who are we talking about. Probably it shouldn't be easy for big corporation to mark something as open. If it's not really open, we were talking about platforms who say, yeah, it's open but it's not really, then it isn't really. It's difficult to download files for something like that. But if we are talking about normal people, maybe we shouldn't be so restrictive about them. We shouldn't restrict their possibility to mark something as open. Even if they, I don't know if, one example I was making is if I write a book and I put an open license on it, CC buy, but I publish it only on paper. So I'm not putting the file online by myself. Can I say it is open? Maybe yes. But of course we don't want big corporation to say, oh, we love open source and then not really being open source. But, and so maybe, and I understand why then on discrimination maybe it can be relevant. So maybe we should discriminate against big corporation but not little people maybe. You are very tall, you are very tall but you are not a big corporation. Sorry. I just want to respond to this. I think there are two questions there that we should not conflate. So one thing is making it easier to mark works as open or not. Another is to make the definition laxer. So those are two separate things. We want to make the definition clearer and make sure that things that are marked as open really are. But at the same time we want to make it easy for those works who are open to become, to be marked as open. So it's kind of an issue of interface versus clarity. I think those are two separate issues and we don't even need to discriminate against any particular users of the open definition. If it's clear enough, that means that whatever works do get marked as open are like open I would say. Maybe I'm rambling a bit. Just very short. I think being able to explain to end users what open means like the first very, very first slide. It means this and this and this. And then having the rules be very complex for big corporations like it actually means that you have to comply to before you can call open. It might be the solution because you have to users can't understand. They just want to know what can I do with it? Everything. Okay, cool. What does that mean? Don't worry, we've dealt with that. Label only means that if you can do that. I also want to add very quickly. The open definition isn't the last universal judge for what is open or not at the end. But it will be followed only if it's not too convoluted. So I think that if you start adding things to the open definition that are unnecessary or too restrictive, then people will just stop. C is following the OKFN open definition and starts using the word as they like. There is no real way to stop this usage. So the key way to do so is to keep the definition clear and feasible to follow. Thank you. So it doesn't really argue against watering down today's open definition. There's really, it's a very important tool. We are using in our everyday work and we cannot water down what we mean by open. I agree with what I think you kind of said is that all these infrastructural service aspects of making it findable, allowing modifications that can be tracked and all this stuff, we don't need to add that as a burden for the initial publisher and the creator. That's really something for intermediaries. We should work towards ensuring that as a community, but I don't really think you should enter the definition as such. Thank you. We are heading to the final moments of this session. Thank you so much for your inputs. I do wish that you also comment everything you said in the mic, in the etherpad, so we can share this afterwards. Please do share the link for the etherpad with your colleagues that were not present at the session. Pato, maybe we should go to the end slide for the presentation. I do feel that you guys are gonna bring this discussion to after the event rings today because there's a lot to talk. I wish we were there to be with you afterwards. As I said at the beginning, and it's important to note that this is not the Open Knowledge Foundation, this is the Open Definition and the Open Knowledge Foundation is facilitating the discussion and conducting the work, but we do not write the Open Definition ourselves. Sara can talk a little bit about our network so we can keep working together and collaborating on this topic and others. Go ahead, Sara. Thanks very much, Carol. So as Carol said, we want to acknowledge the fact that the Open Definition is a much broader piece of work than just the foundation. And so that's why I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the Open Knowledge Network, which is a network that we support and sustain, connecting open activists and advocates across the globe in 40 different countries and counting. We basically bring these people together under a common vision, which is to unlock information, to create and share knowledge in order to produce positive social change locally. And we recently relaunched the Open Knowledge Network with two very interesting projects that might be interesting for you. One is the Project Repository and there's a QR code there, so you can go and have a look. I'll definitely encourage you to scroll through it. It's basically a curated list of all the most prominent projects, open projects that the network is working on and there's a lot of very interesting stuff there that could be inspiring. And you can also add your project if you want in a session below which is about open projects in the broader space. We also curate a list of Open Knowledge Experts that make themselves available for peer open movement activists. You can go and have a look at the list, so the other QR code, the second one. You can see as the Project Repository, this is also filterable via country language, for example, an area of the open where these people are active. And you can basically request the assistance of these people for like mentoring or for like doing a little workshop. This list is curated by the Open Knowledge Network. So we're present in 40 countries, but we're always welcoming new people to come and join us. You don't need any particular skill, just broad interest in the open in general and we would love to work together. So go and have a look at okfn.org slash network to have a look at where we're present. And also like I would encourage you to go and have a look both at the Project Repository to see what the network is doing and at the Global Directory. That being said, thank you very much, all of you. As most of you were asking about keeping on this conversation going and of course there's so much that needs to be added to the session that we have today. We just wanted to let you know that we have a Discuss Forum at discuss.okfn.org and there's an ongoing conversation about the review of the open definition. So I'll definitely encourage you to go and have a look there and contribute with further preparation and all the homework that you can do meanwhile to that discussion. And also there is a website of the open definition. Carol mentioned it and Patricia as well. Go and have a look if you're not familiar with it or just to see it is available in many different languages. It was actually translated by the network. And then we have of course a newsletter, general newsletter for okfn. Definitely encourage you to go and sign up. Very interesting stuff coming up every month about what you're doing at the foundation but also what the broader network is doing in all the phone for the countries I talked to about. And last but not least, keep the conversation going with the hashtag open definition on Twitter, Macedon and LinkedIn. Thank you very much. I know it's late for you today. So thanks again for your generous and fantastic contribution. Again, the e-tapad will be open until the end of week in Manila. So in case you have a genius idea tonight, make sure that you write it down on our e-tapad. Thanks. So it was a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you. Thank you so much. I also want to thank Angie and our partners for being there and helping us. We are kind of avatars in the screen but we count on you guys to keep the conversation going during the event. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you, our speakers. And thank you to the Open Knowledge Foundation, Carol, Sara, Pratisio and Nikesh for joining us. And thanks everyone for staying with us and for a great discussion. If we could just add the links to the slides on the e-tapad because most of the folks in the room have that link, that would be great so that they could access the barcodes and the other information that you shared. And as they said, the e-tapad will be open until the end of Wikimania for any conversations. You could leave your contact details there if you want any further discussions. Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us and we'll see you tomorrow. Thank you to the speakers. Thank you for joining us at very odd hours and very early in the morning. So whenever we meet next, the coffee's on us. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Enjoy the rest of the Wikimedia. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.