Checklist

Shouldn't the story about the new AI training license deals be a lead blurb, instead of being an "In brief" item? It was kind of a highly-anticipated decision, given previous reports, so I think we should switch it with the ChatGPT blurb, or even the Baby Globe one (unpopular opinion, I know, but still). Oltrepier (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be able to work on it myself, though: my exam will be on Wednesday, and I'm scrambling to double-check (even triple-check) all of my notes... Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, here are two different reports on the 25th anniversary from Italian newspaper Il Post and Avvenire, if you want to include some "international feedback"... for what it's worth. : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This announcement of new customers of the Enterprise API service was incorrectly characterised in some media reports as a "licensing" deal. This has subsequently been corrected in many (e.g. Ars Technica now adds this comment at the bottom:

This article was updated on January 16, 2026 to correct the implication that these deals involve licensing Wikipedia’s content, which remains freely available; the companies are paying for enterprise-grade API access.

A discussion of the announcement (and the misrepresentation in some media) is available on the relevant metawiki talkpage. The key points are that a) Wikimedia content was already licensed in a way that permitted AI usage, and they all already were doing so. And b) Providing them with a 'high-speed' and structured-data feed of Wikipedia is more likely to be able to attribute consistently AND means these companies can pay for their own heavy infrastructure usage, rather than donor's-money having to be used to subsidise their business model.

I've also compiled there a list of links to some of the main news outlets where the story is reported. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LWyatt (WMF) Thanks for the heads-up! Oltrepier (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Hello! Sorry for the wait, but I've just published my blurb on the public domain controversy in Italy: I might add a couple more details if I have time, but consider it done and ready to be reviewed... because surely it needs that. : D

I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on the general Public Domain review, but maybe @SnowFire could take care of that, if he can (and wants to). Feel free to recycle the structure of my own article from last year, which should serve the task well! Oltrepier (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might manage to help you guys over at ITM, as well, but I'm quite in a hurry for my exam and anxiety is kicking in a bit, so I'll see what I can do. Oltrepier (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look if you can't do it this year. SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire Thanks, it would be amazing! I've left a slot for a dedicated blurb over here, so go for it. Oltrepier (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I am not understanding the potential impact of the change. I have not clicked through to read all the commentary though. Are you able to summarize in one line at the beginning what the impact could be? I think your piece is saying that simple portraits are non-creative and therefore public right now, but in the future this could change. Is this really so? Is there an example category of works in Commons which are now under 20 year copyright, but which are examples of works which going forward could change to 70 year copyright? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Thank you for flagging it: I didn't really know how to open the article, and ended up with an extremely vague introduction... I've updated it a few hours ago, while also editing another paragraph in order to clarify the slight, but significant changes made to the Italian copyright law. I've also retrieved and added a link to a related discussion on Commons' Village pump, which should help you understand the context and the details better. Oltrepier (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly finished up on my side. @Oltrepier and Bri: Do we think we're ready to mark this as "ready for copyedit"? I put in a blurb and title but others should feel free to mix it up. (I could expand with another paragraph of PD arrivals, but eh, I figure the linked articles already do a solid job of that.) SnowFire (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look just now amd seems to me it is flowing well. Please mark ready for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

@Igordebraga: I think there are two editions of TOP25 we can pick up for this issue. I may copy it in myself, or you can if it's fairly soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually planning to use the 2025 Annual Report that wasn't finished in time for 2026's first edition. When I get home I paste what's done (48/50). igordebraga ≠ 21:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could mark this "copyedit complete" but want to give it one more look. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]