On 24 September 2010 17:42, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 24/09/2010 14:40, David Gerard wrote:
The two things that occur to me, based on discussion with a curator
after one of the British Museum bashes:
1. Get informed about the internal debate in museums, which may even be
three-cornered (warehouse for objects with a few extreme-academic types
treating it as research institute versus 19th century classical view as
haunt of culture-vultures versus 21st century "young turk"
what's-not-online-yet-is-in-danger-of-gangrene). We need to understand
this and get in the "young turk" corner: go public-facing or you die.
I'm not sure we can. We will be seen as outsiders and in any case
don't have many boots in the ground (In terms of active wikipedians in
the UK we are probably smaller than the larger local history
societies). What we can do is provide a way for people to put stuff
online and have stuff done with it.
2. Get the lawyers to find something splitting the
difference between
CC-by-NC and CC-by-SA. The British Museum and other major institutions
can live with non-commercial use of their stuff. We cannot. CC is
therefore still too crude.
Such licenses exist (crown copyright would technically qualify). We
can't use them and then tend to be legally messy. In practice when
dealing with 3D collections we can generally produce pretty good
results ourselves. Admittedly this takes time but the quality at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_World_in_100_Objects
is improving.
--
geni