Shameless self-promo, but hope to trigger your interest
for the online event tomorrow: #OpenMICwithPixelACHE
- research consultation on open archiving practices
--ON EVENT--
This event is the first open and public recording session
in the form of a consultancy for a research+reflection project
on the long parallel histories -20 years- of
Wikimedia, Creative Commons, and Pixelache Helsinki Festival
as a transdisciplinary platform. It is hosted by a network of
Pixelache members and Wikimedians for Vorspiel.Berlin guests.
At times the ambitions of Open Cultures, Codes and Knowledge,
with Wikimedia and the culture of Sharing and Remix have
overlapped with media arts festivals like Pixelache,
which has promoted open culture, and Wiki methodologies
in its early years. However, since then there has been much
pragmatism as (not)social (but)algorithmic media and online
platforms have abducted, obfuscated, and taken over media
festivals in the past decades, in the way that knowledge
was accumulated and has been shared.
How do we reconcile and learn from tensions, each others'
movements and hybrid practices?
This first gathering is an open mic session, inviting
open culture and digital arts professionals and enthusiasts
to join us in a semi structured conversation for cca 60 minutes.
Participating in discussion:
Florence Devouard (User:Anthere)
Željko Blaće (User:Zblace)
Rebecca O'Neill (User:Smirkybec)
Andrew Gryf Paterson
Sumugan Sivanesan
Other participants in project:
Toni Sant (User:ToniSant)
Yupik (User:Yupik)
WELCOME!
Saturday 5th of February, 2022.
@ 15:30 UTC / 16.30 CET / 17.30 EET
Online Zoom Link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82363805313?pwd=eG5DamdoaTB3SGNNWWNaZXpNTjRoUT09#…
Event on Facebook: https://fb.me/e/2aUVnvpGR
--ON PROJECT--
Pixelache Wikimedians-in-residence: This project will prototype
the combination podcast production, research and reflection residency
which focus on Wikimedia and cultural organisational practices,
including archiving.
It will discuss and reflect upon the long parallel history -20 years- of
Pixelache Helsinki Festival and transdisciplinary platform,
which has promoted open culture, and Wikimedia methodologies.
Where have these overlapped, gone hand-in-hand and then diverged.
We wish to reconcile ambitions with both the Wikimedia and
Creative Commons anniversaries.
#OpenMICwithPixelACHE - research consultation on open archiving
practices is part of the Pixelache Helsinki 20th anniversary programme.
As part of the festivities and deeper interrogations in Pixelache Helsinki's
20-year history, we plan to produce 3 discursive podcasts this year,
to be presented at the end of 2022.
The event is brought to you in partnership with Vorspiel Berlin
of CTM & Transmediale festivals with the support of
the Wikimedia Foundation.
http://pixelache.ac/projects/wikimedians-in-residence
--ON HOSTS--
About Pixelache Helsinki: Pixelache is an association of artists,
cultural producers, thinkers and activists involved in the creation of
emerging cultural activities. Amongst our fields of interest are:
experimental interaction and electronics, code-based art and culture,
grassroot organising & networks, renewable energy production/use,
participatory art, open-source cultures, bioarts and art-science
culture, alternative economy cultures, politics and economics of
media/technology, audiovisual culture, media literacy & ecology and
engaging environmental issues.
Pixelache Helsinki is funded by: Arts Promotion Centre Finland (TAIKE)
and Helsinki City - Culture and Leisure Department.
http://www.pixelache.ac
Vorspiel 2022: transmediale and CTM's Vorspiel is a program of
distributed partner events in the field of digital art and culture and
experimental sound and music, where a variety of partner venues invite
local and international audiences to a series of exhibition openings,
performances, interventions, artist talks and special events across the
city of Berlin.
The Vorspiel program was established in 2011, then called DAS Weekend.
In each of the past ten editions, over 60 project spaces, galleries and
independent cultural actors have curated and organized a rich program of
exhibitions, workshops and performances. Vorspiel is meant to be a
program for the city of Berlin, connecting different genres and
practices for creating opportunities of common exchange and reflection
and for bringing together communities and individuals which are dealing
with art, technology, politics and identity in a critical way, while
also seeking to strengthen the dialog with the two festivals. To create
this link, the Vorspiel program will take place before both festivals
this year starting from 21 January 2022.
http://vorspiel.berlin
For more INFO please email co-organisers of the event:
Željko Blaće, zblace(a)mi2.hr and
Andrew Gryf Paterson, andrew(a)pixelache.ac
Thank you for engaging with this topic in public and doing the translation
and sharing here (adding open-glam list).
Aside from being a nice Sunday read I think this is a super useful case
study for people working in the cultural sector and advocacy for open. Was
this published elsewhere in English?
I would love for us to have a better platform to comment and discuss
individual aspects of both articles (Discourse as WM Spaces would be good -
no?), but anyway few inline comments below.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 PM Christian Humborg <
christian.humborg(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we had articles in Germany published connecting the activities of
> Wikimedia Enterprise with our licensing advocacy. Please find below the
> article of a filmmaker, published last week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
> Zeitung, one of the large German newspapers.
>
I see the article did not get a huge amount of comments and in that way it
failed to attract much attention or there were echoes elsewhere?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzia…
> Below you find our response, published this week in the Frankfurter
> Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for further debates.
>
One needs to register (or even pay?) to get to this article? I wonder what
was the quality and quantity of responses here?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen…
> Kind regards
> Christian
>
> *******************************************
>
> *Wikimedia perverts the common good*
> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzia…>
>
>
> *Wikimedia plans to commercialize its content. At the same time, the
> organization is lobbying hard to get its hands on high-quality free content
> from public broadcasters. This is ruining the filmmakers*.
>
>
> The Wikipedia information platform has so far been financed by donations
> from Silicon Valley tech giants, among others. These include primarily the
> market-dominating Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, Apple et
> cetera, all of which earn money through traffic with content from
> Wikipedia. In specialist circles, these donations are regarded as a
> reciprocal business: Donors and Wikipedia profit from each other.
>
This is crude simplification...
It would have been great for this to be responded to with some counter
arguments or maybe it is still possible by WMF directly?
> Wikimedia is the operating organization behind Wikipedia, but it has long
> been looking for a stable business model to finance itself. In the spring
> of 2021, Wikimedia finally announced that it would build a corporate
> interface that would simplify the automated use of Wikipedia content and
> for which commercial companies would pay. In other words: money is to be
> made with the content on Wikipedia. For example, with services such as the
> voice assistants Siri
> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/thema/siri> or Alexa, which
> access content via Wikipedia. The donation business based on reciprocity,
> as described above, would thus be transformed into a proper business
> relationship. The name for it: Wikimedia Enterprise API.
>
I feel this is something WMF should also respond to with clarification, at
least to the author and his society if not in FAZ, than on wikimedia.org.
For this business to be profitable in the long term, Wikimedia must ensure
> the comprehensive supply of information on Wikipedia, but also enhance it
> for the social networks
> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/thema/soziale-netzwerke> with
> high-quality images and films. Expanded offerings increase demand. And in
> order to secure the capital-rich clientele in the long term - according to
> the law of Internet capitalism - Wikipedia could also become the dominant
> platform in the education sector for images and films that can be accessed
> as free as possible.
>
This also posed some interesting questions for Wikimedians to discuss with
so many failures in making Wikipedia media rich. Wikipedia copy-cat
websites are in abundance (can it get worse?) and on the other hand there
is next to zero effort (and resources allocated) to have position and
relations formulated towards non-corporate social networks (not even when
it is easy!).
> Contempt for the state and collectivism
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland's intensive lobbying campaign for so-called "free
> licenses", which has been ongoing for several years, should also be
> understood in this context. Public films, especially documentaries, are to
> be offered free of charge on Wikipedia via CC licensing (Creative Commons
> licenses). Many know this campaign under the formula "Public money = Public
> good". A vulgarization of the idea of the common good that devalues the
> legal status of goods whose production takes place through state
> redistribution or in publicly supported economic segments such as the film
> and television industry. The claim is an expression of a typical
> contemporary amalgamation of libertarian contempt for the state and
> collectivist ideals, which in this case hides quite shamelessly behind
> rhetoric about the common good and flickering fantasies of the "free
> Internet”.
>
CreativeCommons needs to address (with Wikimedians) some of these concerns
much better and with more agility in next years as the set of licensing
options is still narrow and totally content and context 'ignorant'. In that
respect some of these concerns are at least partially valid.
> In recent years, Wikimedia's lobbying activities around the reform of
> European copyright law have resulted in striking rejection from German
> production and copyright associations. With the public broadcasters, on the
> other hand, they have been somewhat successful: At the intensive
> instigation of Wikimedia, there have been pilot tests with CC-licensed
> clips from productions of the "Terra X" documentary series (ZDF) in the
> last two years. And indeed, CC clauses are increasingly found in the fine
> print of individual Terra X production contracts. This is the result of
> so-called "round tables" at which, it should be noted, no representation of
> the German producer community was present. Wikimedia, at any rate, is
> celebrating its statistics today; the Terra-X clips are generating
> respectable user numbers on the Wikipedia page.
>
It would be great to have links for all this... I was not aware of Terra X
- sounds great as reference for other locals to advocate with public
broadcasters.
> The German film and television industry and all those creatively involved
> are now rubbing their eyes in the face of how this rose-tinted deception is
> catching on, not only among broadcaster executives but also in media policy
> circles. They have all failed to ask the obvious question: Why does
> Wikimedia need CC-licensed public service content at all? Wikimedia could
> also simply enter into a blanket licensing agreement with the relevant
> collecting societies such as VG Bild-Kunst. Just like schools,
> universities, and libraries do. And just as Wikimedia itself wants to
> conclude user agreements with Google
> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/thema/google>, Apple, Amazon or
> Facebook for facilitated access to content held on Wikipedia. It would be
> easy to solve all the legal issues. And thanks to the collecting societies
> that represent the interests of filmmakers, authors and ancillary copyright
> holders would also have their fair or livelihood-protecting share of the
> money flows.
>
This is hugely misinformed, but points to a need for better work on the
side of Wikimedia to communicate this more clearly and prominently inside
of existing interfaces and promotional work.
> Propaganda for "free licenses"
>
> Wikimedia has rejected VG Bild-Kunst's offer to license protected works.
> As long as its campaign in Germany has not completely failed, the
> organization is apparently continuing to speculate on CC-licensed,
> high-quality public-domain freeware, for which it does not have to conclude
> licensing agreements with the collecting societies precisely because it is
> already CC-licensed. A good deal for Wikimedia and the Internet giants. A
> disastrous one for the production landscape.
>
I fail to understand this without more context and links...
> Notwithstanding. Self-publication of content via Creative Commons on
> subject-specific platforms or in social media makes perfect sense for
> certain content such as academic publications or even NGO or hobby films.
> Professional film works, on the other hand, always represent bundles of
> legally guaranteed legal rights for script, direction, production, camera,
> music et cetera. Films created under professional market conditions are
> simply not suitable for simplified publication via Creative Commons
> licensing.
>
This is not totally wrong. CC and others should address these issues with
more complex mixed licensed works.
> Wikimedia ignores these facts in its ongoing propaganda about "free
> licenses" and waves away the criticism with colorful flags that say "common
> good". In their own interest. At the expense of us filmmakers, at the
> expense of authors and copyright holders.
>
> The German film and television landscape is facing enormous challenges due
> to the growing importance of platforms and the resulting dynamics in the
> audiovisual market. Perhaps as never before. At this time, it is crucial
> that those with political responsibility as well as the public broadcasters
> use these challenges in intensive dialog with filmmakers as an opportunity
> to sustainably strengthen the production landscape in all its diversity.
> Even better, to allow its creative power to unfold better than before.
>
> What filmmakers need for this are stable legal foundations and fair market
> standards. The stickers with the vulgar formula "public money = public
> good" call these foundations into question. They should now finally be
> scraped off the windshields of media policy in Germany.
>
These few points are overly simplified and fairly naive in statements about
market, production landscape diversity, creativity and what not, but is it
maybe worth addressing the use of 'vulgar' in any follow-ups.
> David Bernet is a documentary filmmaker and co-chair of AG DOK
> (Professional Association of Documentary Filmmakers in Germany).
> ***************************************************
>
> Free licenses for the common good
> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen…>
>
> by Dr. Christian Humborg, Executive Director of Wikimedia Deutschland
>
> Public money - public good! With this formula, Wikimedia Deutschland is
> campaigning for knowledge content that is financed with tax money or the
> broadcasting fee to be available to everyone. Some see their business model
> threatened by this demand. "This is ruining filmmakers," reads an opinion
> piece published this week by documentary filmmaker and co-chair of AG DOK,
> David Bernet.
>
> This is a view that ignores the possibility of new financing models,
> especially for filmmakers and media professionals - and above all the
> absolute necessity of finally adapting the public broadcasting system in
> Germany to the realities of the 21st century. Politicians and the
> broadcasting commissions of the federal states themselves have long
> recognized that something has to be done. Broadcasting content only via the
> traditional channels of radio and television no longer does justice to the
> mission of the public broadcasters. If you want to create good, reliable
> content for everyone, you have to offer it in the way it is used today:
> Accessible at any time, shareable, adaptable.
>
These are good points. Would be good to have a selection of examples useful
for advocacy as case studies or references to point to.
> It is alarming that, in this situation, creative people are being ground
> down in the dispute between content exploiters such as film companies and
> publishers, platforms, public broadcasters and politicians. But it is
> incomprehensible that David Bernet points the finger at Wikipedia and
> Wikimedia, of all places.
>
For me this is the key point in many ways to get creative people (not just
their individual representatives) informed and supported in their work.
Right now 'creatives' are now too often too dependent on corporate social
media for visibility and promotion, so if there are no alternatives or even
different directions for the future it is hard for them to be critical of
big publishers and platforms.
> The knowledge content financed by taxes and broadcasting fees is manifold,
> but access and use are anything but self-evident: Why are publicly financed
> research data behind paywalls of private specialist publishers? Why is the
> Axel Springer publishing house forced to acquire rights for the broadcast
> of the historically significant Elefantenrunde on election night? Why don't
> public broadcasters make these rights available from the outset, especially
> when it comes to purely in-house productions? Wikimedia is not concerned
> with entertainment or weekly sporting events. But publicly funded knowledge
> content should be free. It should be permanently findable, usable and
> available regardless of location.
>
Good point that in-house productions should be easier to clear and license
under CreativeCommons in a semi-automatic way.
> Freely licensed - and adequately funded
>
> Creatives - apart from a few superstars - still earn far too little money
> from their valuable work. Interest groups and employer organizations, above
> all public broadcasters, urgently need to work on fair remuneration. At the
> same time, it is also a matter of greater public appreciation of their
> work. I hardly know any creatives who are only concerned about the money
> and not also about attention. Provided that they are fairly remunerated,
> free licenses can address both points.
>
If creators receive five euros for their content and another one euro each
> for two subsequent uses, what would be so bad about it if they received
> seven euros instead and the work was free for that? Also in terms of
> predictable financial planning, I would prefer the latter. In fact,
> creatives are regularly confronted with so-called total buyout clauses as
> the only contract model, but without free licensing and without reuse
> options.
>
Free licenses can help address both points. There are other aspects and
opportunities for remuneration for direct creation of work, but also beyond
this (we should not only be centered on content, just because Wikipedia was
historically centering only content and not communities, nor acknowledging
context differences). For example Ireland just developed a kind of
'universal' basic income for the artists.
https://basicincome.org/news/2021/11/universal-basic-income-pilot-for-artis…
> Regardless of the financing, the free licensing of content often fails due
> to the lack of suitable contract templates. Experience shows that those who
> have to deal with the necessary formalities for every project again - and
> sometimes against resistance - quickly give up. Public broadcasters
> therefore urgently need to develop contract templates that enable editorial
> teams and commissioned creatives to produce content under free licenses in
> an uncomplicated and legally secure manner.
>
True, yet public broadcasters will not do much if they are not pressured by
'creatives' who need to be informed in order to be proactive. This really
needs Wikimedians to work bottom up also.
> One thing is clear: Whether creators are adequately compensated for their
> services by public broadcasters should not depend on licensing. Free
> licenses bring great advantages for broadcasters and society, such as
> simpler and longer-lasting usability, simpler rights clearance, and
> potentially greater visibility. These advantages should also be remunerated
> accordingly. In any case, creators and editors must be enabled to use free
> licenses without fear of loss of income.
>
Not just without fear of loss of income, but with substantial motivation
from added visibility and increased sustainability of their work (where
Wikimedia should help more).
> One reason for the difficult negotiating position of creative
> professionals is the lack of a strong lobby. For the many creatives,
> negotiations on an equal footing would only be possible if individuals did
> not pull out. Just how difficult it is to act collectively in the face of
> monopolists was demonstrated again in the newspaper market last week, for
> example, when it became known that Madsack had signed a contract with
> Google for Showcase. The intention to bundle the negotiating power on the
> side of the content users in Corint Media did not work out at that point.
> The role of collecting societies is extremely important and it is to be
> welcomed that they are no longer allowed to represent only their members in
> some sectors.
>
I am not sure I understood it all fully, but guessing in Germany
'collecting societies' do not have monopolies (unlike in many other
countries).
> It's also about reach
>
> Wikimedia has always urged rights compliance and at the same time called
> for the modernization of copyright where it no longer functions reasonably
> in a digital age. On the other hand, it was the large advertising platforms
> such as YouTube whose rise and growth would hardly have been conceivable
> without disregard for legal standards. Precisely because Wikimedia respects
> copyright, it relies on free licenses that make it possible for everyone to
> use and edit content permanently and in a legally secure manner.
>
> Furthermore, Wikimedia welcomes all considerations for a non-commercial,
> European media platform as a basis for the exchange of publicly funded
> content. Instead, public broadcasters in EU member states mostly limit
> themselves to short-term collaborations, limited also by national
> exploitation licenses, while at the same time uploading content to globally
> available commercial platforms such as Youtube.
>
I am sorry to say but if 'Wikimedia welcomes all considerations...' this
will never or not likely happen anytime soon. Wikimedia and EU based
affiliates can not be a bystander (especially considering the visibility
and experience of 20 years), but need to commit to work on this issue with
others and bridge those short term (EU funded projects of collaborations).
> The example of Terra X from ZDF shows that there are distribution
> alternatives, such as the Wikimedia platform Commons. The Terra X clips
> posted there alone currently achieve more than two million views per month.
> To put it in perspective, that's two million views more than if they were
> to appear only in the media libraries of the public broadcasters for a year.
>
> Making Terra X clips available benefits the quality of Wikipedia, no
> question. But it primarily benefits the viewers - and it's good for Terra
> X's sustainable reach. Reaching many people is the mission of public
> broadcasters. Not to mention, Wikipedia articles committed to a neutral
> point of view are certainly a more suitable environment for public service
> information content than YouTube and other commercial platforms.
>
> The collaboration between ZDF and Wikipedia on the Terra-X broadcast comes
> from a volunteer group. This group, "Wiki Loves Broadcast," points out in
> its response to
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_…>
> David Bernet's post that it is solely up to the volunteer community to
> incorporate content like ZDF's clips into Wikipedia. Neither Wikimedia
> Deutschland nor the Wikimedia Foundation can influence this.
>
WMF and WM DE should not influence the project direction directly but give
support to these initiatives if it did not before.
Thank you for sharing this info.
> Knowledge that belongs to everyone
>
> Wikimedia is financially independent. Wikimedia is financed by donations
> and membership fees from the millions of people who use Wikipedia and other
> wiki projects. In concrete terms, Wikimedia Deutschland is backed by just
> under 100,000 association members. In total, more than 500,000 people
> supported Wikimedia Deutschland financially last year. In 2021, there was
> actually money from platforms. While the figure in 2020 was 0%, in 2021 it
> accounted for about 0.2% of revenue. I do not see any threat to
> independence in this order of magnitude.
>
Hm...
> Internationally, too, millions of small donations ensure precisely this
> independence. For the coming year - as in previous years - we expect
> payments from companies and donations of more than $1,000 to account for
> less than 20% of the Wikimedia Foundation's total income.
>
It would be great to actually not claim just financial independence (valid
only for WMF), but also interdependencies of participatory work of
supportersvolunteers, contractors and staff with partners in the greater
ecosystem of Wikimedia.
> Two things are certain: Wikimedia cannot sell content at all, because
> Wikimedia does not own any content, unlike any creative person. No profit
> flows from Wikimedia to individuals, but all income is used solely for the
> non-profit projects. Personally, I'm glad that among the world's major
> internet platforms there is at least one that is not concerned with profit.
>
True. Good point to insert 21 years of continuity in this direction for
both CreativeCommons and Wikipedia ;-)
As for the comments of Andreas...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 9:39 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd rather like to see you lobby to have programs permanently available on
> ARD's/ZDF's (German broadcasters') own media repository sites, where they
> can easily be linked to. The concentration of public media access in the
> hands of just a small number of US-based Big Tech companies that hoover up
> everything – which is the practical result of the strategy you advocate –
> is politically and economically unhealthy.
>
This is a really excellent point and worth investigating in and beyond WM
DE only with partners at least in the EU where such regulations and
commitments could be supported by the EU.
> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by
> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over
> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered
> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still
> relevant to us here at least.
>
Rather then just discussing payroll of Wikimedia (in separate thread) I
think it is useful to discuss what is the spectrum of options and what are
the bottlenecks for the compensations to both diversify and distribute with
equity in mind as well as for WMF to be acting with bigger commitment as
supporter of all Wikimedia entities, participants and partnerships, than
just easy and obvious ones.
Best
Z. Blace
Hello everyone,
Since 2019, it is possible to add structured data to files on Wikimedia Commons [1] (SDC = Structured Data on Commons), but adding structured 'depicts' annotations remains a challenging task, particularly since there is no strong guidance on use of standard controlled vocabularies. Also such vocabularies can't always meet the needs of highly diverse media collections and multi-lingual & multi-cultural contexts.
But there are possible pathways to create more structured and user-friendly workflows for the application of specialist vocabularies, such as Iconclass [2], when it comes to images of fine art in particular.
Myself (a UX designer & experienced Wikidata / Wikibase user), an art historian and DH researcher - Dr Karin de Wild, and the developer of the Iconclass Browser - Etienne Posthumus, have proposed a small new research grant to Wikimedia [3]. Our goal is to research and prototype several routes to make the addition of standard Iconclass terms as structured data on Commons, as well as the reuse of these data statements, an easier and more intuitive task for users of Commons services, GLAM professionals who may have collections described with Iconclass codes already, or DH researchers who want to run queries against the Wiki Commons query service and discover interesting data correlations across works from multiple collections. This is framed as a research endeavor, rather than just a technical project, because we are aware Iconclass is not a perfect vocabulary, but working closely with the Iconclass community, and the international communities of Wikidata / Wiki Commons users, we will research how the vocabulary can better meet the needs of diverse use-cases, rather than just implementing it without effort to respond to justified critiques.
If this is something of interest to you, please review our application and consider leaving some feedback via the form [4]. All feedback is much appreciated and will help us refine our proposal if we get to Stage II of the process, or help us apply for further funding opportunities in the future.
Many thanks and kind regards,
Lozana
(User: Loz.ross<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Loz.ross>)
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data
[2] https://test.iconclass.org/
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_Fund/Ima…
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_Fun…
---
Dr. Lozana Rossenova
Researcher @ Open Science Lab, TIB Hannover
Wikibase Community Manager @ NFDI4Culture
ORCID: 0000-0002-5190-1867
Hello (& with crossposting apologies!),
The Ethics in Linked Data Affinity Group
<https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/LD4P2/Ethics+in+Linked+Data+Affinity+Group>,
an active member of LD4, is planning its activities for 2022.
If you are unfamiliar with ELD Affinity Group, previous minutes are
publically available, but recently meetings have included reports on the
development of CIDOC-CRM, discussions about the treatment of gender in
Wikidata with Meg Wacha of Wikimedia NYC, and work on our upcoming book, Ethics
in Linked Data <https://litwinbooks.com/books/ethics-in-linked-data/>.
In order to schedule our meeting dates and times for next year we have set
up a poll (link <https://www.when2meet.com/?13842613-tnWlm>). If you are
interested in attending please fill out the when2meet by December 21st.
This is a general availability poll, so fill it out like a generic work
week. Additionally, we co-convenor(s) for the coming year to help
coordinate meetings and topics if you're interested in being a co-convenor,
please get in touch with Bri at bmwatson1989(a)gmail.com.
Finally, the editors of the Ethics in Linked Data book are looking for peer
reviewers for book chapters; they especially welcome reviewers interested
in the ways that Linked Data interacts with gender, race, indigenity,
history, and technology.
bri
--
*b. m. watson*they/m <http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself> - twitter
<https://twitter.com/brimwats> - website <https://brimwats.com/>
PhD: UBC iSchool <https://ischool.ubc.ca/>, Musqueam Traditional Territory
Archivist-Historian: APA Division 44 CNM Taskforce
<https://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/leadership/task-forces/>
Director: HistSex.org <https://histsex.com/> | Editorial Board: Homosaurus
<http://homosaurus.org/about>
Hi all,
For anyone interested: the next CC Certificate
<https://certificates.creativecommons.org/> online courses will start on 31
January! These open licensing trainings help people better engage in our
global, shared "commons" of open knowledge and resources. Courses are open
to anyone, regardless of experience. We have CC Certified over 1000 people
from 56 countries
<https://certificates.creativecommons.org/about/certificate-graduates/>
with open licensing expertise, to date!
Read more about the courses for GLAM, Academic Librarians, and Educators,
below. *Register for a course here
<https://www.classy.org/event/2022-cc-certificate-course-registration/e354732>*.
Happy holidays,
Jennryn
Jennryn Wetzler
Director of Learning and Training
Creative Commons <https://creativecommons.org/>
CC is celebrating 20 years of sharing creativity and knowledge
<https://creativecommons.org/20-years/>
Show your gratitude by supporting our 20th Anniversary Campaign
<https://www.classy.org/campaign/20th-anniversary-better-sharing-campaign/c3…>
*CC Certificate:* The CC Certificate courses are professional development
trainings, offered as either a 10-week online course or a one-week
bootcamp. Through readings, discussions, global webinars with licensing
experts, quizzes and projects, the course provides a rich capacity building
experience in open licensing and training around thoughtful stewardship of
openly licensed materials.
- Certificate online courses are run as asynchronous trainings, with
options for synchronous discussions with copyright lawyers and open
licensing experts. The participant to facilitator ratio of approximately
25:1. Online course tuition is $500.
*CC Certificate for Educators & CC Certificate for Librarians: *The
Educators and Academic Librarians courses are quite similar, though they
differ in the final unit of content, as well as the community discussions.
- Academic librarians will develop comprehensive knowledge in open
education and open access. They will also gain access to a global community
of librarians working on similar open access goals.
- Educators will develop comprehensive knowledge of open education
including open educational resources (OER) and open pedagogy. They will
also gain access to a global community of educators working toward similar
open education goals.
*CC Certificate for GLAM: *The CC Certificate for GLAM (galleries,
libraries, archives and museums) is a professional development training for
institutions or community groups engaged in cultural or documentary
heritage. As more GLAMs adapt to increasingly online audiences and users,
they often seek Creative Commons legal tools, expertise and community
support. Cultural heritage institutions share a common goal with Creative
Commons: to make knowledge and culture globally accessible.
- In the CC Certificate for GLAM, community members will develop
capacity in opening access to cultural heritage. They will develop a deeper
understanding of open licensing and copyright considerations with
digitization projects, Rights Statements, Traditional Knowledge Labels,
working with the public domain, and more.
- CC Certificate for GLAM participants will also gain access to a global
community of professionals and activists working toward similar cultural
and policy changes in their own cultural heritage institutions.
Dear all,
This is a quick note that at TIB's Open Science Lab, we've published a
new resource on Wikiversity for our OpenRefine-to-Wikibase workflow:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/OpenRefine_to_Wikibase:_Data_Upload_Pipe
line
We thought it might be useful to some of you on this list, so please
have a look if it's relevant to your work.
Keep in mind this is a living document >> all feedback is welcome, you
can use the discussion or talk pages for myself and my colleague Lucia.
Or just reach us via email.
Best wishes,
Lozana
---
Dr. Lozana Rossenova
Researcher @ Open Science Lab, TIB Hannover
Wikibase Community Manager @ NFDI4Culture
ORCID: 0000-0002-5190-1867