Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it). - is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful", "well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
Did some of you have to add additional attributes to the db, beside, the ones descripted here? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012/Document...
And a final question, how the final pictures will correlate with the monuments? Will it be done automatically by the Upload Wizard?
Thank you for your help!
Aubrey
Ob 05/03/12 00:20, Andrea Zanni wrote:
And a final question, how the final pictures will correlate with the monuments? Will it be done automatically by the Upload Wizard?
The upload wizard provides a field where the user inputs the identifier. That gets translated into a template with the id as a parameter.
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful",
"well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
For Russia, it is an unsolved problem, since we have the federal database with unique IDs, but there are also local bases without IDs which in almost all the cases are more complete and contain the monuments which are not in the federal database (and the federal database is broken and for several regions does not work properly). The only solution I see it to introduce some "internal" IDs so that the bots can work properly. These IDs of course should be clearly marked as "internal". This is my personal opinion, I did not discuss it with the organizers (and for Russia, there are currently no organizing team anyway).
Cheers Yaroslav
Hi Yaroslav,
Op 5-3-2012 9:57, Yaroslav M. Blanter schreef:
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful",
"well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
For Russia, it is an unsolved problem, since we have the federal database with unique IDs, but there are also local bases without IDs which in almost all the cases are more complete and contain the monuments which are not in the federal database (and the federal database is broken and for several regions does not work properly).
Do these monuments have the same status? For example in the Netherlands we have Rijksmonumenten for the state monuments, but also Gemeentelijke monumenten which are designated by the municipalities. So how is the progress going with the federal database? What are the plans? Are you going to put the lists in the main namespace on Wikipedia? A broken and incomplete database is always better than no database at all.
<...> I did not discuss it with the organizers (and for Russia, there are currently no organizing team anyway).
No team in Russia? Russia pulled of such a nice competition last year in so little time. This year has so much potential. Would be a waste if Russia wouldn't be joining in. What happened with the people who organized it last year?
Maarten
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:18:32 +0100, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi Yaroslav,
...
regions does not work properly).
Do these monuments have the same status? For example in the Netherlands we have Rijksmonumenten for the state monuments, but also Gemeentelijke monumenten which are designated by the municipalities. So how is the progress going with the federal database? What are the plans? Are you going to put the lists in the main namespace on Wikipedia? A broken and incomplete database is always better than no database at all.
<...> I did not discuss it with the organizers (and for Russia, there are currently no organizing team anyway).
No team in Russia? Russia pulled of such a nice competition last year in
so little time. This year has so much potential. Would be a waste if Russia wouldn't be joining in. What happened with the people who organized it last year?
Maarten
Hi Maarten,
this is the situation with Russia how I see it. Other people may see it differently.
1. There is a federal database, http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru/ . It contains a number of monuments marked as federal, a number of monuments marked as local (meaning Region level, similar to the Province level in NL), and a much bigger number of monuments marked as "level of protection unknown". Unknown does not mean it is actually unknown, in many cases it means "a secretary who typed the monument in was not able to figure out what level of protection is". In many case, what is federal is marked as local and vice versa. Additionally, the database suffers from other issues, such as it is clearly incomplete, at least where it can be compared with available regional lists, has overlaps (one monument listed several times under several IDs) and unusable for some regions (the number of monuments is clearly much lower that it should be). For some Regions (not for all of them) there are lists of federally and/or locally protected monuments, which may be the same or may be more complete that the federal database, but have no identification number or have a number incompatible with the database format. We discussed the situation and decided that every monument listed in any official document (database or regional lists) as protected is eligible. What do we do with the id for the monuments which did not make it to the database is still to be decided. May be indeed location + address would work (sometimes this combination is not unique).
2. On basis of the documents we have we are compiling the lists of the monuments split by Region, and, if necessary, further by district. The progress can be monitored here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Lists_of_European_Monuments/Russia The lists are being compiled on Commons, and I am currently the only user working on the lists (Some other users expressed interest in working on the lists, but did not actually start working on them). Most of the lists are for technical reasons in my user space, but they will be moved to the main namespace in Commons in August and split into districts. I still reasonably expect that by September 1 all lists will be ready and hopefully the existing images will be added to the lists. It is not realistic to expect that coordinates will be added, unless we have a major breakthrough. As soon as I am doing the lists, they will be on Commons before and during the contest and may be copied to Russian Wikipedia afterwards, but if somebody else takes over the list coordination, and if the synchronization is realized, they could be moved to Russian Wikipedia beforehand.
3. The Russian Chapter is in principle responsible for all the decisions. This Chapter is dormant, consists of about a dozen of people, does not accept new members (and never did), and has little support in the community. Last year, the decision was made in mid-July, Anastasia Lvova (User:Lvova) coordinated the effort, finding sponsors and the jury, and Pavel Kaganer (User:Kaganer) somehow coordinated the creation of lists for Saint Petersburg (which is one Region out of 83), and he is still categorizing the photos which were submitted during the 2011 WLM. From what I know, these two users have done the bulk of the work, and others (except for jury, of course) have done very little to nothing. I am not sure whether there was any dedicated team. Russia was only able to start their participation on September 15. When I suggested in August that WLM 2011 could have been held for the whole country with the existing lists, I was told to mind my own business. For the record, I have been involved in the monument protection in Russia since 2004, and the organizers must have known this.
4. In October, I started the discussions knowing we need time to prepare WLM 2012. The discussions are held on the dedicated page on Commons. Whereas I managed to solve a number of problems related to the lists and databases (for example, as outlined in #1), but generally all I got were promises like "next week / next month / sometimes I will start working on this". So far, none of these promises has been held. The only user currently active is User:Kaganer, and he is also a member of the Russian Chapter. In December, I asked the Russian Chapter to make a decision whether Russia would participate, and got no reaction (if there were any discussions in the Chapter, I was not informed, since they maintain a closed mailing list with non-public archives). I assume this is related to the fact that there is no coordinator. User:Lvova mentioned she has no time, and she would only decide in April, and most probably she would not be interested. I am also not the best candidate since I am not a Russian resident and also I am not on speaking terms with Mr. Medeyko who is the Chapter President and who was instrumental in chasing me out of Russian Wikipedia. I also currently have no account on Russian Wikipedia. I volunteered to prepare the lists and I can also do communications with the international team, but I am certainly not in a position to find sponsors or even to compile a jury. I am afraid again nothing would happen until mid-August and then Russia either will drop out or the Chapter will appoint someone not even informing me.
Cheers Yaroslav
Dear colleagues,
I'm sorry that I hadn't paid enough attention to this mailing list and missed the message - on March 4 there were presidential elections in Russia, and I worked in the observers coordination center, so on 5th I was tired of numerous and bold violations of electoral commissions. Unfortunately, I feel that I shouldn't keep it unanswered.
Yaroslav Blanter deliberately rejects direct contacts to Wikimedia Russia. It is known that earlier he was an active wikipedian in Russian Wikipedia; there and at Commons he regularly expressed severe subjective judgement on me, on Wikimedia Russia, and particularly on Wikimedia Russia's Director. I hope it's clear that his refusal to have dealings with Wikimedia Russia and personal problems in communications between us make it quite hard to keep him informed on all the details of our plans and actions.
Yesterday at Commons Yaroslav announced that he doesn't wish to countinue his work on WLM RU's lists.
Pavel Kaganer, and Sergey Leschina (they both are Wikimedia Russia members who worked on the WLM 2011), and I recruit a team of regional coordinators from the beginning of March, and currently we have plans to cover Russia only partially - the team this year will be larger than in the past, but the major expansion of participation, most likely, is not possible yet. The complete coverage would be possible next year, I think.
If anyone needs fresh information on state of WLM in Russia, I'm available almost 24/7 in e-mail and jabber, and I reply to personal messages prompter than to messages in mailing lists.
regards, Lvova Anastasiya
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:18:32 +0100, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
No team in Russia? Russia pulled of such a nice competition last year in so little time. This year has so much potential. Would be a waste if Russia wouldn't be joining in. What happened with the people who organized it last year?
this is the situation with Russia how I see it. Other people may see it differently.
...
- The Russian Chapter is in principle responsible for all the decisions.
This Chapter is dormant, consists of about a dozen of people, does not accept new members (and never did), and has little support in the community. Last year, the decision was made in mid-July, Anastasia Lvova (User:Lvova) coordinated the effort, finding sponsors and the jury, and Pavel Kaganer (User:Kaganer) somehow coordinated the creation of lists for Saint Petersburg (which is one Region out of 83), and he is still categorizing the photos which were submitted during the 2011 WLM. From what I know, these two users have done the bulk of the work, and others (except for jury, of course) have done very little to nothing. I am not sure whether there was any dedicated team. Russia was only able to start their participation on September 15. When I suggested in August that WLM 2011 could have been held for the whole country with the existing lists, I was told to mind my own business. For the record, I have been involved in the monument protection in Russia since 2004, and the organizers must have known this.
- In October, I started the discussions knowing we need time to prepare
WLM 2012. The discussions are held on the dedicated page on Commons. Whereas I managed to solve a number of problems related to the lists and databases (for example, as outlined in #1), but generally all I got were promises like "next week / next month / sometimes I will start working on this". So far, none of these promises has been held. The only user currently active is User:Kaganer, and he is also a member of the Russian Chapter. In December, I asked the Russian Chapter to make a decision whether Russia would participate, and got no reaction (if there were any discussions in the Chapter, I was not informed, since they maintain a closed mailing list with non-public archives). I assume this is related to the fact that there is no coordinator. User:Lvova mentioned she has no time, and she would only decide in April, and most probably she would not be interested. I am also not the best candidate since I am not a Russian resident and also I am not on speaking terms with Mr. Medeyko who is the Chapter President and who was instrumental in chasing me out of Russian Wikipedia. I also currently have no account on Russian Wikipedia. I volunteered to prepare the lists and I can also do communications with the international team, but I am certainly not in a position to find sponsors or even to compile a jury. I am afraid again nothing would happen until mid-August and then Russia either will drop out or the Chapter will appoint someone not even informing me.
Cheers Yaroslav
In Spain we have to deal with different identifiers, national or regional. Some examples: * RI-51-0000642 is a national identifier * 1-INM-HUE-004-035-004 is a regional identifier for Aragon, but its format don't match any other register * 8749 is an ambigous identifier, so we have added a prefix for its register: IPA-8749 (IPA is the local register for Catalonia) This way we can use an unique template for Spanish monuments and an unique UploadWizard campaign.
Another approach has been used in Germany that other fellows can explain better. I think they used different templates and campaigns for each state.
Vicenç
From: zanni.andrea84@gmail.com Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 00:20:45 +0100 To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Questions about lists and db
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful", "well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
Did some of you have to add additional attributes to the db, beside, the ones descripted here?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012/Document...
And a final question,
how the final pictures will correlate with the monuments? Will it be done automatically by the Upload Wizard?
Thank you for your help!
Aubrey
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:06:30 +0000, Vicenç Riullop vriullop@hotmail.com wrote:
In Spain we have to deal with different identifiers, national or
regional.
Some examples:
- RI-51-0000642 is a national identifier
- 1-INM-HUE-004-035-004 is a regional identifier for Aragon, but its
format don't match any other register
- 8749 is an ambigous identifier, so we have added a prefix for its
register: IPA-8749 (IPA is the local register for Catalonia) This way we can use an unique template for Spanish monuments and an
unique
UploadWizard campaign.
I am now working on the list of monuments in Perm Krai in Russia (here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter/59), and the two documents I use (which are taken from the official site of the cultural heritage of Perm Krai) are just two lists in MS-Word format, which contain numbers from 1 to 39 (the first one) and from 1 to smth else (the second one), no other IDs. The federal database for Perm Krai is strongly incomplete (it sometime contains objects without name or without location, which could not be identified) and can not be used. May be indeed we should add prefixes like 59-1 to 59-39 (59 is the region code).
Cheers Yaroslav
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Vicenç Riullop vriullop@hotmail.com wrote:
Another approach has been used in Germany that other fellows can explain better. I think they used different templates and campaigns for each state.
In Germany, we have hundreds of different lists and databases, since in some states every municipality is in charge of their cultural heritage monuments, which means they will create an individual list. Most of them don't have identifiers, and for many regions we don't even have lists at all.
So what we did is work with 16 campaigns, one for each state, where we asked the uploaders to enter the name of the municipality, but as you can imagine, this led to a lot of work that had to be done afterwards.
What you see in the database are either the states where we have lists and identifiers (right now there are just two, de-he and de-by, but most likely two or three more will follow soon) or in the case of Cologne and Bergheim the specific databases for two cities we did projects in. As you can imagine, if we'd continue this way for all the other cities we have template based lists for by now, this would be a real mess. So we're trying to find a solution here, before we add more of the smaller lists.
When you create an own ID, this is almost always a case of original research and I'm really not in favor of creating a "Wikipedia identifier" for objects, but maybe this is the only way to solve the problem?
Kilian
If exists an online database then the internal id of the url can be used as identifier and for deeplinking. For Barcelona we have faced a special case with protected monuments not included in other registers. We have used the local identifier and a prefix with the municipality code: 08019/1234, that is 08019 as the official code for Barcelona and 1234 as a local id. Using a slash as separator is useful as wiki templates can split the two parts.
Vicenç
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:40:29 +0100 From: kilian@k-kluge.de To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Questions about lists and db
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Vicenç Riullop vriullop@hotmail.com wrote:
Another approach has been used in Germany that other fellows can explain better. I think they used different templates and campaigns for each state.
In Germany, we have hundreds of different lists and databases, since in some states every municipality is in charge of their cultural heritage monuments, which means they will create an individual list. Most of them don't have identifiers, and for many regions we don't even have lists at all.
So what we did is work with 16 campaigns, one for each state, where we asked the uploaders to enter the name of the municipality, but as you can imagine, this led to a lot of work that had to be done afterwards.
What you see in the database are either the states where we have lists and identifiers (right now there are just two, de-he and de-by, but most likely two or three more will follow soon) or in the case of Cologne and Bergheim the specific databases for two cities we did projects in. As you can imagine, if we'd continue this way for all the other cities we have template based lists for by now, this would be a real mess. So we're trying to find a solution here, before we add more of the smaller lists.
When you create an own ID, this is almost always a case of original research and I'm really not in favor of creating a "Wikipedia identifier" for objects, but maybe this is the only way to solve the problem?
Kilian
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 12:20:45AM +0100, Andrea Zanni wrote:
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful",
"well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
Did some of you have to add additional attributes to the db, beside, the ones descripted here? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012/Document...
And a final question, how the final pictures will correlate with the monuments? Will it be done automatically by the Upload Wizard?
Hi Andrea,
Your final question more or less answers the first. The uploaders are asked to provide the id of the monument and that way they are tied together. This is in my opinion an essential step to make the pictures usable. So yes, it makes sense to work with an identifier. But it might be worthwhile to contact the local heritage board if they really don't use some identifiers themself.
Your questions about additional attributes, I don't really understand. There is a db on commons that has the minimal needed to do all essential tasks, on your lists onwiki can of course contain what you want.
Regards,
Andre Koopal
Hi Andrea,
Op 5-3-2012 0:20, Andrea Zanni schreef:
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful",
"well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
Be very careful with this as this borders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research A combination of municipality and address is probably unique and could be used as identifier. It's weak, but probably just strong enough.
Maarten
The official lists from Austria do also not have an unique identifier, but we solved that problem. We just asked our national monument department and after some talks the sent us their identifiers. So we are now able to update our data yearly. Have you tried to talk to them Andrea?
Best Michael
Am 05.03.2012 22:07, schrieb Maarten Dammers:
Hi Andrea,
Op 5-3-2012 0:20, Andrea Zanni schreef:
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful",
"well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
Be very careful with this as this borders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research A combination of municipality and address is probably unique and could be used as identifier. It's weak, but probably just strong enough.
Maarten
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Hi Geiserich, Not yet, in the sense we are in a weird situation: * we still don't know if we can LEGALLY do WLM... * we have lists scatttered all over the places. We are contacting institutions and associations, and at the same time we are looking for major lists (as, the Ministry of Cultural Heritage). We have found (3 days ago...) one big list (around 120.000), which needs to be controlled. And we should ask permission for that. * it is likely we'll have many small lists with different metadata and identifiers.
Aubrey
2012/3/5 Geiserich geiserich@gmx.at
The official lists from Austria do also not have an unique identifier, but we solved that problem. We just asked our national monument department and after some talks the sent us their identifiers. So we are now able to update our data yearly. Have you tried to talk to them Andrea?
Best Michael
Am 05.03.2012 22:07, schrieb Maarten Dammers:
Hi Andrea,
Op 5-3-2012 0:20, Andrea Zanni schreef:
Dear WLM list, we are preparing the db for the list of monuments, and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful",
"well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)
Be very careful with this as this borders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/* *Wikipedia:No_original_researchhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research A combination of municipality and address is probably unique and could be used as identifier. It's weak, but probably just strong enough.
Maarten
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.**wikimedia.orgWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**eu http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.**wikimedia.orgWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**eu http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Hi Andrea,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
- it is likely we'll have many small lists with different metadata and
identifiers.
I suggest you sort out some of the legal issues first, and once you decide you're going to participate (which I hope you will!), get in touch with us Germans. We're having the same trouble (and some other nations might too), so maybe we can have a page on Commons where we can discuss possible solutions and share what works and what doesn't. We'll be discussing this topic at the end of March in Dresden, where most of our organizing team meets for the first time and hopefully come up with some ideas there as well (I'll try to remember to keep you updated on what we come up with, otherwise just send me a short message at the beginning of April).
Once we decide on and test one or two solutions and find that they work properly, we can use those for all the small lists in every country doing WLM. Then it's also easier and more worthwhile to ask for additional features in the monuments database, we're probably going to need those if we don't want to have a few hundred tables for both Germany and Italy alone (as opposed to one for all the other nations).
Best regards,
Kilian
Well, we won't solve the legal issues soon, we are going to participate anyway (or at least organize it until they literally prohibits us to do it, this is why we are also gaining official support from institutions and associations, we need to fix the law :-)
So, while we figure out how many lists we have, we'll stay in touch for a common technical solution for the db. I'll forward this to out WLM list.
Thank you
Aubrey
2012/3/5 Kilian Kluge kilian@k-kluge.de
Hi Andrea,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
- it is likely we'll have many small lists with different metadata and
identifiers.
I suggest you sort out some of the legal issues first, and once you decide you're going to participate (which I hope you will!), get in touch with us Germans. We're having the same trouble (and some other nations might too), so maybe we can have a page on Commons where we can discuss possible solutions and share what works and what doesn't. We'll be discussing this topic at the end of March in Dresden, where most of our organizing team meets for the first time and hopefully come up with some ideas there as well (I'll try to remember to keep you updated on what we come up with, otherwise just send me a short message at the beginning of April).
Once we decide on and test one or two solutions and find that they work properly, we can use those for all the small lists in every country doing WLM. Then it's also easier and more worthwhile to ask for additional features in the monuments database, we're probably going to need those if we don't want to have a few hundred tables for both Germany and Italy alone (as opposed to one for all the other nations).
Best regards,
Kilian
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Hi Andrea,
Op 5-3-2012 23:35, Andrea Zanni schreef:
Well, we won't solve the legal issues soon, we are going to participate anyway (or at least organize it until they literally prohibits us to do it, this is why we are also gaining official support from institutions and associations, we need to fix the law :-)
I think you have two legal issues to solve: 1. Copyright of the lists 2. The whole take photos in Italy of monuments problem
If you get the first part solved we can start putting lists online.
Maarten
Yep. We are gathering a legal (volunteer) team to do that, hopefully they'll come up with something soon.
Aubrey
2012/3/5 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
Hi Andrea,
Op 5-3-2012 23:35, Andrea Zanni schreef:
Well, we won't solve the legal issues soon,
we are going to participate anyway (or at least organize it until they literally prohibits us to do it, this is why we are also gaining official support from institutions and associations, we need to fix the law :-)
I think you have two legal issues to solve:
- Copyright of the lists
- The whole take photos in Italy of monuments problem
If you get the first part solved we can start putting lists online.
Maarten
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.**wikimedia.orgWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**eu http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Op 5-3-2012 23:35, Andrea Zanni schreef:
I think you have two legal issues to solve:
- Copyright of the lists
- The whole take photos in Italy of monuments problem
If you get the first part solved we can start putting lists online.
At the end of the day, the list would have a great encyclopedic value per se, and having the possibility to have WLM is a plus. Marco
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org