OK. So let's drop the 'legal scholarship' from the original thread and get back on topic.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:33 PM, John Vandenbergjayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
off-topic?? ... surely you jest!!
I think about _three_ of the 50+ emails in this thread have been on the topic of open access journal articles on Wikisource.
For a different example, Nina Paley recently released her full catalog of works, comic art, video short, and feature film, under CC-SA. This seems to me unequivocally interesting to Wikisource. The media should also be uploaded to the Archive, but we simply have less control over classification, organization into galleries, metadata manipulation and commenting there. And there is no way to provide translations or other-lanugage entries or articles alongside the original source materials. [the Archive is not that friendly to non-english-readers]
Wikimedia currently doesn't like files as large as a feature film, or even a high-def short. (how should we address this? Brion mentioned something about making video easier to upload in November.) But is there any reason not to include other bodies of published sources now available under free license? Wikisource is currently the closest thing available to a unified place to categorize, comment on, and provide bidirectional links to source text and files of any sort. It should in some ways be our largest project, and even our most widely cited.
SJ
On 26 Jun 2009, at 02:08, Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikimedia currently doesn't like files as large as a feature film, or even a high-def short. (how should we address this? Brion mentioned something about making video easier to upload in November.)
As I understand it, there are three issues with having large video files on Wikimedia: 1. Server capacity: Disk space + server load + bandwidth 2. Interface: Ogg only, no ability to create clips, rescaling, etc. 3. Community will
(1) I assume is fairly easy to solve (simply by throwing money at the problem) provided that there's sufficient demand and money available. (2) is at least partly on its way, I believe, as per recent news stories [1]. (3) I don't know whether there's the will in the community to have large video support, partly as it's already done to an extent by archive.org and partly due to bandwidth/resource concerns (both the uploader's and Wikimedias)
Videos are resource-heavy, and community-light, unlike text content on Wikipedia, or even images on Commons. It will remain community- light unless we want to go the way of YouTube. It's still very difficult to create decent quality, useful video.
Having said that, IMHO having a usable (high quality) copy of public domain videos, and educational videos (PD or user-created), on Wikimedia sites can only be good.
But is there any reason not to include other bodies of published sources now available under free license? Wikisource is currently the closest thing available to a unified place to categorize, comment on, and provide bidirectional links to source text and files of any sort. It should in some ways be our largest project, and even our most widely cited.
Wikisource is for textual sources, not videos or files in general - that's Wikimedia Commons.
Mike
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
Wikisource is for textual sources, not videos or files in general - that's Wikimedia Commons.
The video and other media is usually uploaded onto Commons, but the transcript and translations are placed on Wikisource.
Speeches are a very large set of sources.
It would be great to have video of conferences to accompany the printed conference papers.
-- John Vandenberg
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
OK. So let's drop the 'legal scholarship' from the original thread and get back on topic.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:33 PM, John Vandenbergjayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
off-topic?? ... surely you jest!!
I think about _three_ of the 50+ emails in this thread have been on the topic of open access journal articles on Wikisource.
For a different example, Nina Paley recently released her full catalog of works, comic art, video short, and feature film, under CC-SA. This seems to me unequivocally interesting to Wikisource.
I've had a quick look, and the primary obstacle will be whether these works were published in a more traditional sense. see [[WS:WWI]]
e.g. "Understanding Free Content" would be nice, but was it published elsewhere?
http://questioncopyright.org/understanding_free_content
The song Copying Isn't Theft is likely to be considered published, if it received air-time or was pressed and sold.
http://questioncopyright.org/rearranging_isnt_theft_either
We dont have many comics yet, but here is what we do have:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Comics
-- John Vandenberg
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org