http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173
Anything worth salvaging?
On 24 January 2011 16:09, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173
Anything worth salvaging?
Probably but I can't see it falling within our remit. Apart from anything else it's not under a free license. Some of their other stuff might highlight areas we could perhaps move into but there isn't much detail and nothing listed at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2011/01/delivering-quality-first.shtm...
Looks like it would really interest us.
On 24 January 2011 18:02, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2011 16:09, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173
Anything worth salvaging?
Probably but I can't see it falling within our remit. Apart from anything else it's not under a free license.
If the BBC owns the copyright, or has permission to re-license the work, then that isn't an issue. I can't remember the copyright system for h2g2 (I was very active there before I became active on Wikipedia, but that was years ago).
I don't think their content would be appropriate for us without a major re-write, though. It tends to be (or at least, tended to be while I was there) written in a very light-hearted, sometimes even comedic, tone. It's not encyclopaedic. It isn't well-referenced either (and certainly isn't a reliable source).
h2g2 was a fun community, but it wasn't really a useful project.
On 24 January 2011 16:09, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173 Anything worth salvaging?
Is it even under a CC-ish licence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/forums/A639056/conversation/view/F77636/T8018187
"However, H2G2 is unusual. It is a pre-existing community that the BBC brought into its fold, not a community that the BBC set up from scratch. So rather than closing it, we've decided to explore another option. This process has been referred to elsewhere as the "disposal" of H2G2. I'll admit this is not a great choices of words, but what is means is that we'll be looking for proposals from others to take on the running of H2G2."
The actual machine it runs on is a years-out-of-warranty Dell server running Windows 2000. Not sure if it still has an outboard USB disk in the back. What I mean is, it's ridiculous levels of bespoke and already running on something that should rightly be a discard.
- d.
On 01/24/2011 05:09 PM, Magnus Manske wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173
Anything worth salvaging?
If released under a free license, it could find its place on Wikisource. I have found at least a few articles that could be used to improve Wikipedia ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/approved_entry/A592599 is much longer than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Word_%28radio_show%29 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/approved_entry/A76282158 doesn't seem to have the article on Wikipedia at all). It is a question however if per http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/help/entry_faqs#copyright and http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/#4 "In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*." would allow for such a release.
On 25 January 2011 07:11, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
It is a question however if per http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/help/entry_faqs#copyright and http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/#4 "In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*." would allow for such a release.
Very doubtful indeed. Wikipedia might, conceivably, be considered a trusted third party, but there is no way the rest of world would and we can't accept content that is licensed to Wikipedia only.
On 25 January 2011 08:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 January 2011 07:11, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
It is a question however if per http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/help/entry_faqs#copyright and http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/#4 "In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*." would allow for such a release.
Very doubtful indeed. Wikipedia might, conceivably, be considered a trusted third party, but there is no way the rest of world would and we can't accept content that is licensed to Wikipedia only.
It would be nice if the Foundation could help out h2g2, possibly with funding to help get set up independent of the BBC. It's such a historic predecessor to Wikipedia, it just feels like the right thing to do. Unfortunately because it isn't under a free licence, this would probably fall outside our mission.
We should reach out to any researchers who choose to leave though, and we already have a fairly good introduction page for them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:H2g2
As that page says h2g2 researchers retain copyright to their own entries, so if they want to relicense individual ones for use on wiki projects, that's fine.
Pete / the wub
----- "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Very doubtful indeed. Wikipedia might, conceivably, be considered a trusted third party, but there is no way the rest of world would and we can't accept content that is licensed to Wikipedia only.
I would think it likely that as the BBC have already made the decision, in principle, to send h2g2 on its way then expanding the licence to drop any NC requirement would be a highly probable parting gift. Certainly worth asking them to change the licence anyway.
Alison
On 25 January 2011 11:26, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
I would think it likely that as the BBC have already made the decision, in principle, to send h2g2 on its way then expanding the licence to drop any NC requirement would be a highly probable parting gift. Certainly worth asking them to change the licence anyway.
Is it forkable at all even on an -NC basis? WIkia has adopted -NC communities before, e.g. Uncyclopedia.
- d.
On 25 January 2011 11:26, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
----- "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Very doubtful indeed. Wikipedia might, conceivably, be considered a trusted third party, but there is no way the rest of world would and we can't accept content that is licensed to Wikipedia only.
I would think it likely that as the BBC have already made the decision, in principle, to send h2g2 on its way then expanding the licence to drop any NC requirement would be a highly probable parting gift. Certainly worth asking them to change the licence anyway.
They aren't the copyright holder, though, so I don't think they can change the license. They have a very broad license to use it themselves and to re-license it to trusted third parties, but they don't have the authority (as far as I can tell) to release it under a free licence.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org