On 27/09/2007, Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> They're collecting an archive of images of listed buildings taken by members
> of the public.
>
>
>
> Do you think it would be worthwhile contacting them to ask if they'd be
> prepared to send a mass e-mail to their volunteer photographers saying
> something like the following:
No. No no no no no.
If someone came to us (and they do, fairly often) asking us to do this
to our users for some random other site, we'd send them away with a
flea in their ear. It's randomly fishing for material, it's rude.
What might be appropriate is contacting them and asking if they'd be
willing to have some opt-in method where their photographers can
choose to release the photographs under a free license - and mark them
as such on the site - which would allow it to be reused etc etc etc.
We can evangelise very efficiently in this sort of message about the
wonderful effects of such a policy :-)
But asking if we can just have images for Commons gives the impression
all we want to do is make our site better, not make *their* site more
useful. It's arrogant *and it will sound it*.
> (It seems crazy that they didn't make release under a CC license a criteria
> for acceptance as a volunteer photographer... One of our goals as a UK
> organisation really ought to be lobbying people like the Lottery Fund to get
> them to mandate "free" licenses on work like this they fund.)
Bear in mind the context here. It's an English Heritage project;
essentially an adjunct to the national listed-building registry, and
it's being run for their purposes; they want archival photographs of
all listed buildings for future reference purposes, and they have a
strong motive to get those photographs as good (in a technical sense)
as possible, which means taking pains over their photographers.
If you look at who they've recruited, they're mostly "real"
photographers; perhaps some professionals, mostly serious amateurs;
skilled, selected people, not random applicants with a camera - and
then they've doled out specific tasks to them. One of the inducements
given is that the rights remain with the photographer (and they have
some expenses funded); mandating open licensing would probably make it
a lot harder - or at least a lot more time-consuming - to get
good-quality recruits.
Them putting it online is nice and handy, and I believe they got
funding *for that part*, but the real goal is to have it as a safely
stored archive - things like public access at all are incidental, and
the project would probably exist without the website.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
On 27/09/2007, Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Fantastic idea!
> The Wikimedia Foundation would like to be able to use your photographs on
> Wikipedia and her sister sites, however to do this you must agree to release
> your photographs under a 'Creative Commons' license. [Insert blurb about CC
> licenses].
Don't just say CC, or we'll end up with lots of -NC and -ND.
"A free content licence (some CC, or some of these) - suggest
CC-by-sa, GFDL or both."
I realise that's way less soundbitey, but the difference is *very* important.
> (It seems crazy that they didn't make release under a CC license a criteria
> for acceptance as a volunteer photographer... One of our goals as a UK
> organisation really ought to be lobbying people like the Lottery Fund to get
> them to mandate "free" licenses on work like this they fund.)
Oh yes.
- d.
On 27/09/2007, Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I read about this site in the Guardian today (I might be late on the band
> wagon):
>
>
>
> http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/default.aspx
>
>
>
> They're collecting an archive of images of listed buildings taken by
> members of the public.
>
>
>
> Do you think it would be worthwhile contacting them to ask if they'd be
> prepared to send a mass e-mail to their volunteer photographers saying
> something like the following:
>
>
>
> "Hi,
>
>
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation would like to be able to use your photographs on
> Wikipedia and her sister sites, however to do this you must agree to release
> your photographs under a 'Creative Commons' license. [Insert blurb about CC
> licenses].
>
>
>
> If you would be prepared to have your photos released under such a
> license, please click on the following link:
>
>
>
> http://link.to.a.binding.sign.up.form.probably.on.the.uk.foundation.site/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> English Heritage"
>
>
>
> It would be great for Commons if we could get these images.
>
>
>
> (It seems crazy that they didn't make release under a CC license a
> criteria for acceptance as a volunteer photographer... One of our goals as a
> UK organisation really ought to be lobbying people like the Lottery Fund to
> get them to mandate "free" licenses on work like this they fund.)
>
>
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>
>
Well, I think it is a great idea.
--
Alex (Majorly)
I read about this site in the Guardian today (I might be late on the band
wagon):
http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/default.aspx
They're collecting an archive of images of listed buildings taken by members
of the public.
Do you think it would be worthwhile contacting them to ask if they'd be
prepared to send a mass e-mail to their volunteer photographers saying
something like the following:
"Hi,
The Wikimedia Foundation would like to be able to use your photographs on
Wikipedia and her sister sites, however to do this you must agree to release
your photographs under a 'Creative Commons' license. [Insert blurb about CC
licenses].
If you would be prepared to have your photos released under such a license,
please click on the following link:
http://link.to.a.binding.sign.up.form.probably.on.the.uk.foundation.site/
Thanks,
English Heritage"
It would be great for Commons if we could get these images.
(It seems crazy that they didn't make release under a CC license a criteria
for acceptance as a volunteer photographer... One of our goals as a UK
organisation really ought to be lobbying people like the Lottery Fund to get
them to mandate "free" licenses on work like this they fund.)
Tom
I hope none of you are expecting me to be representative for our
<s>joke</s> bid. If I can find a PC I might drop in lurk.
Seriously, why did nobody withdraw us? Now we look even more stupid.
Karlsruhe had an unfortunate hand in their conference venue being
unavailable, but they were dignified and bowed out. What's special
about us that we didn't?
You might not care what I think, but I'll tell you: I'm disappointed
for the chapter and for the UK.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Forrester <jdforrester(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:16:56 +0100
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2008 - Public Meeting - Reminder
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimania discussion mailing list
<wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
All,
This is just a reminder that there will be a public meeting on
Freenode IRC in #wikimania2008 at 15:00 UTC today (that is, in just
under 5 hours' time) between the Jury and the Bids' teams.
Hope to see you all there.
On behalf of the Jury.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester(a)wikimedia.org | jdforrester(a)gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Gary Kirk
On 11/09/2007, Sandy Dorotheo <sandyd(a)cols.com.au> wrote:
> I hope you don't mind this approach. Rather than contributing to separate
> elists, I've put a message on a bulletin board hosted at OCLC. They're the
> largest non profit for librarians in the world. They also have a tool – the
> Dewey Decimal Code – which could help wikimedians associate their content
> with their projects (and communications).
I have to say, as a classifier I started hyperventilating with
laughter at this point. Of all the things that are completely
inappropriate to use for anything like our projects, DDC must be high
on the list...
(DDC is essentially a system for arranging physical books in a linear
order. In an electronic environment, it's... well, about as meaningful
as "alphabetising things" for any form of structured information. Not
to mention the fact that it's immensely legally encumbered!)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
> But is Wiki Educational Resources Limited a charity (yet)?
As far as I know, no. That doesn't mean it can't accept donations, it
just means they aren't tax deductible. An update on how the charitable
status application is progressing would be good.
But is Wiki Educational Resources Limited a charity (yet)?
"Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki Educational Resources
Limited, a Company limited by Guarantee and incorporated in England
and Wales, number 05708269. "Wikimedia", the Wikimedia logo, and
various other devices are marks owned by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
and are used under licence."
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
I've just been looking into officially joining the UK chapter, and I
have a couple of questions about fees that I hope someone can answer:
1) It appears that students don't qualify for the concession rate - is
that correct?
2) £25 a year seems like quite a large amount. What was the reasoning
behind that particular number?
Tom