I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening.
They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal Navy warships on their website: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori... (it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I've set up a project page for this on-wiki, please do have a look and join in :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM
Thanks
Chris
On 30 July 2011 16:18, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening. They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal Navy warships on their website: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori... (it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I've set up a project page for this on-wiki, please do have a look and join in :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM Thanks Chris
Good. Any chance of them letting us take some pics of their ship models?
I can ask - particularly if there is a way to phrase the request in the context of this project.
On Saturday, July 30, 2011, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2011 16:18, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening. They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal
Navy
warships on their website:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori...
(it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I've set up a project page for this on-wiki, please do have a look and
join
in :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM Thanks Chris
Good. Any chance of them letting us take some pics of their ship models?
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I suspect that, if we end up in the situation where we've improved a given article as much as possible given the extra information they're providing (and particularly if we go a step further than this and incorporate sources that they haven't encountered or haven't managed to utilise), and if a picture of the ship is an obvious gap in the coverage of a particular ship, then they will be amenable to this possibility. Given that they're making all of this information freely available to us under our preferred license, then we really need to prove that we can use it (and share it) as effectively as possible before they give us more content...
Thanks, Mike
On 30 Jul 2011, at 22:06, Chris Keating wrote:
I can ask - particularly if there is a way to phrase the request in the context of this project.
On Saturday, July 30, 2011, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2011 16:18, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening. They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal Navy warships on their website: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori... (it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I've set up a project page for this on-wiki, please do have a look and join in :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM Thanks Chris
Good. Any chance of them letting us take some pics of their ship models?
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening. They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal Navy warships on their website: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori... (it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I've set up a project page for this on-wiki, please do have a look and join in :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM
Fantastic. Has someone notified the WP Ships project? The State Library of Queensland collaboration resulted in 5000 images of ships being uploaded to Commons, and a lot of these are UK ships.
see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sh...
and
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sh...
Fantastic. Has someone notified the WP Ships project?
Yes. :-)
The State Library of Queensland collaboration resulted in 5000 images of ships being uploaded to Commons,
and a lot of these are UK ships.
Good point. I don't suppose you know how many of them are British *war*ships?
Regards,
Chris
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Good point. I don't suppose you know how many of them are British *war*ships?
Caw. You're hard to please.
Here are a few
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/StateLibQld_royal_navy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/StateLibQld_British
Good point. I don't suppose you know how many of them are British *war*ships?
Caw. You're hard to please.
Here are a few
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/StateLibQld_royal_navy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/StateLibQld_British
Brilliant! Thank you. There's even one of a ship called HMS Dragon, which is the name I've been using as the example of what we can do with the data. Into the article that goes.
:-D
C
On 30/07/2011 16:18, Chris Keating wrote:
I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening.
They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal Navy warships on their website: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori... (it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I know that "released" is now apparently synonymous with "published" (in American English at least). RS needs published secondary sources, as we understand. Just to be clear, we expect this data to be acceptable as a source directly citable in articles?
I'm not ungrateful for the contact, though. See [[Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Photo request]] for something on my mind a few weeks ago, directly relevant to the National Maritime Museum though not about boats.
Charles
On 30/07/2011 16:18, Chris Keating wrote:
I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the National Maritime Museum is now happening.
They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal Navy warships on their website:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histori...
(it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected)
I know that "released" is now apparently synonymous with "published" (in American English at least). RS needs published secondary sources, as we understand. Just to be clear, we expect this data to be acceptable as a source directly citable in articles?
Yes. "Released" refers to the NMM's intellectual property. "Published" refers to the act of making it available to the public, as they have done on their website.
It is also a secondary source, in the sense that it's information gathered by NMM staff (i.e. people who know what they are doing) from the original source documentation.
It is clearly an _unusual_ secondary source in that we're much more used to working with books, website articles, etc than we are with 2,500-page PDF documents in this format, but previous discussions (on this list and on-wiki) have indicated that people think it is a good source for the purposes of WP:RS
Obviously the community as a whole could in theory decide that it is not a reliable source, which would scupper the whole project and leave me looking very silly - but given the reaction so far from the community has been very positive.
(And obviously I wouldn't expect the community to take my embarrassment into account ;-) )
Chris
I'm not ungrateful for the contact, though. See [[Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Photo request]] for something on my mind a few weeks ago, directly relevant to the National Maritime Museum though not about boats.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 31/07/2011 15:26, Chris Keating wrote:
On 30/07/2011 16:18, Chris Keating wrote: > I'm very pleased to say that our long-planned collaboration with the > National Maritime Museum is now happening. > > They have released a lot of info from their internal research on Royal > Navy warships on their website: > http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/research-areas-and-projects/warship-histories/ > (it says CC-BY-NC but the NC bit is a typo and will soon be corrected) I know that "released" is now apparently synonymous with "published" (in American English at least). RS needs published secondary sources, as we understand. Just to be clear, we expect this data to be acceptable as a source directly citable in articles?Yes. "Released" refers to the NMM's intellectual property. "Published" refers to the act of making it available to the public, as they have done on their website.
It is also a secondary source, in the sense that it's information gathered by NMM staff (i.e. people who know what they are doing) from the original source documentation.
It is clearly an _unusual_ secondary source in that we're much more used to working with books, website articles, etc than we are with 2,500-page PDF documents in this format, but previous discussions (on this list and on-wiki) have indicated that people think it is a good source for the purposes of WP:RS
Obviously the community as a whole could in theory decide that it is not a reliable source, which would scupper the whole project and leave me looking very silly - but given the reaction so far from the community has been very positive.
I didn't think the reliability was a worry. There are nuances in "published": I recall a Wikisource discussion on hosting this material, which on the issue of publication seemed to go against doing that. Thanks for the clarification.
Charles
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org