We need more articles listing public art in United Kingdom counties, cities or towns.
I've written a blog post about how to compile them:
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
Once a page is created, adding a row should be something a novice an easily do. More experienced Wikipedians can help with tidying up formatting, adding references, and so on. As well as adding artworks known to you, of course!
On 25/08/15 20:21, Andy Mabbett wrote:
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
**** You might have knowledge of your local artwork, or be able to visit your nearest library to make enquiries; or to take pictures and upload them to Wikimedia Commons, ****
I have taken pictures of art at Canary Wharf and put them on Commons only to be told that I cannot post such images on Commons.
I cannot recall the reason (or find the deleted file). I think it was part of a exhibition, rather than a permanent object, such as Ron Arad's "The Big Blue 2000"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thebigblue2000.jpg
Any guidance?
Thanks,
Gordon
On 26 August 2015 at 10:24, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
I have taken pictures of art at Canary Wharf and put them on Commons only to be told that I cannot post such images on Commons.
I cannot recall the reason (or find the deleted file). I think it was part of a exhibition, rather than a permanent object, such as Ron Arad's "The Big Blue 2000"
This is the issue of "Freedom of Panorama". See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdo...
On 26/08/15 11:47, Andy Mabbett wrote:
This is the issue of "Freedom of Panorama". See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdo...
Thanks,
I took this picture, with the blessing of staff at the Turner Contemporary.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/loopzilla/19855946152/
The staff also confirmed that I could *not* take picture of the Grayson Perry exhibition.
Two art works (or collections) in the same building, both on display for limited periods of time (both ending in September 2015). The Grayson Perry collection is off limits, but "We Will See How Everything Reverberates" (2012) is both on display for photography, and you can play the cymbals too!
Gordo
This is example in mind, with a delete request from a certain "MichaelMaggs"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DSC09873.JPG
https://www.flickr.com/photos/loopzilla/2569579585/
"Unfortunately this image is of a temporary installation and is thus a copyright violation; see talk page Korax1214 10:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)"
OK, I can see that. After all, we know how long "permanent" is going to be....
Gordo
On 26/08/15 10:24, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 25/08/15 20:21, Andy Mabbett wrote:
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
You might have knowledge of your local artwork, or be able to visit your nearest library to make enquiries; or to take pictures and upload them to Wikimedia Commons,
I have taken pictures of art at Canary Wharf and put them on Commons only to be told that I cannot post such images on Commons.
I cannot recall the reason (or find the deleted file). I think it was part of a exhibition, rather than a permanent object, such as Ron Arad's "The Big Blue 2000"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thebigblue2000.jpg
Any guidance?
Thanks,
Gordon
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
The UK is fortunately one of the best countries in the world for photographers to take photos of public art. In comparison with most countries, our rules on freedom of panorama are very favourable. They cover not only buildings and parts of buildings but also sculptures and 3D artworks in any public place, where 'public place' includes any indoor or outdoor area 'to which the public has access, on payment of a fee or otherwise'. That includes museums, art galleries etc, even privately owned so long as the public has access.
Commons will accept photos of public art provided they do not infringe any copyright. That means in practice that the artwork being photographed must either be old enough to be out of copyright, or (if still in copyright) must be permanently displayed in a public place. Pieces which are part of a gallery's permanent displays are OK, but those which are part of temporary exhibitions are not.
So far as I am aware there is no UK case law which explains what the Copyright Act 1988 means by 'permanently', and the word has therefore to be read, as best we can, according to its normal day to day meaning. While there are certainly edge cases where the legal situation is uncertain, that's very unusual. Almost all public art images that are deleted from Commons fail because it's really obvious that the artwork is part of a short-term and temporary display.
Michael
Gordon Joly wrote:
This is example in mind, with a delete request from a certain "MichaelMaggs"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DSC09873.JPG
https://www.flickr.com/photos/loopzilla/2569579585/
"Unfortunately this image is of a temporary installation and is thus a copyright violation; see talk page Korax1214 10:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)"
OK, I can see that. After all, we know how long "permanent" is going to be....
Gordo
On 26/08/15 10:24, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 25/08/15 20:21, Andy Mabbett wrote:
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
You might have knowledge of your local artwork, or be able to visit your nearest library to make enquiries; or to take pictures and upload them to Wikimedia Commons,
I have taken pictures of art at Canary Wharf and put them on Commons only to be told that I cannot post such images on Commons.
I cannot recall the reason (or find the deleted file). I think it was part of a exhibition, rather than a permanent object, such as Ron Arad's "The Big Blue 2000"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thebigblue2000.jpg
Any guidance?
Thanks,
Gordon
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 26 August 2015 at 11:09, Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote: ...
Commons will accept photos of public art provided they do not infringe any copyright. That means in practice that the artwork being photographed must either be old enough to be out of copyright, or (if still in copyright) must be permanently displayed in a public place. Pieces which are part of a gallery's permanent displays are OK, but those which are part of temporary exhibitions are not.
...
that's very unusual. Almost all public art images that are deleted from Commons fail because it's really obvious that the artwork is part of a short-term and temporary display.
Telling volunteers that "on permanent display" is the rule of thumb, raises expectations that need to be managed. A new contributor who makes a lot of effort to take high quality photographs of a permanently located public artwork, would probably be upset at finding it up for deletion. If someone does run a large volunteer project in the UK, it would be a useful outcome to add marginal FoP examples that test the definition to the Commons guidelines as a UK specific case-book. In practice I would say "on permanent display, probably" is a better rule of thumb.
I think I have more experience of having uploaded photographs taken to Commons deletion discussions under Freedom of Panorama than other readers of this list, and the cases can be difficult for anyone to interpret. Off the top of my head, examples of past tricky discussions include:
1. Statues where the artist died fewer than 70 years ago and the statue has been on permanent display in the Tate for decades, but used to be in a different location. Hypothetically having been moved could mean it fails the UK FoP, however it was eventually kept under an understanding of "intention".
2. Close-up of a public park bandstand, at least 70 years old, but put up for deletion as it was painted with varied colours. Deleted.
3. Graffiti with graphical elements, many cases, deleted. Even though graffiti cannot be moved, and the artist means to make a public statement, it is still considered a non-permanent work.
4. Artwork installation of decaying salt statue. In contradiction to the way graffiti is handled, this was kept as the intention of the artist was considered to make a permanent public work, even though its nature is impermanent.
5. Political graffiti that is text only, many cases, kept. Rather than under FoP, these can be kept due to low creativity. Fancy semi-graphical text might still be deleted.
6. Decorative fixed signs, painted gates, decorative posts, again mixed results. In theory objects like decorative pub signs are not permanent, however their intent is seen as to be effectively permanent and are mostly kept. I had a photograph of a painted gate recently deleted, though probably intended by the artist as permanent this was considered more mural work and so was deleted (I think speedy deleted).
7. Fixed advertising, such as painted on walls or decorative shop-fronts. Billboard advertising fails FoP though confusingly many examples are kept on Commons as the billboard is not the "focus" of the image... only older advertising such as one might see on the side of buildings from the 1950s are invariably kept even though the ownership/copyright history may not be understood. There are plenty of more recent examples being both kept and deleted, often the issue of where to judge that the creative component is not the focus of the image is critical.
8. Painted statues, this rarely comes up, as most people seem to think that painted statues are 3D works, however close-ups of painted 3D objects are often questioned and some are deleted as a graphic work. Good recent examples are the fibreglass CowParade statues, some probably becoming fixed public works, many being highly decorated and hard to justify as being suitable for Commons.
9. Public statues which are on loan or tour. Some quite well known public artworks are on long term loan, even if weighing several tonnes and bolted into the ground in public parks. Some end up being moved around the park in redesigns, and others go on tour to other countries even though considered as on permanent display. The display history of a statue is critical if the copyright is questioned, especially for more recent artists with copyright being of interest to their estates, such as Barbara Hepworth.
The conclusion is that many Commons administrators have difficulty judging marginal cases or knowing how to assess the background of a UK work, such as whether it was a Crown commission, whether the artists' estate has an interest in protecting copyright, or what to do about corporate commissions where the company has long since gone out of trade. An understanding of the UK context which might be overlooked by some regular non-UK based deletion discussion participants can often prove critical (e.g. what Crown Copyright, WAAC or the London County Council are about).
In practice we often see marginal cases which result in significant and tiresome debate, so the bigger the case-book the better. This not only helps Commons admins, but is a practical thing to point new contributors to, rather than dry text.
Fae
It's certainly true that edge examples cause difficulties for Commons admins, not jus because of a lack of knowledge but because the law is inevitably uncertain at the edges. Copyright law generally has no 'bright lines'.
The best way to handle that, in practice, is to try to develop Commons policy or guidelines that define as accurately as possible what is and is not acceptable to the community, it being understood that Commons guidelines don't need to be as vaguely drafted as the underlying copyright law. It would be great if we could agree for example that for Commons purposes "permanently on display" should be interpreted as "not known or reasonably believed to be displayed on a non-permanent basis", or something like that, to be supported by specific examples in a case book.
I'd be happy to join you, Fae, or anyone else who'd like to work on a proposed Commons guideline to that effect.
Michael
Fæ wrote:
On 26 August 2015 at 11:09, Michael MaggsMichael@maggs.name wrote: ...
Commons will accept photos of public art provided they do not infringe any copyright. That means in practice that the artwork being photographed must either be old enough to be out of copyright, or (if still in copyright) must be permanently displayed in a public place. Pieces which are part of a gallery's permanent displays are OK, but those which are part of temporary exhibitions are not.
...
that's very unusual. Almost all public art images that are deleted from Commons fail because it's really obvious that the artwork is part of a short-term and temporary display.
Telling volunteers that "on permanent display" is the rule of thumb, raises expectations that need to be managed. A new contributor who makes a lot of effort to take high quality photographs of a permanently located public artwork, would probably be upset at finding it up for deletion. If someone does run a large volunteer project in the UK, it would be a useful outcome to add marginal FoP examples that test the definition to the Commons guidelines as a UK specific case-book. In practice I would say "on permanent display, probably" is a better rule of thumb.
I think I have more experience of having uploaded photographs taken to Commons deletion discussions under Freedom of Panorama than other readers of this list, and the cases can be difficult for anyone to interpret. Off the top of my head, examples of past tricky discussions include:
- Statues where the artist died fewer than 70 years ago and the
statue has been on permanent display in the Tate for decades, but used to be in a different location. Hypothetically having been moved could mean it fails the UK FoP, however it was eventually kept under an understanding of "intention".
- Close-up of a public park bandstand, at least 70 years old, but put
up for deletion as it was painted with varied colours. Deleted.
- Graffiti with graphical elements, many cases, deleted. Even though
graffiti cannot be moved, and the artist means to make a public statement, it is still considered a non-permanent work.
- Artwork installation of decaying salt statue. In contradiction to
the way graffiti is handled, this was kept as the intention of the artist was considered to make a permanent public work, even though its nature is impermanent.
- Political graffiti that is text only, many cases, kept. Rather than
under FoP, these can be kept due to low creativity. Fancy semi-graphical text might still be deleted.
- Decorative fixed signs, painted gates, decorative posts, again
mixed results. In theory objects like decorative pub signs are not permanent, however their intent is seen as to be effectively permanent and are mostly kept. I had a photograph of a painted gate recently deleted, though probably intended by the artist as permanent this was considered more mural work and so was deleted (I think speedy deleted).
- Fixed advertising, such as painted on walls or decorative
shop-fronts. Billboard advertising fails FoP though confusingly many examples are kept on Commons as the billboard is not the "focus" of the image... only older advertising such as one might see on the side of buildings from the 1950s are invariably kept even though the ownership/copyright history may not be understood. There are plenty of more recent examples being both kept and deleted, often the issue of where to judge that the creative component is not the focus of the image is critical.
- Painted statues, this rarely comes up, as most people seem to think
that painted statues are 3D works, however close-ups of painted 3D objects are often questioned and some are deleted as a graphic work. Good recent examples are the fibreglass CowParade statues, some probably becoming fixed public works, many being highly decorated and hard to justify as being suitable for Commons.
- Public statues which are on loan or tour. Some quite well known
public artworks are on long term loan, even if weighing several tonnes and bolted into the ground in public parks. Some end up being moved around the park in redesigns, and others go on tour to other countries even though considered as on permanent display. The display history of a statue is critical if the copyright is questioned, especially for more recent artists with copyright being of interest to their estates, such as Barbara Hepworth.
The conclusion is that many Commons administrators have difficulty judging marginal cases or knowing how to assess the background of a UK work, such as whether it was a Crown commission, whether the artists' estate has an interest in protecting copyright, or what to do about corporate commissions where the company has long since gone out of trade. An understanding of the UK context which might be overlooked by some regular non-UK based deletion discussion participants can often prove critical (e.g. what Crown Copyright, WAAC or the London County Council are about).
In practice we often see marginal cases which result in significant and tiresome debate, so the bigger the case-book the better. This not only helps Commons admins, but is a practical thing to point new contributors to, rather than dry text.
Fae
Hi Andy,
if each of these artworks had a Wikidata item, lists could be generated as a "by-product", in addition to all the possible queries etc.
Putting data into templates to show on Wikipedia pages is neither vegetable, animal, or mineral. The worst solution to store this data, IMHO, in 2015.
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
We need more articles listing public art in United Kingdom counties, cities or towns.
I've written a blog post about how to compile them:
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
Once a page is created, adding a row should be something a novice an easily do. More experienced Wikipedians can help with tidying up formatting, adding references, and so on. As well as adding artworks known to you, of course!
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
This is already attracting new editors to Wikipedia. Show me the initiative which is bringing them into Wikidata similarly.
On 27 August 2015 at 15:10, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Andy,
if each of these artworks had a Wikidata item, lists could be generated as a "by-product", in addition to all the possible queries etc.
Putting data into templates to show on Wikipedia pages is neither vegetable, animal, or mineral. The worst solution to store this data, IMHO, in 2015.
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
We need more articles listing public art in United Kingdom counties, cities or towns.
I've written a blog post about how to compile them:
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
Once a page is created, adding a row should be something a novice an easily do. More experienced Wikipedians can help with tidying up formatting, adding references, and so on. As well as adding artworks known to you, of course!
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
We have quite a few UK public sculptures on commons, especially as a result of the geograph import. Would it be possible to use a program to start such lists on Wikipedia based on categories on commons?
You could exclude anything in subcategories under museum or church if you want to narrow this down to stuff in the open air.
And once the lists are built you might have something that could be auto loaded into wikidata.
Side note to the copyright/FOP experts; does permanent public display mean it has to stay in the same place and can't be moved even a few yards?
Regards
Jonathan
On 27 Aug 2015, at 16:21, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
This is already attracting new editors to Wikipedia. Show me the initiative which is bringing them into Wikidata similarly.
On 27 August 2015 at 15:10, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote: Hi Andy,
if each of these artworks had a Wikidata item, lists could be generated as a "by-product", in addition to all the possible queries etc.
Putting data into templates to show on Wikipedia pages is neither vegetable, animal, or mineral. The worst solution to store this data, IMHO, in 2015.
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
We need more articles listing public art in United Kingdom counties, cities or towns.
I've written a blog post about how to compile them:
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
Once a page is created, adding a row should be something a novice an easily do. More experienced Wikipedians can help with tidying up formatting, adding references, and so on. As well as adding artworks known to you, of course!
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
There's little doubt that that would be OK. The copyright Act says "permanently situated in a public place" and there's no reason to restrict that to mean "permanently bolted to the ground". The legal exception covers all types of 3D works of artistic craftsmanship, including for example small sculptures displayed in a museum case. Such portable works will, by their nature, be moved around from time to time, but if they are part of the permanent exhibits they remain "permanently situated in a public place", namely the public galleries of the museum.
Michael
WereSpielChequers wrote:
<..>
Side note to the copyright/FOP experts; does permanent public display mean it has to stay in the same place and can't be moved even a few yards?
Regards
Jonathan
This can be part of the same initiative. I've started an auto-generated list for the place I am currently staying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_art_in_Sylt
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
This is already attracting new editors to Wikipedia. Show me the initiative which is bringing them into Wikidata similarly.
On 27 August 2015 at 15:10, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Andy,
if each of these artworks had a Wikidata item, lists could be generated
as a
"by-product", in addition to all the possible queries etc.
Putting data into templates to show on Wikipedia pages is neither
vegetable,
animal, or mineral. The worst solution to store this data, IMHO, in 2015.
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
We need more articles listing public art in United Kingdom counties, cities or towns.
I've written a blog post about how to compile them:
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
Once a page is created, adding a row should be something a novice an easily do. More experienced Wikipedians can help with tidying up formatting, adding references, and so on. As well as adding artworks known to you, of course!
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Indeed; but my question was about bringing in /new/ editors.
Any reason you're not using the {{Public art row}} row template?
On 27 August 2015 at 20:55, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
This can be part of the same initiative. I've started an auto-generated list for the place I am currently staying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_art_in_Sylt
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
This is already attracting new editors to Wikipedia. Show me the initiative which is bringing them into Wikidata similarly.
On 27 August 2015 at 15:10, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Andy,
if each of these artworks had a Wikidata item, lists could be generated as a "by-product", in addition to all the possible queries etc.
Putting data into templates to show on Wikipedia pages is neither vegetable, animal, or mineral. The worst solution to store this data, IMHO, in 2015.
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:23 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
We need more articles listing public art in United Kingdom counties, cities or towns.
I've written a blog post about how to compile them:
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
and would be grateful if you would all assist, and ask others to do so.
Once a page is created, adding a row should be something a novice an easily do. More experienced Wikipedians can help with tidying up formatting, adding references, and so on. As well as adding artworks known to you, of course!
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 27/08/15 21:53, Andy Mabbett wrote:
This is already attracting new editors to Wikipedia. Show me the initiative which is bringing them into Wikidata similarly.
An interesting question. My personal point of view is that Wikidata is attractive since it clears up the mess of data in Wikipedia and Commons.
As for "new editors", and I wonder how many people have even heard of Wikidata, let alone understand the concepts. Wikimedia and Commons are clear enough. But Wikidata is a different level of abstraction.
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
Gordo
Good point, Gordon
I think this needs to be looked at in terms of finding new contributors (a better phrase, I feel when talking about wikidata) amongst the second order dataheads, i.e. those people who are more interested in the management of data than simply its accumulation.
This would mean looking at how reach could be acheived within the existing communities (particularly open data communities) which have already established themselves.
I think that this involves a quite different approach to that of contacting people to encourage them to become WIkipedia editors.
all the best
Fabian aka Leutha
On 28 August 2015 at 08:38 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 27/08/15 21:53, Andy Mabbett wrote:
This is already attracting new editors to Wikipedia. Show me the initiative which is bringing them into Wikidata similarly.
An interesting question. My personal point of view is that Wikidata is attractive since it clears up the mess of data in Wikipedia and Commons.
As for "new editors", and I wonder how many people have even heard of Wikidata, let alone understand the concepts. Wikimedia and Commons are clear enough. But Wikidata is a different level of abstraction.
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
Gordo
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 28 August 2015 at 08:38, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
A question I have raised a number of times, in fact, in terms of getting
something written. No dice, so far.
Charles
+1 for "wish this existed"... Sara
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:55:58 +0100 From: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Lists of public art in UK counties and cities
On 28 August 2015 at 08:38, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
A question I have raised a number of times, in fact, in terms of getting something written. No dice, so far. Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 28 August 2015 at 08:38, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Tours ?
On 29/08/15 23:37, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 28 August 2015 at 08:38, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
Very interactive! But I had in mind something a little more static.
Will take the tour.
Gordo
I know in this thread earlier there was a discussion about copyright/freedom of panaorama etc & how they are applied to "works of art" in public places.
Since then, a debate has arisen on which I would appreciate some more expert opinion...
On the English wikipedia page for Bristol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol ) there has been for ages an image of "graffiti" by Banksy ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banksy-ps.jpg ). I nominated the article at FAC ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bristol/... ) and User:Nikkimaria challenged the status of the image saying: "File:Banksy-ps.jpg: freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to graphic works - you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural."
In the light of discussions in this thread I removed the image with the edit summary: "remove Banksy image as 2D not covered by UK Freedom of Panorama".
My removal of the image was reverted with the edit summary "general consensus is that graffiti (illegal) is fine for FoP, but that murals (legal) are not."
Any comments or contributions on this debate (or anything else related to the article) on the FAC nomination page, would be appreciated.
Rod
On 01.09.2015 15:36, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 29/08/15 23:37, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 28 August 2015 at 08:38, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Is there a "Wikidata for Dummies"?
Very interactive! But I had in mind something a little more static.
Will take the tour.
Gordo
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org