Hi Dario,
I completely agree that we have to distinguish between OA and
CC-licensed - that was implied by my phrase on "suitably licensed"
papers, and I have been requesting "search by license" functionalities
in several databases that lack it (e.g.
http://www.science3point0.com/evomri/2010/09/11/feature-request-search-by-l…
).
Of the three CC licenses compatible with use on Commons (CC0, CC-BY,
CC-BY-SA), only the second is of practical relevance in OA publishing,
but this means really relevant - BMC, PLoS, Hindawi, Copernicus,
Frontiers and many of the smaller OA publishers use mainly or
exclusively CC-BY, and I think it would not be difficult to get image
datasets from some of these journals for testing purposes (as the
survey dissemination has shown, a number of publishers are prepared to
help wiki such specific wiki-related activities).
This still leaves the two questions open that I had put in my initial
post here - any comments on them?
I would also like to hear more about that Wellcome / Commons project.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Dario Taraborelli
<dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thanks for starting this thread, it's a very important project and
repositories such as
springerimages.com (which specifically allow searching
for OA media) could be a goldmine of scientific content for commons.The
Wellcome Trust in Britain is also running a pilot project (involving GLAM
people) to study the best model for collaboration between scientific
institutions producing large volumes of digital media and Commons, which
sounds really exciting.
A concern I have with the mass upload idea is that being OA doesn't
necessarily imply being available under a public license that allows reuse.
A quick inspection at number of OA images from SpringerImages suggests that
they can indeed be reused under a CC-BY, but I assume this is not
necessarily the case in general, correct? The distinction between OA and
CC-licensed contents is something we should keep in mind as part of our
policy making effort within RCom.
Dario
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Daniel Mietchen
<daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimedia Commons hosts a lot of images (and some other files) from OA
publishers (e.g.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=…
), and I am wondering whether that could be streamlined a bit.
Some issues that possibly stand in the way:
(1) It is not clear what percentage of such files from suitably
licensed papers would be of use in pages that use media hosted at
Commons (either at Wikimedia or via InstantCommons). If that
percentage is low, then the costs of hosting the unused files may
outweigh the benefit of having the used ones, though the ease of
automated upload (and possibly gardening) could shift the balance
quite a bit.
(2) Every publisher (and often journal) organize their files
differently, which the upload scripts would have to take into account.
Would this mean that multiple bot accounts would have to be requested
as per
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Requests ? If
so, some means of enforcing common standards would be necessary.
Not sure whether RCom-l is the right place to discuss that, but I
thought I'd give it a try, since working on standards is part of our
mission.
Thanks and cheers,
Daniel
--
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
Dario Taraborelli, PhD
Senior Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://nitens.org/taraborelli
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
--
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen