Slashdot Mirror


Huge German Donation Marks Wikipedia's Evolution

Raul654 writes "In December, we discussed the German Federal Archive's agreement, at the urging of Wikimedia Deutschland, to donate 100,000 pictures to Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. At the time that was the largest picture donation ever to Wikipedia, and thought to be largest in the history of the free culture movement. Now Wikimedia Deutschland has reached a similar agreement with the Saxon State and University Library, which will donate 250,000 pictures to Wikipedia under CCA-ShareAlike. On a not-unrelated note: Microsoft has announced that it will discontinue its Encarta encyclopedia."

41 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. nice by niner69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good job Germany. We should start lobbying Congress to do the same with the Library of Congress.

    1. Re:nice by maxume · · Score: 2

      That doesn't even make sense.

      Lots of what they have is already accessible anyway:

      http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:nice by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Funny

      But if that happens, will that mean the standard of measurement will become 'how many Wikipedias is that?'

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:nice by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The good side is that American law specifies that the work of government employees on government time is in the public domain. The bad side is that the library of congress website is the single most disorganized, least function website on the internet. It is the only non-proxy website I have seen in a decade or more that uses temporary URLs (which makes deep linking to their content on Wikipedia difficult, since we can't link to the page we got it from).

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    4. Re:nice by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The good side is that American law specifies that the work of government employees on government time is in the public domain.

      That is only true of the federal government, not the various state and local governments.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    5. Re:nice by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because they can resist releasing the documents doesn't make the documents not in the public domain. I could have the only copy of a book written in 1500. That book is in the public domain. I am under zero obligation to give it to you. Much of material which is classified in the US is public domain as far as copyright is concerned.

    6. Re:nice by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not until someone can quantify elitist asshole admins in a number. d:

    7. Re:nice by orgelspieler · · Score: 2, Funny

      The SI unit for elitist asshole admins is the jimbo (Ji).

  2. Encarta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone know it was still around?

    1. Re:Encarta? by Bob54321 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did anyone know it was still around?

      Well, yes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    2. Re:Encarta? by RabidTimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will miss there little maze trivia game whatever it was called. But then again, I guess I haven't used encarta in years, so maybe I won't really miss it.

    3. Re:Encarta? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Naturally Microsoft, being a self-described good corporate citizen and having no further profit motive for doing otherwise, will proceed to do the right thing and donate all the Encarta articles and images to the commons. Won't they? Won't they?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    4. Re:Encarta? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as I know most or at least major parts of most of the the articles are licensed from other encyclopaedias, so they are not really free to just give them out.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    5. Re:Encarta? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fact that there's a fairly complete, informative article about Encarta aptly demonstrates one of Wikipedia's strengths.

      Following the first multimedia Academic American Encyclopedia, Microsoft initiated Encarta by purchasing non-exclusive rights to the Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, incorporating it into its first edition in 1993. (Funk & Wagnalls continued to publish revised editions for several years independently of Encarta, but then ceased printing in the late 1990s.) Funk & Wagnalls had been a third-tier encyclopedia available at cut rates in grocery stores, where volumes were sold individually as well as in one collected set. The name Encarta was created for Microsoft by an advertising agency, successfully guessing that it sounded better than Funk & Wagnalls.[4]

      The article's summary illustrates one of its weaknesses...

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:Encarta? by wmac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is valuable content in your opinion? You obviously have problem with MS otherwise how a whole encyclopedia which contains a lot of text, pictures and video cannot be useful?

    7. Re:Encarta? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know most or at least major parts of most of the the articles are licensed from other encyclopaedias, so they are not really free to just give them out.

      According to Wikpedia although the original content from Funk & Wagnalls was non-exclusive, Microsoft later purchased Collier's and New Merit Scholar encyclopedias, so at least some of the content would be free for Microsoft to donate. Should it happen to discover a shred of genuine generosity somewhere in its cold little heart.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    8. Re:Encarta? by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wikimedia is already asking them about this.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  3. Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope they don't have to figure out how to submit them and enter all the metadata through Wikipedia's terrible interface one by one.

    I once tried to submit a photo to Wikimedia and it took me an hour to do it. Just figuring out which of ten diffeent licenses I should license it under was a pain because they're poorly described. And when I wanted to find the image later after some jerk reverted my edit to the page I added the image to, it took forever to do that as well because the search function wouldn't return it as a result.

    If they'd actually make it easy for people to submit stuff to the site, this donation wouldn't even be worth a mention, because they'd be drowning in media. I'm one guy and I have 10,000 nature photos I'd be happy to submit, but won't, because they've made it way too difficult and time consuming to be bothered with.

    1. Re:Gee... by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The tools for automated submissions of the pictures are already in place. What is needed, however, are people to translate the German captions into English.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    2. Re:Gee... by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It isn't that hard. I have submitted quite a few pictures to Wikipedia, and have learned a bit along the way.

      The first one does take a while, but then you know what you want to use. I have hundreds of pictures on Commons, with most of them still on the Wikipedia pages. The ones that aren't have been replaced by better pictures.

      The main thing is that pictures that you took, and can license in any way you want should go on commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/ . That allows your pictures to be used on other language Wikipedias, which images only on en.Wikipedia can't be due to licensing issues. Then, they will be listed in your gallery, and contributions lists.

      Pictures where you can only claim a fair-use license have to go on Wikipedia, since fair-use is a US only thing, and can't necessarily be used in other countries.

      If you have pictures of species that don't currently have pictures on Wikipedia, then it would be helpful if you put pictures on those pages, with the images hosted on Commons, and maybe added to the other language Wikipdeias as well.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:Gee... by bhtooefr · · Score: 4, Funny

      The beauty of their license is, you can scrape their DB, make a new wiki-based encyclopedia, and try to compete on flexibility of rules.

    4. Re:Gee... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The tools for automated submissions of the pictures are already in place. What is needed, however, are people to translate the German captions into English.

      Well for the English version anyway. What about all the other languages supported by wikipedia?

    5. Re:Gee... by Raul654 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      English is the almost universal language of academia, business, and the internet. Once you have the captions translated into English, it's relatively easy to go from English to each of the other 300-odd Wikipedia languages.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    6. Re:Gee... by bitrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've spent some time looking at Wikipedia's articles on 20th century military history, and after noticing some errors in some of them I decided to check out who the major players in the edit history were. Surprise surprise, the great majority of articles on 20th century military history are moderated and controlled by a group of maybe a dozen uber-editors, who apparently spend the great majority of their time doing reverts, reverts, reverts. Obviously aspects of 20th century military history can be contentious, but a glance at the user pages of these editors shows that they also spend a great deal of effort handing out faux military "decorations" to each other and engaged in general self-congratulation for composing and defending the content of various articles. That kind of behavior a) doesn't encourage any kind of objectivity, only groupthink, and b) is so. fucking. queer.

    7. Re:Gee... by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny
      I find the discussion pages to be much more informative than the article itself in many cases.

      The peter north discussion, for example, contains dozens of people repeating the same basic arguments over and over:

      • He has a big dick!
      • It's statistically impossible for him to have a large dick!
      • I have lots of (gay) sex and his dick is average.
      • I have a large dick, too!
      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:Gee... by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Submitting a picture is a simple thing. It shouldn't involve much learning." - in a world without copyright that's true. It's technically trivial create something like 4chan.

      But if you want such a database to be reusable and legally trusthworthy, and not a legal land mine, then you have to ask a bit more of your contributors. And copyright law, especially international copyright law, is anything but simple.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    9. Re:Gee... by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      And when I wanted to find the image later after some jerk reverted my edit to the page I added the image to, it took forever to do that as well because the search function wouldn't return it as a result.

      That's why Wikipedia logs well . . . everything. There's this handy one called the upload log that, surprise surprise, logs uploads. Plug in your username there and it'd take about 2 seconds to find it again.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  4. w00t. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this can be given some momentum by other scions of Wikipedia following the model and pushing for similar arrangements with archives around the world based on referencing the WikiDE arrangements, maybe this could be turned into a tidal wave trend. The time has come for the artificial scarcity of knowledge in the modern era to end.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  5. Permanent storage by Narpak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I reckon one way to ensure that data is more secure, for instance the pictures in this case, is to make it available to sites like Wikipedia. Thus creating another place were the data is stored; and it becomes easily accessible to many. I would like to see this continue, perhaps not only through wikipedia; but it is a good start.

    1. Re:Permanent storage by Narpak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I should have specified that the data I had in mind was things that are, or should be, available to everyone; but can only be accesses through archaic means at the present moment. What individuals to do preserve their own private personal data or pictures is non of my concern.

  6. Actually, I consider this the big news by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is certain that Wiki will continue to receive money and donations for years to come. What I find interesting is that MS is slowing killing off what was considered for decades its core programs. Flight Sim is gone. Now Encartia. At one time, those WERE big players for MS.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Actually, I consider this the big news by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    2. Re:Actually, I consider this the big news by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 2, Informative

      Laid off, not fired. Though the difference is subtle, the former does not place a negative mark on their résumé.

    3. Re:Actually, I consider this the big news by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please excuse my deplorable lack of pedantry... :-P

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
  7. Re:"Huge German Donation" by copponex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Das sagt deine Freundin auch immer!!!!!

  8. Lots of pictures from German donors, eh? by HoldmyCauls · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are they *all* of David Hasselhoff?

    --
    Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
  9. Re:Public domain compatible with GFDL? by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Informative

    On Wikipedia, a distinction is made between pictures and text. All the text is GFDL, but the pictures can be other licenses. An article can have GFDL text with creative commons attribution/sharealike pictures. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been told that mixed copyright like this is a relatively new, ill-defined area of law. For distribution, Wikipedia is available in text-only dumps and combined text/image dumps.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  10. Oblig. grammar nazi by tux0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I will miss there little maze trivia game whatever it was called. But then again, I guess I haven't used encarta in years, so maybe I won't really miss it.

    I think I can confirm your guesstimate...

    --
    ( Redundancy is ) ^ n
  11. Re:Public domain compatible with GFDL? by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is why the Wikimedia Foundation has been in talks with the FSF, which resulted in a new version of the GFDL that allows dual licensing with CC-BY-SA. A proposal is now underway to make such dual licensing mandatory for all new content on Wikimedia projects.

  12. Re:"Huge German Donation" by jlp2097 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Translation for the lazy:

    "That's also what your girlfriend always says!"

  13. Re:I hope the cologne archive collapse leads to ch by prefec2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most museums in Germany are owned by the state (federal state, states or cities) or foundations. This has the advantage that they can first preserve the material and then think about making a profit.