Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Seeks Photos of 20 Million Artifacts Lost in Brazil Museum Fire (cnet.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the commons-at-the-tragedy dept.

On Sunday haruchai (Slashdot user #17,472) wrote that a 200-year-old museum in Brazil "is burning to the ground and it's likely the entire collection of some 20 million artifacts will be lost." Now CNET reports: The items in the Museu Nacional in Rio may be gone, but Wikipedia doesn't want them to be forgotten... "Did you take a photo of any of them? Help us preserve the memories of as many as we can and add them to @wikicommons," Wikipedia tweeted Tuesday, with an explanation on how to do so...

"The fire at the National Museum of Brazil has led to the devastating loss of 200 years of memory," Katherine Maher, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, said in a statement. "At Wikipedia, our community is hard at work every day curating a living record of our shared heritage," Maher said. "With this effort, we're asking people everywhere to join our global community and help the world recover from this collective tragedy."
Wikipedia's tweet included an image urging people to "Add your photo to the sum of all knowledge..."

56 comments

  1. No photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most museums have a rule about photography. I've never seen a 300 lbs. (136 kgs) rental guards move so fast as when I try taking some pictures.

    1. Re:No photos by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

      Most REAL museums don't care, as long as you're not annoying other patrons or using flash photography that can fade or damage artwork.

      The "museums" that do have a problem with photography are usually for-profit corporations that think photos will keep people from coming to the museum, and probably not worth your time.

    2. Re:No photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "300 lbs. (136 kgs) rental guards"

      You've misspelled monkey. Hope this helps!

    3. Re:No photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course. This is Brazil we're talking about.

    4. Re:No photos by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      The "museums" that do have a problem with photography are usually for-profit corporations that think photos will keep people from coming to the museum, and probably not worth your time.

      Most museums don't allow photography even without flash, generally on the grounds that camera gear interrupts the flow of people through the exhibits - patrons being shooed away from displays so they won't be in the shot, and so on. This is especially true if you want to take any kind of good photograph, the very kind being requested here. There usually isn't much light, and you need to use a tripod. It is also not possible to get a good shot through a glass case.

      And of course, when you exit through the gift shop, they would appreciate it if you bought the postcards of important works. They would be especially thrilled if you bought the coffee table book depicting the collection.

    5. Re:No photos by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Well, there you go. Send them their own postcards and coffee table books.
      Problem solved, once and for all.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:No photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get pretty great stuff with a fixed 60mm, a reasonably open aperture, and an ISO around 1200. Turn off the autofocus and the glass won't bother you. No tripod required.

  2. Er, Sprinklers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of fuckwit, or insurance company doesn't require a working sprinkler installation?

    The reason for the fire not being controlled should be considered a criminal act given the loss involved.

    1. Re:Er, Sprinklers? by Tuidjy · · Score: 2

      Ironically, the museum had just secured funding for one from BNDES (Brazilian Development Bank).

      Anecdotally and not quite related, when I was in the Army, in the 80s, my unit was quartered near the National Historical Museum of Bulgaria. We were briefed twice an year on our part in a theoretical emergency at the museum, once we took part in a training exercise simulating a fire. The conclusion of the exercise was that too many people had been mobilized and we were getting in each other way, and instead of actually reducing the numbers, the instructions were changed so that more people were relegated to cordoning off the site... and the perimeter was enlarged.

      Heh. I just checked, and the Bulgarian museum has been looking into updating its fire detecting installation since April of this year. Detection, not suppression. The fire suppression systems are room specific, there is no general system, probably because they are worried about damaging the artifacts.

      Of course, it helps that the Bulgarian museum is a big honking slab of fireproof stone. //// Except that it is not. What I remember is the old location, in the heart of the capital. Since 2000, it has been moved to a different building. The number of visits has nose dived, which is not surprising as the new location is the old presidential palace, which is outside of the beltway, in a location that was originally chosen for being out of the way, and easy to secure. And the entrance fee is more about 6 Euros, more than 1% of the average monthly salary.

      I guess the Commies thought history was to be used as propaganda for the People, while the new masters of Bulgaria think that it is a luxury good for tourists. And so turns the wheel of history.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
  3. Is the Library of Congress ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the Library of Congress ready to fight against the fire?
    Did it a digital preservation?

    https://www.loc.gov/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress

  4. Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by xack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Deletionists existed at the time of the library of Alexandra. Put the photos on Archive.org instead.

    1. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing should be trusted to Wikipedia, some nitwit was reverting my changes *line by line* the other day, and then deleted stuff that I hadn't entered. The reported me to the "authorities" for asking what the hell he was doing. Assholes sit on pages or looking for edits. I have had grammar fixes reverted because they were *not referenced*, when the issue was obvious subject-verb disagreement that would have gotten you an F in 3rd grade reading class.

    2. Re: Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Upload them anywhere but please do not only upload them to Wikipedia.

    3. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problems like that will only be solved when Artificial Intelligence does all that work, and eliminates humans from the equation entirely.

      A volunteer force is an un-policed force.

      A paid force is beholden to the irrational biases of those that pay.

      Humans are terrible at objectivity. AI will lift us to a higher state.

    4. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing should be trusted to Wikipedia, some nitwit was reverting my changes *line by line* the other day, and then deleted stuff that I hadn't entered. The reported me to the "authorities" for asking what the hell he was doing. Assholes sit on pages or looking for edits. I have had grammar fixes reverted because they were *not referenced*, when the issue was obvious subject-verb disagreement that would have gotten you an F in 3rd grade reading class.

      While there are certainly idiots in any large group of people odds are that if you keep getting reverted then you are the problem.

      Most likely you're regarded as a spammer AKA a marketer who's precious "message" (really, fraud and noise) is being rejected. All communication can be compromised by too much noise as well as too little message.

    5. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Other men, inversely, thought that the primary task was to eliminate useless works. They would invade the hexagons, exhibiting credentials which were not always false, skim through a volume with annoyance, and then condemn entire bookshelves to destruction: their ascetic, hygienic fury is responsible for the senseless loss of millions of books. Their name is execrated; but those who mourn the "treasures" destroyed by this frenzy overlook two notorious facts. One: the Library is so enormous that any reduction undertaken by humans is infinitesimal. Two: each book is unique, irreplaceable, but (inasmuch as the Library is total) there are always several hundreds of thousands of imperfect facsimiles--of works which differ only by one letter or one comma."

      ---Jorge Luis Borges, The Library of Babel

    6. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Most likely you're regarded as a spammer AKA a marketer who's precious "message" (really, fraud and noise) is being rejected. All communication can be compromised by too much noise as well as too little message.

      Because subject-verb agreement (or in your case, proper use of whose) is a marketing scam?

    7. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely you're regarded as a spammer AKA a marketer who's precious "message" (really, fraud and noise) is being rejected. All communication can be compromised by too much noise as well as too little message.

      Because subject-verb agreement (or in your case, proper use of whose) is a marketing scam?

      Absolutely. You're clearly a shill for Big English, probably trying to inflate salaries for teachers. Fite tha powerr, dont let sum stuped nurd tell you wat to say!!!

    8. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you're a true-believer in wikipedia where they can do no wrong. What's it like?

    9. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by SandorZoo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the request was to upload images to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia itself (who don't host media files AFAIK). The rules and processes for deletions are differerent, and most users can't delete images on Wikimedia Commons, they can only request they get deleted (with a specific reason). Details.

    10. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      "Marketer"? I was editing the page on the Lotus Esprit from 1977! What, I am trying to ruin the market for a run of 511 cars, most of which burned up in 1978?

    11. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing should be trusted to Wikipedia, some nitwit was reverting my changes *line by line* the other day, and then deleted stuff that I hadn't entered.

      Show us the change/deletion log for the page, otherwise you're just making shit up.

      . I have had grammar fixes reverted because they were *not referenced*,

      Show us the changelog, otherwise you're talking out your ass.

    12. Re:Deletionists will revert it as not notable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you didn't include citations on your submissions, thus why it was reverted...

      I don't see a citation in your edits...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...

      Seriously, you're going to get butthurt over an editor wanting people to follow the rules? How long would it have taken you to find a link that mentioned the issues with the fires?

  5. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does a socialist site like Wackipedia want with pictures of worldly goods? Things of value do not fit in with communism.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialist? Wikipedia rejects content with a non-commercial license.

  6. It's different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Museums doesn't want sprinklers accidentally going off and ruin priceless artifacts. That's why their systems doesn't have any water in the pipes until they activate the system. This kind of systems require finer controls to be activated in zones rather than the entire space. As you can see all that will increase complexity and costs.

    1. Re:It's different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of a common sense idea when you mention it, though, isn't that what the glass cabinets are for?

    2. Re:It's different... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      But they have a sprinkler system, so the whole museum can be saved after the exhibits are covered and the pipes are charged.

    3. Re:It's different... by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      But fires are totally ok...

  7. how much $$ damage did this fire cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems silly you place pricess artifacts all together in a single building without ensuring they are properly safeguarded

    1. Re:how much $$ damage did this fire cause? by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      If they are priceless, don’t you have your answer?

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    2. Re:how much $$ damage did this fire cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, because tons of pricess stuff and art of 'incalculable' value are still assigned insurance values which you can use to determine its price

      i think they are afraid of releasing the actual figures. at least $400 million is my guess. but half of this stuff was probably donated anyway by rich people seeking tax credits. even if they can determine a value, that loss will only increase over time as things generally increase in value with time and you're forever now missing out on potential museum admission revenue because all that shit is destroyed

  8. Re: I have a picture of a phallus to send them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I shoulda known better/

  9. A new future... by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would love to see museums that haven't been devastated do something of this nature as an insurance policy. Just think if could log into say, 2nd life and virtually tour the Louvre or the various Smithsonian institutions and see their complete works. It would never replace going there but would certainly be an experience, especially for those who would never get there anyways. The preservation and increased exposure of the greatest works of art in the world could be one of the most important uses of the internet. Furthering education and appreciation to a group that might never get such an opportunity otherwise.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:A new future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia has a huge outreach project to get institutions to do this. See the GLAM-Wiki initiative.

    2. Re:A new future... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I would love to see museums that haven't been devastated do something of this nature as an insurance policy. Just think if could log into say, 2nd life and virtually tour the Louvre ..."

      Mission accomplished

      Louvre
      http://www.louvre.fr/en/visite...

      Guggenheim
      http://www.guggenheim.org/new-...

      National Gallery of Arts
      http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions...

      British Museum
      http://www.britishmuseum.org/w...

      Smithsonian
      http://www.mnh.si.edu/panorama...

      The Met
      https://www.google.com/cultura...

      and so on

    3. Re:A new future... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I would be amazed if all the artifacts weren't already documented properly TBH.

      Museums usually only display a small % of their total collections at any one time, lots of stuff never ever goes on show. Having photographic records, marked with scale and a reference code to the records for the piece is standard practice.

    4. Re:A new future... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I would love to see museums that haven't been devastated do something of this nature as an insurance policy.

      This exists, but we need to make this a standard for all museums, rather than just a few superstar institutions.

    5. Re:A new future... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I would be surprised if the most valuable artefacts have not already changed hands. You know pilfer stuff for weeks and then burn it down to hide what is missing. So which is the more likely accident or major theft. What no smoke alarms, no fire sprinklers, no alerts at the fire station for rapid attendance, sleepy security guards.

      It's meant to be a professionally run museum, you know in reality how big fires should get at museums, first hint of smoke and the fire brigade is there in just a few minutes and security has gone nuts looking for it and the fire prevention system knows exactly where in the structure that hint of smoke is.

      Fire in a museum, most likely reason, cover theft.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:A new future... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Reading about it the whole operation had been let slip into total disrepair. No funding for ages. Building was suffering major maintenance issues.

    7. Re:A new future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK's Natural history museum already does this:-

      Books: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/

      Specimens: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science.html

    8. Re:A new future... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The most likely reason is corruption, but not necessarily theft. They didn't even install a sprinkler system. How third world is that?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Where are the museum's photographs of the objects? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

    Were they destroyed in the fire also?

    The negatives? Burned up in the same fire?

    The digital copies? Also destroyed?

    The backup tapes? Were they all kept onsite?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  11. Re:Where are the museum's photographs of the objec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why wasn't the museum built with better fire-control mechanisms in place?

  12. Re:Where are the museum's photographs of the objec by Megane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Remember how there were some places in the World Trade Center that kept their "off-site" backups in the other tower?

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  13. Worthless Trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they didn't even maintain an offsite digital archive, the stuff must have been total crap. Maybe they just needed the insurance money.

    You can be sure that the Smithsonian has digital backups of everything of value in their collections.

    Hell, most people even have backups of their porn.

  14. Re: Bad omen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erasing history and culture is the communist way.

  15. Re:Where are the museum's photographs of the objec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's 200 years old!!!!

  16. Re:Where are the museum's photographs of the objec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Einstein invented fire in 1935. Or was it Edison? Either way, how could've they known about fire?!

  17. Re:Where are the museum's photographs of the objec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No I don't. Got a link?

    Regardless, that's pretty dumb. Even my *personal* offsite backups are physically miles apart.

  18. This should be a Rekrei / Project Mosul thing! by schweini · · Score: 1

    There is this interesting "Project Mosul" (now called Rekrei) which started by attempting to create 3D models of the cultural treasures ISIS destroyed by using many old photographs - it seems they have expanded since then:
    https://projectmosul.org/

  19. Re:Where are the museum's photographs of the objec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those museum pieces would still exist had they been "stolen" by imperialist first world nations (like Great Britain), and kept in first world museums. Like a lot of ancient archaeological sites in the middle east that ISIS used for target practice, you just can't trust [effectively] third-world nations with their own artifacts.