Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> writes: > We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for > GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and > share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a > free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a > replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in > their own infrastructure.
Fair enough. But is it really the case that most of the GLAMs are just providing copies? Just wondering. > Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking > my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition > to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it > would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or > YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share > their content... I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just me being pessimistic. -- Bastien _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
