Ah, forgot to say: Jane, this initiative seems to very much overlap the
DPLA/Europeana ongoing "standardization" effort:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H6TWxGARqUMxJrc2sXjaBlOsg7UkUTb27rvtS8aC5y4/edit?pli=1
I hope you join forces for a combined outcome. CC's practical approach
(for metadata, machine-readability etc.) can be very useful to counter
some rather speculative discussions found elsewhere; and DPLA, Europeana
have a lot of hands-on experience with very messy copyright information,
which CC almost certainly lacks.
Gergo Tisza, 03/10/2015 00:40:
The main issue with this effort, on Wikimedia and elsewhere, will be
that there is no guarantee we have any metadata about file
attribution and copyright status. See also
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_metadata_cleanup_drive
As that page shows, we have machine-readable metadata for the license at
least for 99% of Commons files and 99% of all files. The number probably
gets much higher when weighted by number of views. I would certainly not
consider missing metadata in 1% of our files the main issue.
Numbers are not everything; there's much more in that page. The coverage
is so good because we cheat ;-): public domain and all rights reserved
files can be marked in the same way!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_metadata_cleanup_drive/How_to_fix_metadata
And most of our tags on Commons have no meaning for the external world,
for instance last time I checked we didn't use the public domain mark
for public domain files.
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
