David Gerard

WatchKnow is a fantastically cool idea from Larry Sanger: a repository of CC by-sa educational videos for school children. The official big splash launch is set for autumn — they’re building it up in preparation for then.

Erik Möller has just emailed this to the communications committee list, and said it can be posted publicly:

“Quick note: The National Portrait Gallery contacted us to see if we can find a compromise regarding the images in question, and we’ve entered good faith discussions with them. Feel free to point this out in relevant places.”

Of course, details on terms, proposals etc. are confidential at this stage. But let’s assume that, interesting as a final verdict might be, neither WMF, the NPG or DCoetzee really want this to come to a legal battle. (The WMF is a charity and broke by definition, the NPG is a government sub-department.) That’s a really good thing. Working with people always beats working against them.

So: what would you like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? (My initial ideas are here.)

The real problem is funding digitisation — that governments tell galleries they have to make money from copyright on the works in their possession. This was barely workable last century, and is increasingly untenable in this one.

That million pounds the NPG spent on digitisation was taxpayer’s money. We’ve already paid for it. IMO, we should be getting the images at highest resolution completely unencumbered. I don’t hold out hope of this being standard until we get the Ordnance Survey data and the postcode database released, though.

(Also: this blog quoted on the BBC News site.)

(Note: I am on the comcom list, and answer media queries as a WMF volunteer, but opinions on this blog are entirely mine and not WMF’s.)

Erik Möller’s posted to the Wikimedia blog on the issue. Note the correction of the NPG’s claims that Wikimedia never responded to them (rather than responding with “Bridgeman v. Corel, go away”) — Erik assumes good faith and presumes this is in error.

About the best roundup of coverage so far is Dcoetzee’s own link collection — press and blog posts. I liked the WikiNews story.

Other British taxpayers as annoyed at the NPG’s waste of their money as I am have been putting in FOI requests to see just how much money they make from keeping it all to themselves (£378k before expenses — what are the expenses? six staff, what else?), how much they’re spending on legal representation, what proportion of their web hits are from Wikimedia links and so forth.

(One request that should be made: £10-15k annually from web licenses — they need to be asked how much the person handling these licenses is paid. They make more money selling food in the café. Suggest your best prospective FOI requests in the comments!)

I’m suspecting a severe case of bureaucratic empire building here: the bureaucrats honestly think the paintings belong to them rather than to us. Which is what one might see from a private for-profit corporation, but is rather less than acceptable for a government sub-department, not even an independent charity. As Sage Ross notes from Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody:

Self-preservation of the institution becomes job number one, while its stated goal is relegated to job number two or lower, no matter what the mission statement says.

I was going to call NPG this morning first thing as a volunteer, to see what could be reasonably done to avert a public battle — a public battle would really foul up our other museum liaison volunteers’ ongoing efforts. But I was awake all night with a sick child and so I just got up …

Has anyone reading this called yet, as a volunteer? Physchim62, who did a lot to get the American Chemical Society working with us, was going to call. Has anyone else?

(I don’t hold out much hope for this — the NPG’s position has been completely consistent and completely uncooperative for many years. But it’s always worth asking.)

It’s reasonably important to avoid directly going into details of the possible legal case, for Dcoetzee’s sake — but the NPG’s lawyers have effectively written a press release read by ten thousand Wikimedians and a million Slashdot readers. The letter clearly does directly and personally threaten a lot of them. I bet it’s been more widely read than any intentional NPG press release has been.

Ideal outcome: PD everything, they welcome a team of our photographers in.

Plausible good outcome: We put up the hi-res images with notes that they are PD in the US but the NPG claims copyright in Europe and releases them under copyleft, and full credit is requested in either case. (Copyleft is not as ideal as PD, but it’s plenty good enough for us.) We issue press releases lauding the NPG to the skies and say nice things about them forever.

Another plausible good outcome: They welcome a team of our photographers in. Careful supervision, etc. Then we can do stuff like infrared shots as well (which can show interesting things about a painting’s restoration history).

Awful outcome: great big legal and public relations battle. Even if we or they win, we both lose.

Bad outcome: mainstream press about this at all, really. It will hamper our efforts with other museums. The NPG probably doesn’t see it that way.

Any other possible outcomes to list?

Additional data point: the NPG has removed the hi-res versions. Thus, the Wikimedia copies are the only copies currently available. This makes it actually culturally important for us to keep them up!

Meanwhile, here’s an article you must read on this topic: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility by Kenneth Hamma, Executive Director for Digital Policy, J. Paul Getty Trust. Precis: do your best to get as many of the highest-quality copies out there as you can.

For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession. Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing. (Bridgeman v. Corel. Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law; go away.) Our official stance in this time has been “sue and be damned.”

So the National Portrait Gallery has tried. Here’s their letter. A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand. This was sent after (so they claim) the WMF ignored their latest missive. The editor they sent the threat to is … an American.

A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server — unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I wonder how the case will go.

It’s most unfortunate that the National Portrait Gallery considers this in any way sensible behaviour, considering how well we’ve been going with museum partnerships for Wikipedia Loves Art — the V&A were fantastically helpful and lovely people, who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.

I can’t see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens. Anyone who could speak on their behalf at this level won’t be in until Monday; I wonder if they’ll be surprised at the people politely queueing with pitchforks and torches.

I’ll be calling them first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.

Looks like we survived yesterday’s featuring of Gropecunt Lane on the front page of English Wikipedia. Total press coverage: Popbitch — not one word elsewhere. I’m amazed. I did write a suitable News of the News. Even the on-site angst was minimal (good discussion on Raul654′s user page). Did someone fail to think of the fictional children?

Update: Second bit of press: Stephen Fry approves.

WJohnson brought up on WikiEN-L that Bible quotes were pointing to (a) external sites (b) that made fraudulent claims of copyright over public domain translations.

After a bit of discussion, Magnus Manske hacked together the BibleBay! A given chapter and verse range, listed in all translations on WikiSource.

Suggested additions: 1. The original Hebrew or Greek the section is translated from. 2. Links to an external site with the New International Version. 3. The future canonical version.

Update: Greek and NIV links added. And … try this.

Not only did Ars quote me … they illustrated my quote with a lolcat.

The Web, with an unencumbered video codec. Apparently.

WIKICITIES, Helmand, Monday (NNN) — The kidnapping of Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist David Rohde in Afghanistan was suppressed not only by almost all press syndicates but also by Wikipedia, on the direct command-and-control orders of Jimbo Wales, who is personally responsible for every word in the popular web-based encyclopedia.

Conservative commentators were appalled at the suppression. “Would they have protected HITLER like this?” thundered Michelle Malkin. Wales pointed out that the encyclopedia’s biography of Hitler had already been appropriately edited and cited per the Biographies of Living Persons policy:

Adolf Hitler is the Chancellor of Germany^{[citation needed]}. He is noted^{[citation needed]} for his work on the moral fibre of German society^{[citation needed]} and stimulating the economy^{[citation needed]}, notably through the Autobahn construction programme^{[citation needed]}. Some^[who?] have criticized aspects of his policies^{[citation needed]}.

(Read more …)

Gdansk was Danzig
Now it’s Gdansk, not Danzig
Been a long time gone, Danzig
Now it’s Polish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in Danzig
Lives in Gdansk, not Danzig
So if you’ve a date in Danzig
She’ll be waiting in Gdansk

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can’t say
People just liked it better that way

So take me back to Danzig
No, you can’t go back to Danzig
Been a long time gone, Danzig
Why did Danzig get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Poles

Gdansk (Gdansk)
Gdansk (Gdansk)

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can’t say
People just liked it better that way

Gdansk was Danzig
Now it’s Gdansk, not Danzig
Been a long time gone, Danzig
Why did Danzig get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Poles

So take me back to Danzig
No, you can’t go back to Danzig
Been a long time gone, Danzig
Why did Danzig get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Poles

So take me back to Danzig
No, you can’t go back to Danzig
Been a long time gone, Danzig
Why did Danzig get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Poles

Gdansk

Paul Graham: After credentials.

Paul Graham is a computer scientist turned dot-com winner turned early-stage venture capitalist. He’s speaking of the deprecation of credentials in the business world.

If credentials are deprecated, how do we reliably identify experts for an educational endeavour? Graham speaks of measurement and market rate for skills. How do we measure that in our context?

This is the Wikipedians group on LinkedIn as run by Wikipedians.

This is not — the guy running it has stated in private emails that he is running it for “networking,” which in practice appears to mean spam blasts. I suggest avoiding it.

(If you add me on LinkedIn with the link being Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I’ll probably add you back eventually when I get around to it.)

Another scalp. I wonder what will happen to the content. (I doubt the text is up to much, but there will be original images. We are asking them about it.)

THE MEMORY HOLE, Jim Callaghan Primary, Wednesday (NNN) — Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, says a review of the primary school curriculum in England by Sir Jim Rose of Ofsted.

Students will also be required to familiarise themselves with podcasts, the iTunes store, the Pirate Bay, b3ta and 4chan. They will gain fluency in handwriting and keyboard skills and learn how two use a spell chequer proper Lee. Literature classes will involve young adult novels written entirely in txt spk.

(Read more)

I spent Sunday through this morning doing Wikimedia stuff. (I have flu, but you know this doesn’t require coherent thought.) Mostly relating to flagged revisions on en:wp (status: awaiting a more robust and supported proposal — 59:41 is an insufficiently convincing majority) and biographies of living people. I suggest reading that last link and joining the discussion on foundation-l.

It’s amazing how much time it uses and how little sense one can have of things actually pushing forward. Wikipedia is the size of a small city. You know how hard it is herding five volunteers? Try getting ten thousand to do any particular thing.

Internet Watch Foundation chief interviewed on Wikipedia and Internet Archive blocks; Bennett Haselton’s attempts to get sense out of them.

The IWF was established for one purpose: to get the government off the ISPs’ backs. It successfully did so for many years. Unfortunately, the people currently at the IWF have lost sight of this and now think they have to actually do stuff to justify their existence. Fatal error when your supposed function is technically impossible and socially unworkable. Everyone who knows about the IWF despises them.

See Brion Vibber’s post — we need more testing on the mobile gateway for English Wikipedia. Brion’s slipped in some JavaScript which intermittently pops up a link if it detects an iPhone/iPod Touch or Android device. There’s also gateways for the German and Wikipedias.

(I must say, I really like the mobile skin — I was running the “classic” skin on Wikipedia for ages, but it was too ill-maintained and I had various wacky user JavaScript that didn’t work well on anything but Monobook. The mobile skin doesn’t allow editing as yet, but is great for viewing.)

WIKIALITY, San Francisco, Monday (NNN) — The online user-generated social networking site Wikipedia and the venerable Encyclopædia Britannica are both considering radical changes in how they are run.

The change has proven controversial. “It’s a slippery slope,” said administrator “WikiFiddler451” (real name WikiViolin451). “I don’t see how we can reasonably keep the Pokémon and Naruto entries sufficiently up-to-date and welcoming of new contributors.”

(Read more)

Wikimedia only accepts video in Ogg Theora format, because it’s not patent encumbered (and Dirac is not yet ready for prime time). Nothing produces this by default. Fortunately, Firefogg will do the job for you on Firefox 3.1 (which is that cool, by the way). Brianna Laugher’s posted (1, 2) a couple of useful guides to the fancy media stuff we’re doing.

The Mozilla Foundation has also given the WMF $100,000 to improve Ogg Theora. The goal is to get it as good as H.264. This is actually considered feasible.

(And MPEG LA plans to charge for H.264 encoding after December 31st, 2010. Some people are going to get a horrible lesson in why encumbered formats are a problem.)

Take that, Apple, Nokia! Lying arseholes.

The media thinks the flagged revisions proposal for English Wikipedia is just the thing for the hype machines. I did Chris Evans BBC2 drivetime today. Hopefully not too oversimplified. (Cheers to Chris Down for transcript.) It behooves those of us all for it to make damn sure the edits are patrolled really fast.

Update: Mathias Schindler on BBC World Service Europe Today.