Re: [GLAM] Wikis in Res published in American Historical Association magazine

On 23 December 2012 20:38, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote: Thanks for your comments. We were working with a very strict word limit (and, indeed, had to cut hundreds of words from our first draft), and we made an decision to stick to a clear argument for historians getting involved at all, rather than get bogged down in too much explaining of concepts the audience would not already be familiar with, like other Wikimedia projects. I understand where you are coming from, though. I'm normally one of the strongest proponents of being precise about describing Wikimedia universe and promoting the other projects besides Wikipedia. What I found confusing is how the copyright status is signaled. The blog Well, we're not going to change the site's copyright notice just because we are using copyrighted text with permission in a blog post. It is labeled as being used with permission, using the same language that the editor provided us. This is no different from the fact that every Wikipedia page carries the CC-BY-SA notice despite the fact that there may be non-free content used on some of the pages. We are in the process of doing so, yes. You can read their copyright policy for authors here: http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/CopyrightPolicy.htm Dominic