Straflager Wikipedia

Was unbequem ist, wird weggelöscht. Aber ganz schnell. Meinungsfreiheit (und besonnener Umgang mit einer Dissidenten-Minderheit) ist für die unerträgliche Adminclique ein Schimpfwort. Diese ist allein erleuchtet und darf sich im Licht der Wahrheit sonnen. Die Tyrannis der Administratoren und Administratorinnen (z.B. Felistoria, Henriette) der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nimmt immer mehr groteske Züge an.

Resonanz auf diesen Beitrag:

Zitat: “Ich weise mal auf die Möglichkeit einer Strafanzeige und einer Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde bei seinem Dienstherren hin.”

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Open Access to Archives

Peter Hirtle wrotes in the LibraryLawBlog:

A continuing source of controversy is the desire of some archives, libraries, and museums to control through contract the downstream use of reproductions and digital files of public domain items. A number of recent news items make me wonder if there is much of a future for this common practice:
First, a working group of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science organized to address issues relating the to the use of images in scholarly research released early in January its final recommendations. While the report, “Scholarly Publishing and the Issues of Cultural Heritage: Fair Use, Reproduction Fees, and Copyrights,” is concerned primarily with visual images, its conclusions would apply to all public domain archival material. Everyone should read it.
Among the many interesting recommendations for cultural institutions and scholars, perhaps the most important is the recognition that in order “to promote creative scholarship in the humanities and to foster a deeper understanding of cultural heritage, …open access to visual sources not covered by copyright” is needed. That means that institutions should not use their ability to control access to limit non-commercial, scholarly use of public domain material.
The report also recommends that if scholars sign agreements to secure access to a public domain repository, they “must abide by the terms of use stipulated in the contract.” Three relatively recent examples of users apparently ignoring the restrictions repositories attempt to place on the use of their holdings make me wonder whether there is any future for such restrictions:
The Center for History and New Media at George Mason University and the Internet Archive have announced a really interesting Mellon-funded pilot partnership to create an archival commons. As a pilot project, they are joining with the Zotero-Internet Archive New Orleans user group to develop a program in which individuals share primary source materials on New Orleans that they have collected. The announcement notes that they “are especially interested in material gathered from smaller archives in the New Orleans region that may now have limited access or even have been destroyed because of Hurricane Katrina.” There is no mention in the announcement of possible limitations on use of these materials that may have been imposed by those same archives.
The Alexander Street Press has announced an expensive new digital collection on local history. The database consists of the images published in the local history books produced by Arcadia Publishing. It is quite likely that many of these images came from libraries and archives that in theory impose restrictions on downstream use, and they were provided for specific print runs. While seeking permission from authors to include their works, ASP is choosing to ignore archival ownership of the images and any restrictions on subsequent use that were imposed when reproductions were made. Instead of seeking permission (and paying additional fees), it is offering an “opt-out” program through which repositories can tell them not to include their images. (Let’s hope that there are repositories that may actually own registered copyrights in some of these images. The copyright infringement fines they could secure would be substantial.)
The American Founding Era Digital Collection being offered by the University of Virginia Press is continuing to add to the digital versions of correspondence available through subscription. To the best of my knowledge, the initiative has neither contacted any of the repositories that originally provided copies of correspondence to the editorial team nor have offered to share revenues from the project. While it is possible that the original provisions of copies included permission to publish in electronic as well as print form, it is much more likely that permission was for print only (as was the case in Random House v RosettaBooks). I suspect that the project is ignoring rights accruing from physical ownership of the original material.
Given the that repository-based use restrictions are being ignored by scholars and at least two commercial products, one has to wonder what is the point of imposing them at all. Wouldn’t scholarship be better-served if repositories sold reproductions for whatever the market would bear but allowed public domain material to be freely available via open access solutions?
(my emphasis)

Unprofessionelle Berichterstattung

Dass die Online-Ausgaben von Printmedien es nicht kapieren, dass zur Berichterstattung über Internetseiten auch die Angabe der Adresse gehört – geschenkt. Wenn aber auch ein Weblog wie

zu faul ist, die Adresse zu ergänzen, dann zeigt das die “Qualität” dieses Angebots.

Es geht um eine digitale Bibliothek zu Gottfried August Bürger, die erfreulicherweise Digitalisate (mit Wasserzeichen und dem üblichen Copyfraud: Nutzung nur zum persönlichen Gebrauch ist bei Public Domain zurückzuweisen) zugänglich macht:

UK: Dispersal of a Public Library Collection of Rare Books

Gloucestershire County Council is giving specialist collectors the chance to buy spare and unused books and texts that are gathering dust in the county’s libraries.

The items going on sale are either duplicates, unused and/or in poor and deteriorating condition. None of them directly relate to the county’s history or heritage. The money raised from the sale will be used to maintain and improve Gloucestershire’s library service.

The decision to sell these books has come about following a review of stock at Cheltenham and Gloucester libraries.

The items are being sold by The Cotswold Auction Company, who have salerooms in Cirencester, Cheltenham and Gloucester. The sales catalogue can be viewed at from March 7th. The books will go on sale on March 17th at the Cheltenham saleroom, Chapel Walk. They include: – Wisden Cricketers’ Almanac (various years from 1864) – London Illustrated News (1842-1910) – Runs of antiquarian journals, e.g. Archaeologia (114 volumes) – A “Palestine Collection” of never used 19th century topological literature (350 volumes) – An “American Civil War Collection” 19th century (50 volumes).

Letters have been sent to Cheltenham and Gloucester City Museum in advance of these items appearing in the sales catalogue, so that they are aware of the opportunity to purchase these items.

Trevor Allen from Gloucestershire County Council’s Libraries & Information said: “All of these books and texts are either duplicates, unused or in a poor condition. They are taking up space in Gloucester and Cheltenham library and even though the items are listed on the public catalogue, very few people, if any in most cases, are getting any use or pleasure out of them.


Etliche deutsche Wikipedianer führen derzeit einen Kreuzzug gegen den niederländischen Künstler Peter Klashorst, der besonders gern junge Nackedeis fotografiert und malt. Es geht also um “Kinderpronographie”. Die Relevanz des Fotografen wird trotz mehrfacher Auszeichnungen bezweifelt:öschkandidaten/17._Januar_2009#Peter_Klashorst_.28bleibt.29

“Die angebliche Kunst dieses weißen Herrn ist nichts anderes als pädophile Pornographie, die bestenfalls strafrechtlich relevant ist; sie ist in höchstem Maße rassistisch, sexistisch und faschistoid”, schäumt da etwa EvaK.

Auf Commons gibt es eine Fülle von Löschanträgen, siehe z.B.

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search