#Wikidata - the failure of the "primary sources tool"

I add data all the time. My tools do not see data that is waiting to be curated.  So I add data.

I find I am actually wasting my time.
Thanks,
      GerardM

I fok horses. Pardon? Yes, paarden

This is the punch line of a joke about quality translations. The Dutch Wikipedia community voted for the Wikipedia survey to be removed. The translation is considered to be beyond poor.

To make things worse, there is talk about another translation that is said to be good. There are complaints about a lack of communication, no spell checking used, no feed back..

As surveys are said to have a tendency to be insistent, the survey has been turned off in the CSS. The hope is expressed for a better translation in the near future. With no proper tooling in place it is not that straight forward.
Thanks,
      GerardM

It is so sharp it can cut you

This picture shows a Dutch windmill. It is also a featured picture candidate. As a FPC it will fail because it is "not sharp enough".

When you look at the picture at the highest magnification, you see the moss grow at the back of the windmill. The process of the FPC is a joke; the notions of what makes a featured picture are biased and the implementations favours a coterie of serial addicts.

Another example of "not sharp". When you consider that hairs beyond the eye are very much in focus, that parts in front of the head are in focus the conclusion must be that this is how the eye of this species looks like.

Oh well, featured pictures is a game and it is fun to candidate great pictures. It is important not to expect too much.
Thanks,
        GerardM

What is the point of publishing cultural heritage on the web

A rich resource with material about the Dutch cultural heritage published a new website. The "Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed", a Dutch governmental organisation is quite pleased with its new website.

It has reason to be pleased because they bring half a million photos to the web. These are taken in the last sixty years. In addition to this there are drawings and maps of buildings.

The sad thing is that all this material is hidden behind a paywall. When you buy pictures, there is a further restriction because of its licence (cc-by-nc).

This picture of a church in Diever was drawn by C. van Noordt in 1756 and sadly the license is said to be applicable here as well. When you part with your money, you get not even a truly high resolution scan.

While I am happy with the existence of these digitisations, there are issues and missed opportunities:

• the license prevents cooperation with Wikipedia
• the claim of a license on material that is in the public domain is copyfraud
• the low resolution does not lend itself for digital restorations
• tax money is wasted because the public does not benefit from this public work

The Dutch government makes our cultural heritage available in this way and they provide a substandard product for commercial purposes. They are happy because they make all this material available but because of the license chosen it is not available for use in education. I hope that the Rijksdienst will study the examples of the Library of Congress and closer to home the Tropenmuseum to learn that it can be done differently.
Thanks,
      GerardM