User talk:Digitalcollections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bluebook1853.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bluebook1853.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] external links to images and collections

Dear fellow librarian, as one of the administrators here let me give you some advice about this. Please be very careful in making external links to items in your collection. You are doing it well, but I think I should be a little explicit. The practice here is likely to be regarded by some people here as WP:SPAM, and if it is, the net result is likely to be that the entire library site will be put on our blacklist. This has already happened to one or two collections that were added too aggressively, and it has taken me considerable trouble to persuade people to reinstate them & I have not always succeeded--administrators here can only do what the consensus lets them do--we do not make policy. I am concerned that this will inhibit the usefulness of the encyclopedia, because we do want to link to the best material. Let me suggest:
1/In cases where your library does hold the best freely accessible collection in the world, then it is permissible to put in a link to the collection--I think the link to the Galapagos Collection is for example justified. But the practice here is only to link to the very few best possible sites--if you know of another site that is better, you should enter that one. In either case, you should put a note on the article talk page saying what you are adding and why, to prevent anyone from thinking you have a conflict of interest--see WP:COI. For example, I do not think the link for Playing House is sufficiently descriptive. (the information does not have to go within the link, iit is aceceptable to annotate the link briefly, as "[http:url XYZ Collection] of material on A. Please don;t go by what you see on the page necessarily--many of the present links have been added carelessly. (Ideally one would say material "on A at the Wisconsin Digital Library," to be up front about it--the name of the special colection itself is usually meaningless.)
2/In cases where you hold an available primary text of the document being discussed, and can link to it directly, then it can make sense to add it, similarly to the way we link to such sites as Project Gutenberg. as an example, the link to the Plombal material seems appropriate. Again, you really should state this on the article talk page, and watch it for objections.
3/Where you have an good image, consider whether you can upload the file. The problem here is that we require a GFDL license for it, which is less restrictive than your standard license, as it permits reuse and modification by anyone for any purpose.

If you have any problems, just ask at my talk page or by email from my user page.DGG (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)