Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Platonides
Brian wrote:

>> Where does it forbid them?
>
>
> 5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by
> any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google,
> unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement
> with Google. You specifically agree not to access (or attempt to access) any
> of the Services through any automated means (including use of scripts or web
> crawlers) and shall ensure that you comply with the instructions set out in
> any robots.txt file present on the Services.

Uh?
That's not the TOS I am reading:
> 5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google.
>
> 5.4 You agree that you will not engage in any activity that interferes with or disrupts the Services (or the servers and networks which are connected to the Services).

The second part is missing.
Seems that US have different terms than the rest of us.

-http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
A bot or bots calling up massive amounts of data at high speed can have a negative effect on a server. While I doubt the bot we use would have the power to take down a Google server, the speed of the requests and the constant number of requests will definitely be noticeable, possibly leading to unpleasant consequences.




________________________________
From: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it falls under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
>  
Malicious software or overloading servers goes well beyond ignoring a
ToS.  Why should downloading whole books from Google have any greater
effect on server load than downloading a whole book of similar length
from Internet Archive?

Ec


> ________________________________
> From: Ray Saintonge
>
>
> Brian wrote:
>  
>> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>>
>> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
>> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
>> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin to
>> their intellectual property and are unwilling to give them away.
>>
>>  
>>    
> How is violating Google's ToS against the law?  Sites put all sorts of
> meaningless garbage into these documents, and users mostly ignore them.
>
> Of course Google's evil; it's about time that people noticed that.  They
> use their deep pockets as a way to bully other sites ... with a smile.
> Fortunately the U.S. does not have database protection laws like the
> E.U.  Ideally, every PD item they host should also be hosted on an
> alternative site, but that's a massive undertaking, ... and they know
> it.  Nothing requires them to be nice to the competition, such as by
> making it easy to copy their material.
>
> Ec
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Ray Saintonge
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> A bot or bots calling up massive amounts of data at high speed can have a negative effect on a server. While I doubt the bot we use would have the power to take down a Google server, the speed of the requests and the constant number of requests will definitely be noticeable, possibly leading to unpleasant consequences.
>  
And data accumulation at such a high speed would also be more than could
be properly handled at the Wikisource end as well.  We regularly get
whole works from Internet Archive and other sources, without any such
problems arising.  I would not reasonably expect a greater accumulation
rate from Google.

Ec

> _____________________________
> From: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
>
>
> Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>  
>> If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it falls under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
>>  
>>    
> Malicious software or overloading servers goes well beyond ignoring a
> ToS.  Why should downloading whole books from Google have any greater
> effect on server load than downloading a whole book of similar length
> from Internet Archive?
>
> Ec
>
>
>  
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ray Saintonge
>>
>>
>> Brian wrote:
>>  
>>    
>>> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>>>
>>> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
>>> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
>>> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin to
>>> their intellectual property and are unwilling to give them away.
>>>
>>>  
>>>    
>>>      
>> How is violating Google's ToS against the law?  Sites put all sorts of
>> meaningless garbage into these documents, and users mostly ignore them.
>>
>> Of course Google's evil; it's about time that people noticed that.  They
>> use their deep pockets as a way to bully other sites ... with a smile.
>> Fortunately the U.S. does not have database protection laws like the
>> E.U.  Ideally, every PD item they host should also be hosted on an
>> alternative site, but that's a massive undertaking, ... and they know
>> it.  Nothing requires them to be nice to the competition, such as by
>> making it easy to copy their material.
>>
>> Ec
>>  
>>    
>
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Stephen Bain
Stephen Bain wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
>> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
>> preferred format.  Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as suing
>> a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v.
>> Rural (the supreme court case you mention.)
>>    
> They want people to use their service. Fair enough, given that the
> scanning and OCRing happened on their dime.
>
>  
How does that give them any special rights?  There are no database
protection laws in the US, and sweat-of-the-brow has been rejected as a
basis for new copyrights.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by metasj
Samuel Klein wrote:

> There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source
> researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having
> wikisource entries, translations, &c.
>
> Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public
> domain texts, with page scans and the best available OCR [and
> translations of same], fit with what Wikisource does now?  This is
> clearly a wiki project that needs to happen : OCR even at its best
> misses rare meaning-bearing words.   If not Wikisource, where should
> this work take place?
>  
 From my perspective it fits perfectly with the vision that I had of
Wikisource on the first day of its existence.  Tim Armstrong
[[User:Tarmstro99]] has already done a considerable amount of valuable
work relating to law on Wikisource.  That has been mostly a one-man
project to deal with a massive amount of material.  Some have even
proposed deleting all the US Code material on the grounds that we don't
have the ability to keep it up to date. That has prompted some very
interesting questions and ideas about how this kind of stuff might be
handled, but taking those questions to the next level requires lots of
work.  Most regular Wikisourcerors already have long personal to-do
lists to keep them busy.  So the question is not really about whether
Wikisource should host these goods, it's about recruiting volunteers to
do the hard work.

Ec

> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/19/using-wikisource-as-an-alternative-open-access-repository-for-legal-scholarship/
>>
>> Interesting. How well does this fit with what Wikisource does?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>    


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Дана Saturday 20 June 2009 18:29:24 Brian написа:
> This has reminded me to complain about Google Books. Google has the world's
> best OCR (in virtue of having the largest OCR'able dataset) and also has a
> mission to scan in all the public domain books they can get their hand on.
> They recently updated their interface to, as they put it, "make it easier
> to find our plain text versions of public domain books. If a book is
> available in full view, you can click the 'Plain text' button in the
> toolbar." Unfortunately the only way I've found to download the full text
> of a public domain book from Google is to flip through the book a page at a
> time, copying the text to your clipboard.

Often, these books are available in the Million Books Project too.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/19/using-wikisource-as-an-alternative-open-access-repository-for-legal-scholarship/
>
> Interesting. How well does this fit with what Wikisource does?

Tim Armstrong is a sysop on Wikisource ... :-)  more below..

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Samuel Klein wrote:
> > There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source
> > researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having
> > wikisource entries, translations, &c.
> >
> > Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public
> > domain texts, with page scans and the best available OCR [and
> > translations of same], fit with what Wikisource does now?  This is
> > clearly a wiki project that needs to happen : OCR even at its best
> > misses rare meaning-bearing words.   If not Wikisource, where should
> > this work take place?

If it was published, Wikisource accepts it.  Notability is not a consideration.

The only other "open" project of comparable size is [[Distributed
Proofreaders]].  Here are our statistics:

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics

Most of the Wikisource projects accept free translations.

http://wikisource.org/wiki/WS:COORD

The two English Wikisource featured translations are:

  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Balade_to_Rosemounde
  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/J%27accuse
  (also translated into Dutch)

The two biggest translation projects that I know of are:

  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(Wikisource)

Another good one is

  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Max_Havelaar_(Wikisource)

We also have translations of laws, usually relating to copyright.

  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ordinance_93-027_of_30_March_1993_on_copyright,_related_rights_and_expressions_of_folklore

>  From my perspective it fits perfectly with the vision that I had of
> Wikisource on the first day of its existence.  Tim Armstrong
> [[User:Tarmstro99]] has already done a considerable amount of valuable
> work relating to law on Wikisource.

Tim has been doing high impact work in this area.

   H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/06/17/an-open-access-success-story-just-in-time-for-cali/

   U.S. Statutes at Large

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/06/02/public-records-one-jpeg-at-a-time/

   http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large

In regards the USC, the majority of it is a mess, but Title 17 is a
great example of where we are heading.

  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17

We also have transcription projects for the UK 1911 copyright act,
which has influenced so many other countries.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_copyright_act,_1911,_annotated.djvu
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:A_treatise_upon_the_law_of_copyright.djvu

More can be found from our freshly minted Law index:

   http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Law

Our two featured texts are:
   http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/South_Africa_Act_1909
   http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA_(District_Court_opinion)

> Most regular Wikisourcerors already have long personal to-do
> lists to keep them busy.  So the question is not really about whether
> Wikisource should host these goods, it's about recruiting volunteers to
> do the hard work.

If people want to help, but dont know where to start, my
recommendation is that they start proofreading the Stat. volume 1, as
this is goldmine of interesting documents, and will be an excellent
example of crowdsourcing of transcription.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1

Enjoy,
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Stephen Bain wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
> >> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
> >> preferred format.  Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as
> suing
> >> a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v.
> >> Rural (the supreme court case you mention.)
> >>
> > They want people to use their service. Fair enough, given that the
> > scanning and OCRing happened on their dime.
> >
> >
> How does that give them any special rights?  There are no database
> protection laws in the US, and sweat-of-the-brow has been rejected as a
> basis for new copyrights.


You're right, it doesn't give them any *special* rights.  They have the same
rights as any other computer owner.  Specifically, they have the right to
choose who uses their computers, and how they use them.  Whether or not a
terms of service is legally binding is really not the issue. (*)  The issue
is whether or not they have a duty to make it *convenient* for you to
download the data.  Of course they don't.  Why should they be required to
help you put them out of business?  That kind of twisted logic might make
sense in the non-profit world (although I still haven't seen the WMF step up
to the plate and make it easy for people to make a full history fork, or
even to download all the images), but Google is not a non-profit
organization.  Google would be Evil if it *didn't* protect itself against
this, as it'd be breaking a promise to its shareholders.

(*) Personally, I'm of the opinion that merely accessing a website is not
sufficient to bind a websurfer to a TOS, and that at most a TOS which you do
not have to even click "agree" to is a unilateral contract which can only
impose promises upon the offeror, though this is not a legal opinion but
merely my opinion of what the law should be.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony-73
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (*) Personally, I'm of the opinion that merely accessing a website is not
> sufficient to bind a websurfer to a TOS, and that at most a TOS which you do
> not have to even click "agree" to is a unilateral contract which can only
> impose promises upon the offeror, though this is not a legal opinion but
> merely my opinion of what the law should be.
>

You know what, after further thought I'm going to withdraw that.  First of
all, I think Google does require you to click agree before you can access
the service we're talking about.  But more importantly, I'm going to cast
doubt on my previously held opinion of whether or not a TOS should be able
to bind someone who didn't click on anything.  If I leave a bunch of Apples
on the table at work and put next to it a sign that says "Apples: $.25
each"...  I don't know, I'll have to think about it.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Bain wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins<[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
> > >> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
> > >> preferred format.  Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as
> > suing
> > >> a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v.
> > >> Rural (the supreme court case you mention.)
> > >>
> > > They want people to use their service. Fair enough, given that the
> > > scanning and OCRing happened on their dime.
> > >
> > >
> > How does that give them any special rights?  There are no database
> > protection laws in the US, and sweat-of-the-brow has been rejected as a
> > basis for new copyrights.
>
>
> You're right, it doesn't give them any *special* rights.  They have the same
> rights as any other computer owner.  Specifically, they have the right to
> choose who uses their computers, and how they use them.  Whether or not a
> terms of service is legally binding is really not the issue. (*)  The issue
> is whether or not they have a duty to make it *convenient* for you to
> download the data.  Of course they don't.  Why should they be required to
> help you put them out of business?  That kind of twisted logic might make
> sense in the non-profit world (although I still haven't seen the WMF step up
> to the plate and make it easy for people to make a full history fork, or
> even to download all the images), but Google is not a non-profit
> organization.  Google would be Evil if it *didn't* protect itself against
> this, as it'd be breaking a promise to its shareholders.
>
> (*) Personally, I'm of the opinion that merely accessing a website is not
> sufficient to bind a websurfer to a TOS, and that at most a TOS which you do
> not have to even click "agree" to is a unilateral contract which can only
> impose promises upon the offeror, though this is not a legal opinion but
> merely my opinion of what the law should be.

Whether Google is good or evil is off-topic, and irrelevant to boot.

There are nearly _750,000_ books from Google that are available on
archive.org, available in DJVU format with OCR.

  http://www.archive.org/details/googlebooks

Microsoft donated many texts directly to IA, but that approach only
netted 440,000 books.

  http://www.archive.org/details/msn_books

See here for more of the collections:
   http://www.archive.org/details/texts

Also worth noting, Project Gutenberg has digitised less than 30,000
books since 1971.  Distributed Proofreaders has done 15,000 of those
since 2000, so throughput is picking up.  But, there are more than
enough too keep everyone busy for a very long time.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony-73
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Whether Google is good or evil is off-topic, and irrelevant to boot.
>

Whether or not they have a right to exclude bots isn't.

Also worth noting, Project Gutenberg has digitised less than 30,000
> books since 1971.  Distributed Proofreaders has done 15,000 of those
> since 2000, so throughput is picking up.  But, there are more than
> enough too keep everyone busy for a very long time.


The interesting thing is, even if you don't use a bot, it's still faster to
copy/paste from Google manually than it is to get the book and scan it in
yourself (assuming you don't want to destroy the original, anyway).

If you're going to make a project out OCRing books that Google has already
OCRed, I don't see any point in reinventing the scanning or first pass
OCRing part.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

John Mark Vandenberg
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Whether Google is good or evil is off-topic, and irrelevant to boot.
> >
>
> Whether or not they have a right to exclude bots isn't.

Actually, it is.  This mailing list is about the Wikimedia Foundation
and its project, and this thread is about Wikisource.  Anyone who has
done significant amounts of Wikisource work will tell you that they
don't consider Google Book click through license to be an problem that
needs discussing at this level.

Do you think that 750,000 Google Books were manually converted to
DJVU, and copied over to Internet Archive?

Is there a book that you seek that isn't available at Internet Archive?

I wrote a GreaseMonkey user script to scrape the text from Google
Books; it is now broken and unmaintained because I no longer need to
take text from Google Books, as the vast majority of the texts I want
are now on Internet Archive, and that is a more productive workflow.

> Also worth noting, Project Gutenberg has digitised less than 30,000
> > books since 1971.  Distributed Proofreaders has done 15,000 of those
> > since 2000, so throughput is picking up.  But, there are more than
> > enough too keep everyone busy for a very long time.
>
>
> The interesting thing is, even if you don't use a bot, it's still faster to
> copy/paste from Google manually than it is to get the book and scan it in
> yourself (assuming you don't want to destroy the original, anyway).

No, it is quicker to download the DJVU file from Internet Archive,
upload it to Wikisource, set up a transcription project, and fix the
OCR text there, and copy and paste it wherever you like.

It takes about 10 minutes unless there is some copyright concern.

> If you're going to make a project out OCRing books that Google has already
> OCRed, I don't see any point in reinventing the scanning or first pass
> OCRing part.

I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
Internet Archive.  Then you can point out real faults that you see.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony-73
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
> Internet Archive.  Then you can point out real faults that you see.


I will.  My apologies for misunderstanding your email.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony-73
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
>> Internet Archive.  Then you can point out real faults that you see.
>
>
> I will.  My apologies for misunderstanding your email.
>

Okay, http://www.archive.org/details/catholicencyclo16herbgoog happened to
be the first book I randomly picked from Google Book Search.  There's no
text version.

And the text version I find of other editions seems to be much much worse
than the google OCR results.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony-73
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
>>> Internet Archive.  Then you can point out real faults that you see.
>>
>>
>> I will.  My apologies for misunderstanding your email.
>>
>
> Okay, http://www.archive.org/details/catholicencyclo16herbgoog happened to
> be the first book I randomly picked from Google Book Search.  There's no
> text version.
>
> And the text version I find of other editions seems to be much much worse
> than the google OCR results.
>

http://books.google.com/books?id=TZ0UAAAAYAAJ strike two, not even there.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PYAaAAAAYAAJ strike three
http://www.archive.org/details/happinessessays00hiltgoog finally...let's
compare the OCR:

"Great numbers of thoughtful people are just now much perplexed to know what
to make of the faffs of life, and are looking about them for some reasonable
interpretation of the modern world. They cannot abandon the work of the
world, but they are conscious that they have not learned the art of work."

"Greaf numbers of thoughtful people are just now much perplexed to know what
to make of thefaSls of life^ and are looking about them for some reasonable
interpretation of the modem world. They cannot abandon the work of the
worlds but they are conscious that they have not learned the art of work."
---
"Few people, however, really know how to work, and even in an age when
oftener perhaps than ever before we hear of "work" and "workers" one cannot
observe that the art of work makes much positive progress. On the contrary,
the general inclination seems to be to work as little as possible, or to
work for a short time in order to pass the remainder of one's life in rest."

"Few people, however,  really know how to work, and even in an age when
oftener perhaps than ever before we hear of" work " and " workers " one
cannotobserve that the art of work makes much positive progress. On the
contrary, the general inclination seems to be to work as little as possible,
or to work for a short time in order to pass the remainder of one's life in
rest. "
---
I guess that's acceptable.  The Catholic encyclopedia results were much
worse, though.  Maybe it was a font thing, but I'm not quite interested
enough to bother doing a more in depth study right now.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/19/using-wikisource-as-an-alternative-open-access-repository-for-legal-scholarship/
>
> Interesting. How well does this fit with what Wikisource does?

Here are seven articles from PLoS One.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Plosone

We have other published material that has been released under CC licenses:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unhappy_Thought

And books under various licenses:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Policies_on_the_Republic_of_Macedonia
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Russian_%22Fantastica%22
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
>  
>> Okay, http://www.archive.org/details/catholicencyclo16herbgoog happened to
>> be the first book I randomly picked from Google Book Search.  There's no
>> text version.
>>
>> And the text version I find of other editions seems to be much much worse
>> than the google OCR results.
>>    
> http://books.google.com/books?id=TZ0UAAAAYAAJ strike two, not even there.
> http://books.google.com/books?id=PYAaAAAAYAAJ strike three
> http://www.archive.org/details/happinessessays00hiltgoog finally...let's
> compare the OCR:
>
> "Great numbers of thoughtful people are just now much perplexed to know what
> to make of the faffs of life, and are looking about them for some reasonable
> interpretation of the modern world. They cannot abandon the work of the
> world, but they are conscious that they have not learned the art of work."
>
> "Greaf numbers of thoughtful people are just now much perplexed to know what
> to make of thefaSls of life^ and are looking about them for some reasonable
> interpretation of the modem world. They cannot abandon the work of the
> worlds but they are conscious that they have not learned the art of work."
> ---
> "Few people, however, really know how to work, and even in an age when
> oftener perhaps than ever before we hear of "work" and "workers" one cannot
> observe that the art of work makes much positive progress. On the contrary,
> the general inclination seems to be to work as little as possible, or to
> work for a short time in order to pass the remainder of one's life in rest."
>
> "Few people, however,  really know how to work, and even in an age when
> oftener perhaps than ever before we hear of" work " and " workers " one
> cannotobserve that the art of work makes much positive progress. On the
> contrary, the general inclination seems to be to work as little as possible,
> or to work for a short time in order to pass the remainder of one's life in
> rest. "
> ---
> I guess that's acceptable.  The Catholic encyclopedia results were much
> worse, though.  Maybe it was a font thing, but I'm not quite interested
> enough to bother doing a more in depth study right now.
.
Who is expecting OCR to be perfect anywhere?  In the absence of real
human proofreading I assume any OCR material to be fraught with errors.
Wikisource aims to accurately reproduce what was published, including
original errors.  Scans alone provide the needed accuracy, but they are
not suitable for the added value of wikification.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Platonides
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Whether Google is good or evil is off-topic, and irrelevant to boot.
>>
>
> Whether or not they have a right to exclude bots isn't.
>
> Also worth noting, Project Gutenberg has digitised less than 30,000
>> books since 1971.  Distributed Proofreaders has done 15,000 of those
>> since 2000, so throughput is picking up.  But, there are more than
>> enough too keep everyone busy for a very long time.
>
>
> The interesting thing is, even if you don't use a bot, it's still faster to
> copy/paste from Google manually than it is to get the book and scan it in
> yourself (assuming you don't want to destroy the original, anyway).
>
> If you're going to make a project out OCRing books that Google has already
> OCRed, I don't see any point in reinventing the scanning or first pass
> OCRing part.

IMHO the interesting bit would be to make a google books browser
prefiling the wiki editor.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Mark Wagner-2
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 14:35, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Brian wrote:
>> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>>
>> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
>> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
>> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin to
>> their intellectual property and are unwilling to give them away.
>>
>>
> How is violating Google's ToS against the law?

The verdict in _United States v. Lori Drew_ appears to set a precedent
that violating a site's Terms of Service is a violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  It's not a very strong precedent, but
it's still there.

--
Mark
[[en:User:Carnildo]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Dan Rosenthal
The statute supports that as well, providing a private right of action  
and civil remedy. It's not entirely that cut and dry (there are  
certain restrictions that must be met) but yeah, it appears that in  
some cases TOS violations can be illegal.

-Dan
On Jun 22, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 14:35, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>>>
>>> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is  
>>> nothing we
>>> can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to  
>>> do - they
>>> apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are  
>>> akin to
>>> their intellectual property and are unwilling to give them away.
>>>
>>>
>> How is violating Google's ToS against the law?
>
> The verdict in _United States v. Lori Drew_ appears to set a precedent
> that violating a site's Terms of Service is a violation of the
> Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  It's not a very strong precedent, but
> it's still there.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[en:User:Carnildo]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123