This is an important point raised by many galleries and museums - Wikipedia currently does not do a very good job at metadata, especially of cultural content. We don't even have a consistent policy of linking back to the institution that actually displays/owns the artwork, let alone keeping important metadata like catalogue numbers etc. So, metadata in general needs to be improved.
But furthermore, the metadata needs to be extractable and follow-able so the institution can see what is being done with their content and how it is being used and what changes/additions are being made (e.g. if we add a geo-code). Witty lama 14:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- This proposal increases the reach of our projects, adding new end-users. For example, w:Worldcat, w:OpenLibrary, and w:Google Scholar could include Wikisource and Commons in their meta directories. John Vandenberg 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've merged another (tiny) proposal on metadata. I think that we can make this page the central proposal page for metadata (which are mentioned in various places). We could move here the part on metadata from Proposal:Make Wikisource scale. I think also that metadata are essential for a collaboration with OpenLibrary, see Proposal:Building a database of all books ever published. Nemo 09:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Dublin Core enough? Or we need also OAI-PMH? Nemo 09:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- We need both the structured metadata of Dublin Core and the "discovery" ability of OAI-PMH. We already have OAI-PMH provided by the OAIRepository extension, however the DC record it provides is a description of the wiki page, whereas for Image pages on Commons and reproductions of old works on Wikisource, the DC record should describe the image and the original work respectively. John Vandenberg 12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)