|"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?". The level of discussion of this proposal is: 3|
Thanks for getting this started. There are a lot of Wikimedians doing great work on this already. It will be terrific to have those efforts coordinated and available for others interested in getting involved!Jennifer Riggs 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that there's a critical mass for a dedicated wiki just for GLAM issues. I'm in favor of a general wiki for public outreach and partnerships efforts, however.--Eloquence 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Given the glacial speed these things generally take, it makes sense to start these things early. There are many people involved in approaching GLAMs and on our side there is imho a need for better coordination. A general wiki for public outreach will bring together organisations that have little in common. They also do not have the same focus and need to express a message. GLAM are outward oriented for instance while educational organisations for instance do not have a message that resonates and has implications for our community.
- One wiki for GLAM gives it focus. Just consider the large amount of GLAM worldwide. Consider what happens when this takes off.. GerardM 06:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The proposal is about a wiki, but everything else (motivation, questions, cost, benefit) seems to be about working with GLAMs in general. It is a bit like the business plan joke (1. make GLAM wiki, 2. ???, 3.
profit free images). What are the actual costs/benefits of a wiki (compared to, say, hosting the same content on Meta)? What would the wiki contain in the first place? From the proposal it seems it would be a blank space into which GLAMs are supposed to write about themselves and "self organize" on their own. I don't think that's very realistic. --Tgr 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's right. It's more about how the WMF's strategies coincide with GLAMs, and how (on what basis) they can complement one another. The question I ask is "why would we attempt to have GLAM's replicate what they have done, by simply donating their catalogues to WM projs. Librarians, as the profession I understand best, are extremely proud of their digitized collections; each entry of which they work hard at giving a "Persistant Identifier" = PI. In my discussions with them, their main interest is in how WMF projects would drive traffic to their site (and front door). So they view WMF, and other projects, like FLICKR as billboards. If we accept that (selfish) reason for their "outward focus" then we need to be clear about how WMF projects can help them.
- Going down this track, in a time/effort/impact effective manner, we would have a simple embed tool in wikimedia software, or better still, on their catalogue index, and offer them a way to advertise their images, photos, audios, etc. on articles; which might be linked back to their PI and collections. We might take up that suggestion made on the last day of GLAMwiki, and just contact the 'head of digitising' in each National library and their associations, at the same time, and ask if we can include (link to) a few selected images, from a few relevant articles, and explain how it's done.
- This is just a prop. But I think we need to be sure in all of them that we don't the saleman's mistake and ask what's in this for wikimedians. We need to always ask (with these potential wikimedians) what's in it for them? --Simonfj 02:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Broaden to "Wikimedia Cultural Alliance"
I like this idea, but I believe it should be broadened to cover all cultural/educational/nonprofit groups which are interested in contributing to the betterment of Wikimedia content. "GLAM" is not enough. We have seen many positive school and university projects for example, but the scope of such output could be dramatically increased with a more organized cooperation. Similarly, with the Wikis Take Manhattan project we worked with an alternative transportation nonprofit, a valuable organization for us but one that could hardly fit under the GLAM label.
Additionally, the limitation to images excludes many of the best outcomes of such cooperation; cultural institutions have much more to offer us than just image uploads. The scholarship of the staff, and the ability to engage the creativity of the ordinary patrons, are in many ways the real treasures of such institutions.
I would see the benefit of the creation of a wiki specifically as the establishing of a formal and traceable point of contact between a cultural institution and Wikimedia. Currently, institutions are often treated harshly and accused of spamming without any reasonable discussion first, and can even be blocked for something as simple as editing under the cultural institution's own name. Allowing institutions to establish verified accounts at the new wiki, and letting them edit at the other projects through SUL, can make communication and cooperation (and the prevention of blocks which can scare away an institution for years) a far easier experience for everyone.--Pharos 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought "Wikimedia Cultural Alliance" might be a bit better, and I think alliance.wikimedia.org would work pretty well as a url too.--Pharos 03:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- When this is only about images, then it is definetly not worth it. If anything, in my opinion gaining more images from GLAMs is a by product of good relations. As there is high potential for a influx of GLAM's, it makes sense to have a way of bringing all this information together in a focused way. This is not what Meta does, conflating it with other types of organisations makes it more difficult to manage. To give a clue; the Wiki loves art/NL project was about 40+ museums... the GLAM Wiki conference included a similar number and these are just two countries !! Thanks, GerardM 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This proposal ties into an idea that I've had for a long while, yet have been unable to implement: associating Wikimedians directly with groups like this. We need access to a lot more than just free images: we also need access, for example, to print materials. Or certain online databases. Yes, public libraries offer access to a lot of this, & are not used as much as they should, but in some cases they can't provide the specific periodicals, books, & online databases a given editor needs to create usable & reliable content. And to get access to this content in too many cases, a given person is on her/his own, hoping that no one will laugh at the justification for access: "I write articles for my Wikimedia project." A program like this not only would allow access to these materials, but provide other badly needed resources: for example, just how many contributors have a dedicated place in their home where they can work without interruptions? We all need A Room of One's Own. -- Llywrch 06:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting ideas. A few responses to the different points:
- I think we have to carefully consider all the levels of contact and lines of communication between us and the cultural institutions. The appropriate level for this would probably be at the Chapters or Regional Working Groups (new proposal alert), so that it's more on an institutional level, and work with individuals can be mediated through that.
- Access to restricted journals is an old idea, and I hope we can think of some more generalized ways to solve it. This is also something that has been chipped at on a small scale by Wikimedians themselves through efforts like WikiProject Resource Exchange.
- An individual getting office space at a nonprofit would perhaps be unlikely. But I think a reserved working space at a library might work for a small group of local Wikimedians, if it were organized as something like a "Wiki Hour" at the library. This is something I've considered doing in New York City, and it probably wouldn't be at all hard to organize if Wikimedians in an area were really interested in this. There is also some analogy here to Wikimedia Australia's Backstage Pass concept.--Pharos 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a sizable group of contributors in the projects whose primary interest is in the content, not the technology or the Wiki philosophy. I believe these people have stronger ties to these institutions than to Wikimedia, & by helping with goal the WMF would be "giving back" by helping them with professional growth. Plus this would help minimize the frustration many in this group feel when presented with the harsh reality that more attention is given to savvy coders or Wiki experts than to the people who are creating what draws people, the users, to these projects.
- Any "Wikimedian in Residence" position would in many cases be the product of an individual's own initiative; if a given non-profit is unwilling or unable to participate, there's really nothing anyone on this end could do. The problem is with non-profits who are interested in the idea, but need some proof of quality work & seriousness from the potential Resident. This problem could be solved by setting some kind of process or criteria so a given Wikimedian could show that she/he is a (to grab a title at random) "Wikimedian in good standing" & is qualified for this kind of serious attention. I envision this would be defined either by the local chapters or, in cases where no local chapter exists, the WMF. (Shoot, just finding out if there are any other Wikimedians interested in the idea & having a discussion about accomplishing this would be a good start.)
- And yes, I am copying this idea from the better known "Artist-in-Residence" idea. I've been researching this idea, as my time permits, to more fully understand just what is involved in doing it. -- Llywrch 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- As an addendum to the above, my related proposal might help with another problem, Participation/Retaining existing participant base. (And might indicate that I should write up my own proposal about this.) -- Llywrch 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
just thought I'd drop a quick note in to say that this seems like a good idea to me! Seeing a few related ideas already being discussed above, it makes me wonder if 'focus volunteer effort' might be a necessary proposal to consider.... otoh, there's probably a few of them already! Privatemusings 04:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I support and have rated this proposal very highly. --Bodnotbod 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
After attending the GLAM-WIKI conference in Canberra, there is going to be a much more solid list of recommendations. I think we should certainly do something. However I do not think that a separate Wiki is the way to go. Instead we need to have projects set up on the existing commons and language wikipedias. Creating a completely separate wiki project, eg glam.wikimedia.org would make it a backwater where few would venture. Agree.--Simonfj 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
We could have a WP:GLAM in en.wikipedia that could talk about ways of interacting with the GLAM sector and Wikimedia sector. This would cover things such as
- how to get your GLAM organization to have an entry on Wikipedia.
- Referencing to materials held in the institution from Wikipedia.
This seems to be the 'hot button'. Perhaps space for thumbnails in an article's reference section.--Simonfj 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- How to have an inventory list so that Wikipedia researchers can find the holdings of the GLAM org.
- How to establish a project for large scale work
- How can large contributions of GLAM material be made
This has been the approach at the moment. But we'll drown in annotation work if successful, as the bundearchiv shows.
- How to get the help of a wikipedian to assist.
How to encourage GLAM's to promote their materials on WMF projects. --Simonfj 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cross linking between GLAM indexes
- Metadata issues
- Making databases freely available
- Use of the material for educational use
- This point needs to be a main part of the bigger picture for bringing together various sub WMF strategies. There's no doubt the Canberra WIKIglam made a great impact on the thinking of people who normally view one another as competitors (for the public purse). Most institutional attendees seemed to just want something progressive to relieve the boredom created by their unimaginative (public service) management, and Liam and et all were just wonderful in helping them out of their internally focussed drearies. The lack of the usual heat and arrogance was heartwarming.
Perhaps we might consider broadening GLAM out to something more GLAMERous (education & research) as the outward focussed GLAMs get an idea of how wiki projects help create new (marketing and) contexts for their stuff.
- Getting the ER's to participate is going to be substantially harder, as they are (as mentioned above) inwardly focussed, and wikipedia (as the best known project) isn't followed by an .edu. Until then, all we can do is talk about material for educational use. There is simply no way for these institutions to recognise it's worth. --Simonfj 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A en:Wikipedia:WikiProject GLAM could then organise people to assist the GLAMs in their efforts to work with the Wikimedia projects. It could be a startup from the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation which has had a program of helping to create articles and images. I would love it if someone came to en:WP:IFU and wanted to donate 1000 images.
A commons:commons:GLAM or project on commons could assist with mass donations.
- I don't mean to be a spoilsport with this. But has there been a discussion about the huge amount of work in uploadingm annotating, storing, etc for a wiki user to view an article which already exists (usually) on another domain, at a PI, 250millsecs away. Are we attempting to compile a world digital library? I have no qualms about one way or the other. I just think we need to agree on why we would want to replicate what is already done/being done/has been funded by many national govs.--Simonfj 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I will definitely be doing something, even if only helping the historical societies get a foothold in the door. Graeme Bartlett 04:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree we should develop many more relevant wikiprojects on the various Wikimedia sites to implement the specific initiatives of cultural institutions on those wikis. And I think this should cover 90% of that is necessary for working with cultural institutions. For the remainder, I think we still need a centralized "formal and traceable point of contact" for all our partner institutions, on a "friendly" wiki where they know they will be be treated with respect, where they can easily engage with other wiki-friendly institutions, where all their meta-questions can be answered, and where more forgiving admins will not be blocking museum accounts for slight breaches of protocol (as has happened all too often in the past).--Pharos 06:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
EU towards the open encyclopedia
This is an interesting issue. I used to work for some time in the Agriculture Museum and I find out, that European Union is having a protect on open encyclopedia of items in museums and galleries. Not it is not obligatory, but there are several institution is EU, creating databases describing their items via images and data. And of course in many countries of EU it is natural, that items in the collection of these institutions are public = for people = open. So it would be nice to get some of these pictures with rich even scientific description for Wikimedia Commons. On the other side, they can benefit from the popularity of Wikipedia and Commons, that they have donated us by these normally public open pictures. Something similar now comes from the German archives (such as Bundesarchiv or Fototek).--Juan de Vojníkov 08:43, 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 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- What I hope will be the outcome for wikimedia consumers is lots more free material - text, pictures, new media. There should be much greater cross linking so that you will be able to branch out more to connected information. New mash ups can occur where information will be presented in new ways - (legally). For the GLAMs we hope there will be reduced cost, greater effectiveness and more visitors. Graeme Bartlett 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. --Carl Steinbeißer 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Already doing something
Hi all, just thought I'd let you know that as a result of discussion at the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest talkpage (discussing how/whether to let archives employees link) I've started to put together what will become WP:GLAM - a "one stop shop" for GLAM employees to learn about editing Wikipedia and get advice etc. You can see the preparations here w:User:Witty lama/Sandbox. 126.96.36.199 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Liam, good to see you. :) I took a quick look at your sandbox page, and it looks fantastic, of course. I note that it's fairly tightly constrained to the English Wikipedia, and maybe that's all that's necessary; I simply don't know the topic well enough. Is there a need for a similar development page on a meta-level? -- Philippe 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)