Comments for Witty's Blog http://www.wittylama.com Wikipedia, History, Museums. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:16:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Wikipedian in Residence & Notability by Liam Wyatt http://www.wittylama.com/2010/02/wikipedian-in-residence/comment-page-1/#comment-936 Liam Wyatt Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:41:22 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=380#comment-936 Thanks Jim! I've copied your comment across to the Museum and the Web forum here: http://conference.archimuse.com/forum/notability_criteria#comment-2575 Thanks Jim!
I’ve copied your comment across to the Museum and the Web forum here: http://conference.archimuse.com/forum/notability_criteria#comment-2575

]]> Comment on Wikipedian in Residence & Notability by Jim Croft http://www.wittylama.com/2010/02/wikipedian-in-residence/comment-page-1/#comment-933 Jim Croft Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:03:11 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=380#comment-933 [I am posting here because I do not want to resister at http://conference.archimuse.com/forum/notability_criteria - you can move it, or delete it, if you want.] The notability/deletion nexus is to me the most vexing aspect of Wikipedia, associated with the perception of a propensity of self-appointed arbiters not necessarily expert in the field to delete others' work on the basis of lack of notability. The anonymity and lack of accountability coupled with omnipresent threat of deletion keeps a lot of museum professionals from getting too deeply involved in creating and managing Wikipedia content [I know, I know - citation needed]. The distinction you draw between notability and significance is a good one. The problem with notability, and to a lesser extent significance, is the question of 'to whom'; does the opinion of a few undo that of many; and who decides? In the biological domain, every species, no matter how rare or insignificant to the general population is both notable and significant and should have its own Wikipedia (and Wikispecies). However, Wikipedia probably does not want to cast its net over every specimen in a museum, no matter how notable and significant these may to the museum or the science (these specimens could be the analogue of your individual coins). Another example would be authors. Any person who publishes on a species, even if it only a 'one-page-wipe', becomes 'notable by that very act. But you probably do not want every technician who has ever worked in a museum. This is where GLAM-Wikicam comes into its own: museums are going to maintain this level of highly atomized granularity for their own operational purposes so there is no reason for Wikipedia to do it as well. They will also be doing it with species level information, often harnessing and coordinating efforts of entire scientific communities. This authoritative 'point of truth' information can be harvested (in real-time or cached, in whole or in part) for Wikipedia without the need for human intervention or 'value-adding'. Projects like the Encyclopedia of Life (http://www.eol.org/) are already doing this with Wikipedia content - there is no reason why the reverse should not be possible. The key is information integrity, and the chain of acknowledgement and attribution. If we can deal with this, contributions from those currently reticent will flow. In terms of criteria, it is difficult to list these without a degree of circularity. A couple of things relating to scientific collections and information (and cultural material may be similar?) might include: Significance: object/concept and its its metadata required for research; object/concept required for collections management, accountability; object/concept required by internal or external information systems; Notability: object/concept of public interest or educational value; object/concept required by other parts of Wikipedia (internal references); object/concept referenced by external applications (the Google test) I have a fairly liberal attitude to notability i if one person is interested enough to look it up and write it and another is interested enough to look it up and read it, then it it notable, even it it is lowbrow 'trivia'. We are not dealing with a book and there are no real theoretical or financial limits to the number of pages. That is not to say they may not be some ideological ones. :) [I am posting here because I do not want to resister at http://conference.archimuse.com/forum/notability_criteria - you can move it, or delete it, if you want.]
The notability/deletion nexus is to me the most vexing aspect of Wikipedia, associated with the perception of a propensity of self-appointed arbiters not necessarily expert in the field to delete others’ work on the basis of lack of notability. The anonymity and lack of accountability coupled with omnipresent threat of deletion keeps a lot of museum professionals from getting too deeply involved in creating and managing Wikipedia content [I know, I know - citation needed].
The distinction you draw between notability and significance is a good one. The problem with notability, and to a lesser extent significance, is the question of ‘to whom’; does the opinion of a few undo that of many; and who decides?
In the biological domain, every species, no matter how rare or insignificant to the general population is both notable and significant and should have its own Wikipedia (and Wikispecies). However, Wikipedia probably does not want to cast its net over every specimen in a museum, no matter how notable and significant these may to the museum or the science (these specimens could be the analogue of your individual coins).
Another example would be authors. Any person who publishes on a species, even if it only a ‘one-page-wipe’, becomes ‘notable by that very act. But you probably do not want every technician who has ever worked in a museum.
This is where GLAM-Wikicam comes into its own: museums are going to maintain this level of highly atomized granularity for their own operational purposes so there is no reason for Wikipedia to do it as well. They will also be doing it with species level information, often harnessing and coordinating efforts of entire scientific communities. This authoritative ‘point of truth’ information can be harvested (in real-time or cached, in whole or in part) for Wikipedia without the need for human intervention or ‘value-adding’. Projects like the Encyclopedia of Life (http://www.eol.org/) are already doing this with Wikipedia content - there is no reason why the reverse should not be possible.
The key is information integrity, and the chain of acknowledgement and attribution. If we can deal with this, contributions from those currently reticent will flow.
In terms of criteria, it is difficult to list these without a degree of circularity. A couple of things relating to scientific collections and information (and cultural material may be similar?) might include:
Significance: object/concept and its its metadata required for research; object/concept required for collections management, accountability; object/concept required by internal or external information systems;
Notability: object/concept of public interest or educational value; object/concept required by other parts of Wikipedia (internal references); object/concept referenced by external applications (the Google test)
I have a fairly liberal attitude to notability i if one person is interested enough to look it up and write it and another is interested enough to look it up and read it, then it it notable, even it it is lowbrow ‘trivia’. We are not dealing with a book and there are no real theoretical or financial limits to the number of pages. That is not to say they may not be some ideological ones. :)

]]> Comment on NZ National Digital Forum by Wikimedia@MW2010 | Witty’s Blog http://www.wittylama.com/2009/12/nz-national-digital-forum/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Wikimedia@MW2010 | Witty’s Blog Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:20:43 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=484#comment-932 [...] openness. Don’t just take my word for it, check out their Dashboard (that I’ve previously blogged about), public deaccessioning process, and the new ArtBabble [...] [...] openness. Don’t just take my word for it, check out their Dashboard (that I’ve previously blogged about), public deaccessioning process, and the new ArtBabble [...]

]]> Comment on Macquarie and the ropes by Anne H http://www.wittylama.com/2010/03/macquarie-and-the-ropes/comment-page-1/#comment-929 Anne H Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:56:43 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=607#comment-929 At one time the the 1960s or 1970s a chair was loaned to Old Government House, the "seat" of Lachlan Macquarie's gubernatorial term. At one time the the 1960s or 1970s a chair was loaned to Old Government House, the “seat” of Lachlan Macquarie’s gubernatorial term.

]]> Comment on Wikipedian in Residence & Notability by Steven Waling http://www.wittylama.com/2010/02/wikipedian-in-residence/comment-page-1/#comment-918 Steven Waling Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:18:29 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=380#comment-918 I have not been involved much in GLAM work unfortunately, but I would say that the idea of a "Wikipedian in residence" is great one, and not only for museums. It's probably an even more necessary goal for libraries, and more in line with their thinking (we both know some smart, dedicated librarian-wikipedians already!) Basically, I think the idea of member advocates acting as liasons between organizations could be extended almost infinitely. We darn sure know we could use them for BLPs; in the past, I've have acted as point person to answer questions for a celebrity and their PR person. We could also use them for big companies. Can you imagine how much less COI editing and promotional-sounding articles there would be if Monsanto or Google had a Wikipedian they could get on the phone to explain things to them? Of course, outside of GLAMs there is a lot less natural cohesion of mission, so the transparency and "no editing on their behalf" rule would be much more strict, I think. I have not been involved much in GLAM work unfortunately, but I would say that the idea of a “Wikipedian in residence” is great one, and not only for museums.

It’s probably an even more necessary goal for libraries, and more in line with their thinking (we both know some smart, dedicated librarian-wikipedians already!)

Basically, I think the idea of member advocates acting as liasons between organizations could be extended almost infinitely. We darn sure know we could use them for BLPs; in the past, I’ve have acted as point person to answer questions for a celebrity and their PR person.

We could also use them for big companies. Can you imagine how much less COI editing and promotional-sounding articles there would be if Monsanto or Google had a Wikipedian they could get on the phone to explain things to them? Of course, outside of GLAMs there is a lot less natural cohesion of mission, so the transparency and “no editing on their behalf” rule would be much more strict, I think.

]]> Comment on Wikipedian in Residence & Notability by Amgine http://www.wittylama.com/2010/02/wikipedian-in-residence/comment-page-1/#comment-912 Amgine Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:28:00 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=380#comment-912 "all revisions of every article"? well, no, not quite all, but near enough to make a gross generalization. I think you missed the low-hanging fruit: Museums keep assiduous records regarding their collections. Much of this data is already digitized. They spend a reasonably large percentage of their budgets creating, maintaining, and attempting to entice researchers into examining the contents of their collections. A Wikipedian-in-residence could assist them in creating articles about their collections, thus helping Wikipedia expand its knowledgebase (what exists in the museum's collection) and helping the museum advertise its contents (what they are preserving.) In many respects museums are libraries of unknown knowledge. And can I put in a plug for someone to go over to Mystic Seaport and vacuum their naval design collections into Wikisource? Please? Pretty please? “all revisions of every article”? well, no, not quite all, but near enough to make a gross generalization.

I think you missed the low-hanging fruit: Museums keep assiduous records regarding their collections. Much of this data is already digitized. They spend a reasonably large percentage of their budgets creating, maintaining, and attempting to entice researchers into examining the contents of their collections. A Wikipedian-in-residence could assist them in creating articles about their collections, thus helping Wikipedia expand its knowledgebase (what exists in the museum’s collection) and helping the museum advertise its contents (what they are preserving.)

In many respects museums are libraries of unknown knowledge.

And can I put in a plug for someone to go over to Mystic Seaport and vacuum their naval design collections into Wikisource? Please? Pretty please?

]]> Comment on Wikipedian in Residence & Notability by AndreasPraefcke http://www.wittylama.com/2010/02/wikipedian-in-residence/comment-page-1/#comment-911 AndreasPraefcke Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:23:31 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=380#comment-911 A very good idea. Maybe "Social Media & PR" training or some "public domain awareness" course for museum management and staff would help beforehand. My experiences as a Wikipedian "in residence" in German and US museums (meaning: spending an afternoon there photographing objects and descriptions) contain all kinds of obstacles, prohibitions, ignorance and mistrust. A very good idea. Maybe “Social Media & PR” training or some “public domain awareness” course for museum management and staff would help beforehand. My experiences as a Wikipedian “in residence” in German and US museums (meaning: spending an afternoon there photographing objects and descriptions) contain all kinds of obstacles, prohibitions, ignorance and mistrust.

]]> Comment on Conflict of Interest & Archives by Wikipedian in Residence & Notability | Witty’s Blog http://www.wittylama.com/2009/10/conflict-of-interest-archives/comment-page-1/#comment-909 Wikipedian in Residence & Notability | Witty’s Blog Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:43:36 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=409#comment-909 [...] alleviate concerns from the Wikipedia community about Conflict of Interest, the Wikipedian-in-residence would need to be open about their affiliation and would not be allowed [...] [...] alleviate concerns from the Wikipedia community about Conflict of Interest, the Wikipedian-in-residence would need to be open about their affiliation and would not be allowed [...]

]]> Comment on Flickr Commons is Full by twitter存档 » Twitter Updates for 2010-01-25 http://www.wittylama.com/2010/01/flickr-commons-is-full/comment-page-1/#comment-901 twitter存档 » Twitter Updates for 2010-01-25 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:58:07 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=568#comment-901 [...] Commons is Full http://www.wittylama.com/2010/01/flickr-commons-is-full/ [...] [...] Commons is Full http://www.wittylama.com/2010/01/flickr-commons-is-full/ [...]

]]> Comment on Flickr Commons is Full by notafish http://www.wittylama.com/2010/01/flickr-commons-is-full/comment-page-1/#comment-900 notafish Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:38:32 +0000 http://www.wittylama.com/?p=568#comment-900 I find it extremely interesting that both Seb and you speak of "context", but in very different ways. When he says "context matters", he refers to the "like mindedness" of the Flickr community when it comes to images, ie. people who love images. You refer to "contextualisation", ie. to make a long story short, the use of images as powerful tools to illustrate texts/articles. I find this "community who likes images" is probably what Wikimedia Commons lacks most. Not that WM Commoners don't like images, but I think that "love" on the average is being trumped by the need to be efficient, copyright savvy, efficient, fast (the uplaod form reflects all of this, apart the "fast" part ;)) This does for a much more difficult community to get into or to interact with, I think. And it's a shame, really, because I think both "contextualisations" are equally important. Images should be studied, appreciated, looked at both for themselves and for their historical, encyclopedic and educational value. Unfortunately, Wikimedia Commons still has not found its exact scope. It's still hesitating between being exclusively there for Wikimedia Projects and becoming the biggest multimedia repository on the net. I think that the success of GLAM-Wikimedia relationships in terms of images goes through a clear streategical positionning of Wikimedia Commons in that regard. I find it extremely interesting that both Seb and you speak of “context”, but in very different ways. When he says “context matters”, he refers to the “like mindedness” of the Flickr community when it comes to images, ie. people who love images. You refer to “contextualisation”, ie. to make a long story short, the use of images as powerful tools to illustrate texts/articles. I find this “community who likes images” is probably what Wikimedia Commons lacks most. Not that WM Commoners don’t like images, but I think that “love” on the average is being trumped by the need to be efficient, copyright savvy, efficient, fast (the uplaod form reflects all of this, apart the “fast” part ;))

This does for a much more difficult community to get into or to interact with, I think. And it’s a shame, really, because I think both “contextualisations” are equally important. Images should be studied, appreciated, looked at both for themselves and for their historical, encyclopedic and educational value.

Unfortunately, Wikimedia Commons still has not found its exact scope. It’s still hesitating between being exclusively there for Wikimedia Projects and becoming the biggest multimedia repository on the net. I think that the success of GLAM-Wikimedia relationships in terms of images goes through a clear streategical positionning of Wikimedia Commons in that regard.

]]>