GLAM consortium meeting agenda ideas, 2015
The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium brings together cultural organizations, Wikipedians, Wikimedia chapters, and individuals in an independent community of practice devoted to supporting the GLAM-Wikimedia initiative in the United States.
This professional network facilitates "GLAMs helping GLAMs," allowing cultural organizations to work together and with Wikipedians to discuss ideas, share resources, partner on projects, establish best practices, and collectively support one another in pursuits of Wikimedia and related projects.
- Short-term goal: To maintain the momentum around a GLAM-Wiki US Consortium that facilitates the sharing of resources between cultural institutions, cultural professionals, Wikipedians, and chapters.
- Long-term goal: To create a formal professional network and/or a non-profit organization that can support the growth of GLAM-Wikimedia partnerships in the US.
Potential/proposed agenda items
For meeting in March 2015:
- Purpose of GLAM Consortium. Possibilities
- Help build the field of potential Wikipedians in Residence and event organizers at the GLAM. How do we do outreach *internally* so every Wikipedian can be a glam volunteer? [+1 PA] [+1 PF][+1 Sadads]
- Support creation/dissemination of resources that will help WiRs and event organizers (e.g., GLAM one-pager, GLAM wiki pages) -- ideally in ways that involve no (or minimal) coordinating activity -PF [+1 PA]
- Build ties to related movements/organizations (like Creative Commons) and their own GLAM efforts -PF [+1 Sadads]
- Big questions
- With Wikipedians in Residence now at universities and non-profit organizations, is GLAM still the thing we see ourselves focusing on? Do we consider such entities within our baileywick? -PF
- How do we plan to work together? Do/should we have goals for accomplishing certain things? What kind of meetings (in person, virtual...) will be needed to support that work?
- What kind of membership do we need -- what backgrounds are needed for the consortium to be effective? Do we need to add positions? -PF
- How can/should we be "visible" to those looking to do GLAM work? If (part of) our purpose is to support such people, how can we ensure they can learn about our existence...find us...engage with us in ways that are useful? -PF
- Ethical framework - making the most of your work, and avoiding scandal
- How can we help a new Wikipedian in Residence or event organizer establish firm footing, so they will be valued by the Wikipedia community? [+1 PF]
- Exposing a project to Wikimedians in a way that is generative, and not perceived as "promotional"
- Basic grounding in the ethical minefields that have hampered past WIR efforts
- Potential partners/allies
- Working with the Wiki Edu foundation? Similarities & differences in focus, should we coordinate at all -- if we put this on the agenda we might invite someone from there? -PA [+1 Sadads]
- Lessons from my business (Wiki Strategies) in GLAM-related efforts, if there is interest -PF
- How do we get professional organizations to drive GLAM, instead of WM doing so? -PA
Ideas from Phoebe
- Future reproducible campaigns/efforts -- The Wikipedia <3... [art, libraries, etc] have taken off because they are easily reproducible at many sites. Are there other ideas like this? What tools do we need to support them? [if we can articulate specific tools and needs, we can request they get built] [+1 Sadads]
- What's the big sell/ the big message, both internally and externally? What tools do we need to make it (stats, case studies etc)? What future perfect world do we envision for GLAMS & Wikipedia in the US? How does that interact with the futures that institutions are predicting/ envisioning for themselves? (the 'future library' etc?)
- How can GLAM projects best work with Commons, and Commons best work with GLAM? How can Commons showcase cool existing GLAM projects and be inviting for new GLAM projects? (Right now most GLAM projects and collections are pretty hidden and hard to find on Commons even if you are looking for them.)
- GLAMs and other projects that aren't Wikipedia, Wikisource, or Commons? Is there a future for GLAMs and Wikibooks? Wikivoyage? What about other languages?
Ideas from Merrilee
- I'd like to suggest trying to back off of GLAMs and have more customized approaches for libraries, archives, and museums. I think there's a lot of GLAM speak, when really each of these are quite different in terms of professional training, metadata, approaches to education, approaches to curation. Wikimedians see GLAMs at GLAMs, but they see themselves as libraries, or archives, or museums. You don't see a lot of crossover, except perhaps in special collections in an academic context. [+1 PF][+1 Sadads]
- I don't fully understand the push for mass uploads onto Commmons (I know, this is me being heretical). For a lot of work, it seems like a given institution will perhaps have a big win with a few images. Isn't it better to focus on images that are needed and requested? At least until it's easier to actually find things on Commons? [+1 PF] (at least, for having the discussion!)
- butting in - my impression is that institutions want to get on the mass upload bandwagon. and existing upload tools do not incorporate rich metadata (it requires rework to fit in artwork template). GWtool oversold. maybe need to explain incremental & reinforce success working model. Slowking4 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- How can we build interest in or a presence for Wikimedia projects at national and regional professional conferences? [+1 PF] [+1 BK] [+1 Sadads]
Ideas from Bob
- I've always felt that the GLAM idea is way imbalanced: I see the major benefit is for Wikimedia Commons, and only a general benefit is described for the institutions. Many of these institutions regard their images as a money-generating device (whether or not that a valid concern, some institutions prize whatever financial remuneration they can derive from their public domain images). To me, it seems that the most effective way to convince them is to prepare a professional-looking business case (much easier now, since there are articles appearing about the value of the public domain). [+1 Sadads]
- I think this relates to Merrilee's point above: from a GLAM's perspective, uploading 2 or 3 high value images, and generating some press and some specific interest in their holdings, might be much more attractive than uploading 10,000 images and having a generic "here's 10,000 more" entry on a blog somewhere.
- I find myself agreeing with Merrilee. My institution had dumped a few thousand images in Commons and...so what? That's the way I feel generally when I see another institution has donated a couple of thousand images. Might it be more effective to highlight a number of high-impact contributions, describe why they are significant, and allow the staff of the institution a platform to comment on some items? In doing so, we can be underscoring that it's not just about giving away material, but that the curators/custodians of GLAM institutions are participating in the Wikimedia movement, even if slightly.[+1 Sadads]
- I've written elsewhere that I attended this year's conference of the American Historical Association. I didn't hear anything negative about Wikipedia and heard about eight talks/presentations where it was spoken of in a positive light. Might we want to partner with Wiki Ed, or other institutions (for example, academic) to extend the GLAM mission to include cultural promotion and education? [+1 Sadads]
One last idea from Bob
At least year's meeting we ended with ideas and directions. I think it would be helpful if, at the end of this meeting, some concrete assignments and goals (measurable?) were set that we all could work on.
Ideas from Alex
- Opportunities to diversify the "contribution roles" that we advise the GLAM community: frequently in both my Wikipedia Library experience and deliberate attempts at outreach in the KC area (where there is hardly a Wikimedia community) we have been hearing questions that focus on the "whats the best way to participate", but an apprehension to dive feet first into something like editathons (high investment to risk) or activities like WiR or donations. With Merilee's help we have been playing with the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars role, and more recently I have been experimenting with a "Wikipedia Library Interns" model (in part inspired by Lori's model of junior curators, in part by Pittsburg's archival intern work, and part from my own experience). Both models are ones we could push out through large GLAM meta-organizations, and require a relatively small institutional investment per return to the community. What other small GLAM-Wiki roles could there be? Where do we push those out? How do we systematize them to be low community investment, low partner investment and high public return?
- Imagining models like those that Andrew has been working with that he mentions in the earlier email, where Education, Humanities and Social sciences, and GLAMs intersect: I think our WiR roles and conventional GLAM-Wiki conversations around donation, seem to be shooting wide of a scholar demographic that has both the resources and the motivation to leverage Wikipedia as a knowledge platform. I recently have been talking alot with Digital Humanists about the role of their interdisciplinary work groups in publicly intervening through tools like Wikipedia so that the public recognizes the GLAM and Scholarly humanist discussions of topics. There are opportunities, esp. if we collaborate with the Education Foundation.
- DPLA - I am talking with DPLA about giving them some suggested "best steps" for getting into the Wikimedia community. I will be having a first conversation with them before we meet, and will have some ideas from that, and would love feedback on how to steer them as an organization. I also let Liam know of their interest, so there are also opportunities for Europeana/DPLA conversations about GLAM-Wiki.