GLAM-WIKI report

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

GLAM-WIKI report

Tim Starling-2
I thought I'd better write up a report about the conference I went to
last week, to justify the time I spent there. I'll give some general
observations followed by some technical ones.

GLAM-WIKI was a two-day conference billed as a meeting between
Australia's GLAM sector (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) and
Wikimedians. GLAM representatives outnumbered Wikimedians, but we had
enough people there to make sure our point of view was heard both inside
and outside of the formal program. Many of the talks were from people in
the GLAM sector who were already converted to our way of thinking, and
who endeavoured to convert the rest of the GLAM audience by speaking in
their language.

The GLAM representatives were generally very receptive. When dissenting
questions came up, they were often answered in our favour by another
GLAM representative. I asked one of the delegates about this favourable
mood, and he said that the delegates were generally self-selected people
who had a favourable opinion of Wikimedia and free content, and that the
skeptics did not attend. However, the discussions had at the conference
would provide valuable ammunition against those skeptics back in the office.

As far as I know, only one speaker expressed a completely contrary
opinion to the general mood of the conference, and that was Ian
MacDonald of the Australian Copyright Council. He said, in essence, that
institutions need to prevent reuse or modification of the content they
hold in order to preserve its purity, which risks sullied by the
cumulative distortions of the general public. This was passionately
countered by Jessica Coates during question time, with some success
judging by nearby whisperings. MacDonald also warned the audience about
evil Wikimedians like the one who "hacked into" the NPG (UK) website and
stole a million pounds worth of images. The factual errors in this
statement were briefly addressed during question time.

I tried to get a feeling for what sort of hard drive capacity we would
need if the institutions in the room decided they wanted to share large
amounts of content with us. Many of them have tens or hundreds of
terabytes of data storage, in tape and hard drives. However, the bulk of
this is in restoration-quality images (e.g. TIFFs tens of thousands of
pixels wide), which they would not be willing to share with us even if
we wanted them. Liam Wyatt proposed as a business model or compromise
with management, the idea of sharing images of a 1000-2000 pixel width
and charging a fee for access to the full resolution images. That seems
like the most likely arrangement, and if so, it wouldn't need a
significant change to our current capacity planning for file storage.

A GLAM delegate expressed an opinion in question time that they would be
reluctant to have us mirror their collection, since they've spent a
large amount of money setting up their data storage, so mirroring would
seem like a waste. Brianna Laugher was receptive to the idea of having
Wikimedia projects hotlink or cache images from galleries. I kept quiet,
the significant technical challenges with that approach were not discussed.

There is a need for bulk upload tools to be better advertised and more
readily accessible. One of the institutions reported paying students to
upload hundreds of photos to commons via the usual web-based UI, but
found it to be too time-consuming and expensive to consider on a large
scale.

Special:BookSources came up a couple of times. The libraries would love
to see software improvements, such as geolocation giving the ability to
present the nearest few libraries at the top of the page, without the
user having to click on the world map. Liam mentioned the geolocation
projects based on detecting nearby 802.11 access points. I think
MaxMind's GeoIP City would be a better as a software development
starting point.

Delegates from the National Library of Australia reported that they have
an ongoing project to collate collection metadata from all libraries in
Australia. It may be possible to replicate this data to Wikimedia
servers, or otherwise make it available. This would enable a feature
whereby the user is told which libraries have the book being searched
for, in the requested edition or a different edition. It may even be
possible to report whether the book is on the shelf or not.

-- Tim Starling

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Mathias Schindler-2
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Tim Starling<[hidden email]> wrote:

> As far as I know, only one speaker expressed a completely contrary
> opinion to the general mood of the conference, and that was Ian
> MacDonald of the Australian Copyright Council.

He started his opening statement with his intention to act as a "party
pooper" (spelling?). He basically systematically ridiculed his own
position by the way he made his statement and made it hard for anyone
to subscribe to any particular position he stated. We should consider
booking him on another occation.

> There is a need for bulk upload tools to be better advertised and more
> readily accessible. One of the institutions reported paying students to
> upload hundreds of photos to commons via the usual web-based UI, but
> found it to be too time-consuming and expensive to consider on a large
> scale.

There is an upcoming tool from the usual suspects at Wikimedia that
might be of interest to you and the GLAM people.

> Special:BookSources came up a couple of times. The libraries would love
> to see software improvements, such as geolocation giving the ability to
> present the nearest few libraries at the top of the page, without the
> user having to click on the world map. Liam mentioned the geolocation
> projects based on detecting nearby 802.11 access points. I think
> MaxMind's GeoIP City would be a better as a software development
> starting point.

Anyone interested in the capabilies of the W3C geolocation feature
(currently supported by Firefox 3.5) can look it up at
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/geolocation/#geo-demo (link: give
it a try). This feature requires a consent from the user, whereas hte
GeoIP feature alone can be run on the server side without prior
consent. It should be reasonably precise to find nearby libraries.

> Delegates from the National Library of Australia reported that they have
> an ongoing project to collate collection metadata from all libraries in
> Australia. It may be possible to replicate this data to Wikimedia
> servers, or otherwise make it available. This would enable a feature
> whereby the user is told which libraries have the book being searched
> for, in the requested edition or a different edition. It may even be
> possible to report whether the book is on the shelf or not.

The theoretical construct behind this is FRBR
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records).
It would help to identify the relationship of the english paperback
4th edition of a text book to the french hardcover edition of the 3rd
edition and to the german e-book of the same work.

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
Hoi,
Thank you Tim I find I am sad for not having been there. I blogged in reply
but here is its text as well.
Thanks,
     Gerard
******************
Tim Starling <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling> wrote a nice
report<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/053946.html>on
last weeks GLAM Wiki conference. He touched briefly on two issues, the
storage of GLAM material and the collation of meta data from all libraries
in Australia.

*The storage of GLAM material*
Much of the material digitised is in the tiff format. They represent the
original material best because with tiff you do not lose information due to
compression. The WMF does not support tiff files in Wikipedia; at the moment
it allows only for the storage of these files. There are however important
reasons why we want access to tiff files; high resolution loss less files
are the base material for our digital
restorations<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Durova#Landmark_images>
.

Liam has a point when he suggests that we typically do not need the highest
resolutions to illustrate our Wikipedias <http://wikipedia.org/>. But I
really like the idea of Brianna where we hotlink and cache pictures from the
GLAMs themselves. I can appreciate why Tim did not get into that... It is a
lot of work, complicated work as well. Questions like what to do when the
GLAM is off line are only part of it.

What I would suggest is that we could get the high resolution tiff on
request if we aim to restore a particular image.

*The annotations of GLAM material*
Annotations are what makes the material we may use worthwhile. Without
annotations, provenance a picture is hardly worthwhile as an illustration.
The annotations in illustrations are as important as the sources for text.

<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s7edsEQHKvk/SoKQxG8LLWI/AAAAAAAAA3w/QKmskZSNAyw/s1600-h/Historic+but+what+is+it%3F.jpg>

In the last paragraph, there is one little gem; it says that "there is an
ongoing project to collate metadata from the libraries of Australia". A
similar project exists in the Netherlands for musea.

The question is very much how does the Wikimedia community fit in. To what
extend does it make sense to update the data in Commons and not have this
information available as part of the metadata of the GLAM. If the question
of hotlinking is a hot patatoe, then this is much more complex.

Consider this scenario, the Tropenmuseum <http://tropenmuseum.com/> makes
available 100.000 images about Indonesia. The Indonesian WMF chapter finds
people willing to translate the Dutch annotations in Bahasa Indonesia and
the Indonesian community starts to improve on these annotations. How will
that affect the original annotations and what about the English translation
that is also very much desired ??

There are no obvious answers, they will come as we work together and make
our attempts to come up with workable solutions. Solutions that are bound to
change and improve in time.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/12 Tim Starling <[hidden email]>

> I thought I'd better write up a report about the conference I went to
> last week, to justify the time I spent there. I'll give some general
> observations followed by some technical ones.
>
> GLAM-WIKI was a two-day conference billed as a meeting between
> Australia's GLAM sector (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) and
> Wikimedians. GLAM representatives outnumbered Wikimedians, but we had
> enough people there to make sure our point of view was heard both inside
> and outside of the formal program. Many of the talks were from people in
> the GLAM sector who were already converted to our way of thinking, and
> who endeavoured to convert the rest of the GLAM audience by speaking in
> their language.
>
> The GLAM representatives were generally very receptive. When dissenting
> questions came up, they were often answered in our favour by another
> GLAM representative. I asked one of the delegates about this favourable
> mood, and he said that the delegates were generally self-selected people
> who had a favourable opinion of Wikimedia and free content, and that the
> skeptics did not attend. However, the discussions had at the conference
> would provide valuable ammunition against those skeptics back in the
> office.
>
> As far as I know, only one speaker expressed a completely contrary
> opinion to the general mood of the conference, and that was Ian
> MacDonald of the Australian Copyright Council. He said, in essence, that
> institutions need to prevent reuse or modification of the content they
> hold in order to preserve its purity, which risks sullied by the
> cumulative distortions of the general public. This was passionately
> countered by Jessica Coates during question time, with some success
> judging by nearby whisperings. MacDonald also warned the audience about
> evil Wikimedians like the one who "hacked into" the NPG (UK) website and
> stole a million pounds worth of images. The factual errors in this
> statement were briefly addressed during question time.
>
> I tried to get a feeling for what sort of hard drive capacity we would
> need if the institutions in the room decided they wanted to share large
> amounts of content with us. Many of them have tens or hundreds of
> terabytes of data storage, in tape and hard drives. However, the bulk of
> this is in restoration-quality images (e.g. TIFFs tens of thousands of
> pixels wide), which they would not be willing to share with us even if
> we wanted them. Liam Wyatt proposed as a business model or compromise
> with management, the idea of sharing images of a 1000-2000 pixel width
> and charging a fee for access to the full resolution images. That seems
> like the most likely arrangement, and if so, it wouldn't need a
> significant change to our current capacity planning for file storage.
>
> A GLAM delegate expressed an opinion in question time that they would be
> reluctant to have us mirror their collection, since they've spent a
> large amount of money setting up their data storage, so mirroring would
> seem like a waste. Brianna Laugher was receptive to the idea of having
> Wikimedia projects hotlink or cache images from galleries. I kept quiet,
> the significant technical challenges with that approach were not discussed.
>
> There is a need for bulk upload tools to be better advertised and more
> readily accessible. One of the institutions reported paying students to
> upload hundreds of photos to commons via the usual web-based UI, but
> found it to be too time-consuming and expensive to consider on a large
> scale.
>
> Special:BookSources came up a couple of times. The libraries would love
> to see software improvements, such as geolocation giving the ability to
> present the nearest few libraries at the top of the page, without the
> user having to click on the world map. Liam mentioned the geolocation
> projects based on detecting nearby 802.11 access points. I think
> MaxMind's GeoIP City would be a better as a software development
> starting point.
>
> Delegates from the National Library of Australia reported that they have
> an ongoing project to collate collection metadata from all libraries in
> Australia. It may be possible to replicate this data to Wikimedia
> servers, or otherwise make it available. This would enable a feature
> whereby the user is told which libraries have the book being searched
> for, in the requested edition or a different edition. It may even be
> possible to report whether the book is on the shelf or not.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: GLAM-WIKI report

Kat Walsh-4
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Tim Starling<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I tried to get a feeling for what sort of hard drive capacity we would
> need if the institutions in the room decided they wanted to share large
> amounts of content with us. Many of them have tens or hundreds of
> terabytes of data storage, in tape and hard drives. However, the bulk of
> this is in restoration-quality images (e.g. TIFFs tens of thousands of
> pixels wide), which they would not be willing to share with us even if
> we wanted them. Liam Wyatt proposed as a business model or compromise
> with management, the idea of sharing images of a 1000-2000 pixel width
> and charging a fee for access to the full resolution images. That seems
> like the most likely arrangement, and if so, it wouldn't need a
> significant change to our current capacity planning for file storage.
>
> A GLAM delegate expressed an opinion in question time that they would be
> reluctant to have us mirror their collection, since they've spent a
> large amount of money setting up their data storage, so mirroring would
> seem like a waste. Brianna Laugher was receptive to the idea of having
> Wikimedia projects hotlink or cache images from galleries. I kept quiet,
> the significant technical challenges with that approach were not discussed.

Thanks for the recap; sounds like the conference went pretty well.

I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
want to let the point slip by. A few:

1. What about our mirrors and forks and reusers; do they get the same
rights? How about users who want to download media dumps?

2. What about when they decide to change around their naming
schemes/take works offline/otherwise restructure their websites, and
us with millions of links? Any change of theirs would cause serious
disruption.

I don't think it is a waste for us to mirror those images unless you
want to call all redundancy a waste--but if it's really a concern,
from my perspective I'd far rather have them hotlink from us! I think
it is fine to provide links to the institutions' own sites where the
highest-resolution images are available for purchase, but I think we
must host the other images ourselves. I do want to see Wikimedia
collaborate and reach understanding with cultural institutions. But I
think it needs to be on the level of how we share their mission of
preserving and disseminating cultural knowledge, and showing them how
much more can happen when we are able to use that material
independently on the Wikimedia projects.

-Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: [hidden email] * Personal: [hidden email]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Thanks for your report Tim.

A minor correction,

2009/8/12 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:
> Liam has a point when he suggests that we typically do not need the highest
> resolutions to illustrate our Wikipedias <http://wikipedia.org/>. But I
> really like the idea of Brianna where we hotlink and cache pictures from the
> GLAMs themselves. I can appreciate why Tim did not get into that... It is a
> lot of work, complicated work as well. Questions like what to do when the
> GLAM is off line are only part of it.

This was not my idea! It was suggested by GLAM people (a couple of
times) and like a good facilitator I made sure it was recorded. The
aim was to brainstorm, not debate the merits of every suggestion at
the time it was suggested.

The suggestion was also made that Wikimedia should revisit its
restriction on NC material, and it was written down too, although I
think I was thinking the same thing as every other Wikimedian in the
room...

Re GLAM repositories as a MediaWiki repo, I don't know enough on the
tech side to know if it is even a remotely feasible idea. But on the
'social' side it did make me think about our insistence (currently
technically necessary) that everything is in MediaWiki format,
essentially under the Wikimedia branding somewhere, before we will
effectively work with it. We want the GLAMs to let up some control,
but essentially so material can come under our control. A different
kind of control, certainly, but definitely control. Let's not kid
ourselves - not a neutral ground. Maybe it is not a bad idea for us to
think about how we can embrace collaboration or resource sharing that
might wear someone else's badging.

cheers
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4
2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>:

> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
> want to let the point slip by. A few:


The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
free. l mean, really.


- 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: GLAM-WIKI report

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Not necessarily. One acronym I learned was KPI, when a GLAM has as a key
performance indicator the number of times a picture is actually accessed, it
may affect the amount of subsidy they get. There is no reason why an image
cannot be made available to the people who want that image on their hard
drive.

So I mean really there may be more to it.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/8/12 David Gerard <[hidden email]>

> 2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
> > can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
> > want to let the point slip by. A few:
>
>
> The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
> free. l mean, really.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: GLAM-WIKI report

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4
Kat Walsh wrote:

> Thanks for the recap; sounds like the conference went pretty well.
>
> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
> want to let the point slip by. A few:
>
> 1. What about our mirrors and forks and reusers; do they get the same
> rights? How about users who want to download media dumps?
>
> 2. What about when they decide to change around their naming
> schemes/take works offline/otherwise restructure their websites, and
> us with millions of links? Any change of theirs would cause serious
> disruption.
>
> I don't think it is a waste for us to mirror those images unless you
> want to call all redundancy a waste--but if it's really a concern,
> from my perspective I'd far rather have them hotlink from us! I think
> it is fine to provide links to the institutions' own sites where the
> highest-resolution images are available for purchase, but I think we
> must host the other images ourselves. I do want to see Wikimedia
> collaborate and reach understanding with cultural institutions. But I
> think it needs to be on the level of how we share their mission of
> preserving and disseminating cultural knowledge, and showing them how
> much more can happen when we are able to use that material
> independently on the Wikimedia projects.

I would add further reasons against hotlinking or caching:
* The difficulty of providing good performance and high availability
24/7: the institutions usually run their own server rooms
* The low cost to us of mirroring a collection, up to a scale of
hundreds of gigabytes
* The bandwidth cost to them could potentially be high
* The software development cost

Brianna Laugher wrote:

> Re GLAM repositories as a MediaWiki repo, I don't know enough on the
> tech side to know if it is even a remotely feasible idea. But on the
> 'social' side it did make me think about our insistence (currently
> technically necessary) that everything is in MediaWiki format,
> essentially under the Wikimedia branding somewhere, before we will
> effectively work with it. We want the GLAMs to let up some control,
> but essentially so material can come under our control. A different
> kind of control, certainly, but definitely control. Let's not kid
> ourselves - not a neutral ground. Maybe it is not a bad idea for us to
> think about how we can embrace collaboration or resource sharing that
> might wear someone else's badging.

Well, if it's about branding, then maybe we can think of ways to do
repositories that are mirrored in our data centres but look more like
a separate branded collection as presented in MediaWiki. But the
Wikimedia community might have trouble with that.

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> The suggestion was also made that Wikimedia should revisit its
> restriction on NC material, and it was written down too, although I
> think I was thinking the same thing as every other Wikimedian in the
> room...

For Wikimedia I think the lack of non-commercial material is
relatively arbitrary.

For open source software development, developers have it in their
interests to allow commercial use since they usually end up getting
paid by the companies that use their free software. And for the GLAM
sector, a non-commercial restriction makes sense because they want to
encourage dissemination in the cultural sphere, while recovering some
costs from the commercial sphere, which is more able to afford it and
has a sense of reciprocity or corporate social responsibility.

Wikimedia's justifications seem weaker to me. We say that commercial
dissemination will aid our mission, but so far, such commercial use
has been underdeveloped. The only kind of commercial reuse that is
fully developed is the thousands of out-of-date mirrors run by SEO
professionals, who make little contribution to our wider goals.

But I think there is a value in consistency. Now that we have this
vast encyclopedia illustrated with images that are free for commercial
use, it would be a pity to destroy that potential benefit by adding a
handful of images that are non-commercial only, with commercial use to
be negotiated directly with the institution. That would create a
landmine for commercial reusers and would discourage them
disproportionately.

So I think we should continue to negotiate with our content sources to
have them release their content without a non-commercial restriction.
And I think we should try to be more effective at encouraging
commercial use which supports their goals and ours, so that we have a
better answer to the question when it inevitably comes up.

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Chad
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Brianna
Laugher<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Re GLAM repositories as a MediaWiki repo, I don't know enough on the
> tech side to know if it is even a remotely feasible idea. But on the
> 'social' side it did make me think about our insistence (currently
> technically necessary) that everything is in MediaWiki format,
> essentially under the Wikimedia branding somewhere, before we will
> effectively work with it. We want the GLAMs to let up some control,
> but essentially so material can come under our control. A different
> kind of control, certainly, but definitely control. Let's not kid
> ourselves - not a neutral ground. Maybe it is not a bad idea for us to
> think about how we can embrace collaboration or resource sharing that
> might wear someone else's badging.
>
> cheers
> Brianna
>
> --
> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
> http://modernthings.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Just thinking aloud here, but as to methods for accessing the content:

A) Extends FileRepo to work with their data, however they happen to give
us access to it
B) Provide something similar to Special:Import, that will go retrieve their
data and import it to a format MediaWiki can handle

Both are certainly feasible with the current code base; it's not going to
require some massive re-write of anything.

-Chad

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Chad
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Chad<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Brianna
> Laugher<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Re GLAM repositories as a MediaWiki repo, I don't know enough on the
>> tech side to know if it is even a remotely feasible idea. But on the
>> 'social' side it did make me think about our insistence (currently
>> technically necessary) that everything is in MediaWiki format,
>> essentially under the Wikimedia branding somewhere, before we will
>> effectively work with it. We want the GLAMs to let up some control,
>> but essentially so material can come under our control. A different
>> kind of control, certainly, but definitely control. Let's not kid
>> ourselves - not a neutral ground. Maybe it is not a bad idea for us to
>> think about how we can embrace collaboration or resource sharing that
>> might wear someone else's badging.
>>
>> cheers
>> Brianna
>>
>> --
>> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
>> http://modernthings.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> Just thinking aloud here, but as to methods for accessing the content:
>
> A) Extends FileRepo to work with their data, however they happen to give
> us access to it
> B) Provide something similar to Special:Import, that will go retrieve their
> data and import it to a format MediaWiki can handle
>
> Both are certainly feasible with the current code base; it's not going to
> require some massive re-write of anything.
>
> -Chad
>

(Sorry for the followup, I pressed send too soon)

Both methods also allow the GLAMs to keep their control over what they
do and do not let us use, but allow us access to the material in a way that
works with what we do. Best of all, it doesn't require a full mirror
of everything
they have...one time imports of individual items are much more trivial,
comparitavely speaking.

-Chad

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Andrew Turvey
In reply to this post by Mathias Schindler-2

----- "Mathias Schindler" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Tim Starling<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > There is a need for bulk upload tools to be better advertised and more
> > readily accessible. One of the institutions reported paying students to
> > upload hundreds of photos to commons via the usual web-based UI, but
> > found it to be too time-consuming and expensive to consider on a large
> > scale.
>
> There is an upcoming tool from the usual suspects at Wikimedia that
> might be of interest to you and the GLAM people.
>

Look forward to this? Do you know what the expected time line is and where we can get more information?

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Brion Vibber-3
In reply to this post by Chad
On 8/12/09 6:18 AM, Chad wrote:
> Just thinking aloud here, but as to methods for accessing the content:
>
> A) Extends FileRepo to work with their data, however they happen to give
> us access to it
> B) Provide something similar to Special:Import, that will go retrieve their
> data and import it to a format MediaWiki can handle
>
> Both are certainly feasible with the current code base; it's not going to
> require some massive re-write of anything.

We've already got the latter in the pipeline with Michael Dale's work on
the add media wizard:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Add_Media_Wizard

This includes the ability to search remote media repositories and import
particular resources from them into the wiki. In testing this is
implemented for for instance pulling videos from the Internet Archive's
video collections (kindly pre-transcoded into Ogg Theora -- thanks IA
guys and gals!)

As this matures some more and the backend support gets merged into our
live deployment, this'll be rolled into the advanced editing tools the
Usability crew is working on.

-- brion

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Liam Wyatt
In reply to this post by Andrew Turvey
On 8/13/09, Andrew Turvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> ----- "Mathias Schindler" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Tim Starling<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
>
> > > There is a need for bulk upload tools to be better advertised and more
> > > readily accessible. One of the institutions reported paying students to
> > > upload hundreds of photos to commons via the usual web-based UI, but
> > > found it to be too time-consuming and expensive to consider on a large
> > > scale.
> >
> > There is an upcoming tool from the usual suspects at Wikimedia that
> > might be of interest to you and the GLAM people.
> >
>
>
> Look forward to this? Do you know what the expected time line is and where
> we can get more information?
>
> Thanks


All of the reporting on the event that has been done so far is being
collated at the event page:
http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/GLAM
There is a list of all of the press reports, subsequent blog posts, and an
export of the #GLAM-WIKI hashtag feed from twitter. Very soon all of the
videos from the presentations will be uploaded too. Our hosts, the
Australian War Memorial, were kind enough to also professionally film all
the presentations :-)

These all indicate a large range of issues that were raised and, even if
they cannot be acted upon directly (like the hotlinking idea) they are now
'floating around'. I encourage you to read the aforementioned blog posts and
keep an eye out for some of the videos. The presentation slides are slowly
being added too.

Moreover, I believe the most immediate benefit of this event is the fact
that something like the UK-NPG controversy would not happen in Australia.
Even though the two communities don't necessarily agree on how to 'move
forward together' this event has 'taken the heat' out of the debate and
moved it to a position of collaboration rather than antagonism. And, as
Mathias said, the Australian Copyright Council presentation was fantastic -
he did more in 5 minutes to undermine his own pro-restriction position than
we could have done in 6 months. Comments in the twitter stream (page 41 of
the feed<http://wikimedia.org.au/w/images/5/52/GLAM-WIKI_twitter_hashtag_transcript.pdf>)
from the GLAM sector themselves (!) were scathing. There will be a
video
of this soon enough.

In the medium-longer term there are many specific ideas/tools/methods that
were raised to make the GLAM and Wiki communities more easily work together.
This report "the recommendations list" is currently being compiled and will
be released in a week. It lists some specific recommendations that each
community could act upon and is divided up into the four streams of the
conference - Technology, Law, Education and Business  - and is in two
columns - from GLAM to Wiki and from Wiki to GLAM. This is a two-way
conversation after all, not simply us just preaching to them. I will be
presenting these recommendations in my timeslot at Wikimania in a couple of
weeks too.

I personally hope that we can demonstrate our goodwill towards the cultural
sector (not just in Australia, but globally - they have equivalent needs all
over the world) by attempting to achieve some of their requests. In return
this would give our requests to the GLAM sector greater weight because we
had proved our bona fides. Just as one example, the GLAM sector would like
to be able to easily access statistics on how their collections are being
used in Wikimedia projects (otherwise they can't report to their management
with strong numbers about the benefit of collaboration). Did you know
(apparently) there is a 2 year waiting list for cultural institutions to
join the Flickr Commons project ?? If we are able to provide the services
that Flickr offers - e.g. easy mass uploading and good data reporting on
usage - then they will be approaching us!

I do know there are a couple of institutions that attended GLAM-WIKI are now
having super-secret internal debates about making some sort of announcement
of collaboration with Wikimedia (and open-access principles more generally)
but this is not an easy process for them. The 170 attendees at GLAM-WIKI
were, as Tim said, self selected (list of institutions
here<http://www.wittylama.com/2009/07/246/>).
Now we need to assist those people in their talks with their colleagues -
and there are moves afoot to do just that. I'll report more on these talks
when I can...

All in all, a very successful event IMHO if for no other reason than it
demonstrated that the Wikimedia community *cares* about their POV and
expertise - and now they are telling their colleagues worldwide that "those
Wiki people are people too" :-) I encourage other chapters and organised
communities to start talking with their local/national cultural sector - but
don't expect it to be a quick or easy process. It is not one that can be
measured in number-of-photographs-released-per-day. Ultimately, it is about
how we can share resources/expertise to fulfill the common parts of our
mission statements and that can manifest itself in many different ways.

Sincerely,
Liam [[witty lama]], convener of GLAM-WIKI

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



--
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

John at Darkstar
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4

> 1. What about our mirrors and forks and reusers; do they get the same
> rights? How about users who want to download media dumps?

This is at least two different problems, one is reuse when the content
is free and the other is reuse when the content is free due to an
agreement. For the moment there is a lot of material we can't use
because images are handled as separate from the articles.

> 2. What about when they decide to change around their naming
> schemes/take works offline/otherwise restructure their websites, and
> us with millions of links? Any change of theirs would cause serious
> disruption.

I would say mirror images and link to the original. That way the work is
on the external website to keep the links. In addition make a lot better
APIs for sharing metadata. The metadata should include identifiers used
at the external site. Also consider if the external site should be able
to make additional hotlinked information available about the image.

Think mashups of metadata, don't think "my metadata" (or WMFs mtadata).
We have become at least as protective as the GLAM institutions in some
respects.

John

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

John at Darkstar
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
interesting.

John

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> Not necessarily. One acronym I learned was KPI, when a GLAM has as a key
> performance indicator the number of times a picture is actually accessed, it
> may affect the amount of subsidy they get. There is no reason why an image
> cannot be made available to the people who want that image on their hard
> drive.
>
> So I mean really there may be more to it.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> 2009/8/12 David Gerard <[hidden email]>
>
>> 2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
>>> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
>>> want to let the point slip by. A few:
>>
>> The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
>> free. l mean, really.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Combine this with aggregated statistics for a particular GLAM and do this
for any GLAM we have material for. This is not to show the most important
GLAM but it is to  help them realise and recognise for themselves and for
their sponsors that we contribute to their social relevance. It helps us
argue why improved annotations will increase traffic to their website.

It is absolutely important not to make a competition out of these statistics
because GLAMS cannot be compared. What is important is that we contribute to
the visibility of a GLAM and its collection. It is obvious why these
statistics have to be double checked, because it will be a vital argument in
releasing material to us and in building a relationship.
Thanks,
      Gerard

2009/8/13 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>

> I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
> it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
> interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
> image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
> interesting.
>
> John
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Not necessarily. One acronym I learned was KPI, when a GLAM has as a key
> > performance indicator the number of times a picture is actually accessed,
> it
> > may affect the amount of subsidy they get. There is no reason why an
> image
> > cannot be made available to the people who want that image on their hard
> > drive.
> >
> > So I mean really there may be more to it.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/12 David Gerard <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> 2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
> >>> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
> >>> want to let the point slip by. A few:
> >>
> >> The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
> >> free. l mean, really.
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: GLAM-WIKI report

John at Darkstar
Aggregated statistics for a complete GLAM is interesting, but it seems
like they ask about usage stats and metadata about individual items.

For example it is _very_ interesting that a otherwise rather anonymous
photo from 1890 from the GallriNOR-collection is used in an article
about Oat that has 1100 page views each day at English Wikipedia. (From
memory, hopefully the correct article) This is probably several orders
more than their own traffic on that photo.

John

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> Combine this with aggregated statistics for a particular GLAM and do this
> for any GLAM we have material for. This is not to show the most important
> GLAM but it is to  help them realise and recognise for themselves and for
> their sponsors that we contribute to their social relevance. It helps us
> argue why improved annotations will increase traffic to their website.
>
> It is absolutely important not to make a competition out of these statistics
> because GLAMS cannot be compared. What is important is that we contribute to
> the visibility of a GLAM and its collection. It is obvious why these
> statistics have to be double checked, because it will be a vital argument in
> releasing material to us and in building a relationship.
> Thanks,
>       Gerard
>
> 2009/8/13 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>
>
>> I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
>> it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
>> interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
>> image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
>> interesting.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>> Hoi,
>>> Not necessarily. One acronym I learned was KPI, when a GLAM has as a key
>>> performance indicator the number of times a picture is actually accessed,
>> it
>>> may affect the amount of subsidy they get. There is no reason why an
>> image
>>> cannot be made available to the people who want that image on their hard
>>> drive.
>>>
>>> So I mean really there may be more to it.
>>> Thanks,
>>>       GerardM
>>>
>>> 2009/8/12 David Gerard <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> 2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
>>>>> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I don't
>>>>> want to let the point slip by. A few:
>>>> The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
>>>> free. l mean, really.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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

Re: GLAM-WIKI report

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
We do have those kinds of statistics already.. aggregating is important
because such an overall numbers can be considered a KPI while an individual
statistic is interesting.

I learned that KPI is key performance indicator ... :) I still have to think
what the acronym is there for
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/8/13 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>

> Aggregated statistics for a complete GLAM is interesting, but it seems
> like they ask about usage stats and metadata about individual items.
>
> For example it is _very_ interesting that a otherwise rather anonymous
> photo from 1890 from the GallriNOR-collection is used in an article
> about Oat that has 1100 page views each day at English Wikipedia. (From
> memory, hopefully the correct article) This is probably several orders
> more than their own traffic on that photo.
>
> John
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Combine this with aggregated statistics for a particular GLAM and do this
> > for any GLAM we have material for. This is not to show the most important
> > GLAM but it is to  help them realise and recognise for themselves and for
> > their sponsors that we contribute to their social relevance. It helps us
> > argue why improved annotations will increase traffic to their website.
> >
> > It is absolutely important not to make a competition out of these
> statistics
> > because GLAMS cannot be compared. What is important is that we contribute
> to
> > the visibility of a GLAM and its collection. It is obvious why these
> > statistics have to be double checked, because it will be a vital argument
> in
> > releasing material to us and in building a relationship.
> > Thanks,
> >       Gerard
> >
> > 2009/8/13 John at Darkstar <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
> >> it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
> >> interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
> >> image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
> >> interesting.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> Not necessarily. One acronym I learned was KPI, when a GLAM has as a
> key
> >>> performance indicator the number of times a picture is actually
> accessed,
> >> it
> >>> may affect the amount of subsidy they get. There is no reason why an
> >> image
> >>> cannot be made available to the people who want that image on their
> hard
> >>> drive.
> >>>
> >>> So I mean really there may be more to it.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>       GerardM
> >>>
> >>> 2009/8/12 David Gerard <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>> 2009/8/12 Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure what the technical challenges you had in mind are, but I
> >>>>> can think of plenty of reasons to argue against hotlinking and I
> don't
> >>>>> want to let the point slip by. A few:
> >>>> The ones who want hotlinking want it as a way of making the images not
> >>>> free. l mean, really.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - d.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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