Wikipedia talk:GLAM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Wikipedia:GLAM getting started[edit]

I was going to draft an email to my university's archives after reading this blog post, but when I went to Wikipedia:GLAM getting started, there's really nothing on why an institution should collaborate with us – it's only about why the archivist, etc. in question should start editing... just thoughts for improvement. Does anyone have some good ideas to pitch to the archivist I'm going to contact as to why uploading digitized material to Commons would be more beneficial? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fremantle QR mapping[edit]

The Fremantle Society, a 40 year old community group in Western Australia, will start the huge project of QR mapping all the significant heritage buildings and sites of the city, planning to use WIKI as the source people will be directed to via their smart phones when zooming in on the QR code tiles attached to buildings.

This should be a great way for tourists to the city to find out all the relevant information, in a way creating a virtual tour guide to the city.

Roel Loopers ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roel loopers (talkcontribs) 08:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a note about QRpedia on Roel's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
(I'm working with Roel and the Freo Society on this.) We'll certainly be using QRpedia, it's totally brilliant!  :-) One thing I was wondering about was using the Wikipedia logo on the plaques. Is this okay? Do we need permission? I think (Roel, do you know more?) they might be stainless steel, so I'm not sure what the reproduction of the logo will be like. Oh, and the other thing is: can we create a page here for organising the list of articles that we want to use? And sort out the other bits and pieces? Thanks for your help! Sam Wilson 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words about QRpedia. We've been *cough* using the logo *cough* so far, with no problems (there's no free alternative that says, without text, "this links to Wikipedia"). For large projects like Monmouthpedia], clearance was obtained from the Foundation. You can create pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. See, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject QRpedia, and please feel free to use that project, or contact me, if you need help. And do sign up! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we'll just go for it I reckon!  :-) I'll come and add a note to the wikiproject. Sam Wilson 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
QR code Congressional Cemetery.jpg

Actually, a QRpedia code with the text "From Wikipedia" (in plain text) is not only permissible, but just plain polite. I unofficially ran this by the WMF lawyers (but they only can officially advise the Foundation) and they didn't raise any objections. You can start a project page on Outreach such as [[1]]. I'll leave a detailed note at WT:QR. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Automated message link errors[edit]

I receive automated messages about GLAM events in the UK. The current message invites me to "a workshop and exhibition tour at the British Library on 10 September, and an exhibition tour at the British Museum on 13 September." However the internal links don't work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservation and Collection Care Proposal[edit]

I have recently submitted a new WikiProject proposal that ties-in very closely with GLAM. The proposed project is WikiProject Conservation and Collection Care which, if approved, will aim to create new articles, as well as to gather existing articles, concerning conservation and collection care at museums, libraries, historic locations, archives, and other relevant sites into a collaborative project. While, technically this group could be considered a subcategory of both WikiProject Museums and WikiProject Libraries, many of the relevant pages are not specific to one group or the other. For example, historic landmarks and houses are not necessarily included in either group. Additionally, the connections to the overall goal of the GLAM project are obvious. I am therefore writing to your group to inform you of my decision to request a seperate group, as well as to inquire if a collaboration might be an option. Given the obvious close connection between the two projects, and my own inexperience with starting a WikiProject, I am open to suggestions, collaborations, and advice from a well-established group such as your own. Thank you.- AngelKelley (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

GLAM/GibraltarpediA up for deletion[edit]

Strangely, nobody seems to have felt it important to inform the larger project that Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediARyan Vesey 14:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Collections Care[edit]

Please see the new WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Collections Care. I would have added a link to it on Wikipedia:GLAM or one of its subpages, but I am not sure of the best place for it.
Wavelength (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm one of the people heading up Wikipedia:WikiProject Collections Care and as I'm sure you noticed, it is definitely a work in progress. I had posted something here a little while back about the proposal for the project, although the name then was Conservation and Collections Care. In any event, I would love to collaborate with members of GLAM on this project or even just receive feedback as the project progresses. I hope to hear from you all in the future. AngelKelley (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Residence at Ladd Observatory, Brown University[edit]

I'm organizing a residence at Brown University's Ladd Observatory in Providence, Rhode Island. A draft of the project description is at Outreach:Wikipedian in Residence/Ladd Observatory. Any feedback, suggestions or help spreading the word would be greatly appreciated. (cross posted to Commons talk:GLAM) --mikeu talk 14:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Accession numbers[edit]

I've just added accession numbers, in the form of a reference, to Shakes versus Shav, which mentions four objects at Staffordshire County Museum (one of the group where I'm currently Wikipedian in residence). Do GLAM folk thank that kind of addition useful? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the Józef Piłsudski Institute of America, NY[edit]

I thought you'd like to know a new position has appeared. Please see the announcement at here for details.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How to solicit from cultural institutions, and what to solicit for.[edit]

Forgive me, this is my first time visiting this project, so I may be missing the obvious, but I have some questions. I realize that this project is geared towards encouraging people directly involved in a cultural institution, but what are the methods of attracting their attention? For example, in my province of my country, there are about 200 museums listed on the relevant Wikipedia page. Assuming they all have content suitable for including in Wikipedia, I have two questions:

What content are we asking institutions to give us? How are we going to convince them to give us that content?

If the idea is to ask cultural institutions to write articles for us, I do not think it will be met with great success. I think the goal is to remove the barrier between us (article writers) and the cultural institutions (content holders), and create as many simple and headache free methods for them to prove access to content for us. Other than someone at the institution posting a picture to commons or editing an article, what methods do they have to provide us with content?

Do we have a centralized list of cultural institutions that have been contacted, and the results thereof? I would hate to duplicate effort if someone has already made contact with contact an entity.

Are we attempting to solicit municipal, regional and federal governments to create open avenues for content to make their way to the wiki? That might go a bit beyond the current plans of this project, but it might be an avenue worth investigating. I would welcome any answers. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to a village pump discussion due to low page views here. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've dabbed your link, as the discussion is now archived. Unfortunately, it was hijacked by trolls partisan commenters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at The New Art Gallery Walsall[edit]

I am pleased to announce that I have just been appointed Wikipedian in Residence at The New Art Gallery Walsall. We'll be running a series of public events, to which all are invited. Details on the project page Wikipedia:GLAM/NAGW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

GLAM organization work[edit]

Greetings, fellow GLAM folk. I have been working on an overhaul of GLAM-related content here at English Wikipedia. Please read the following thoughts, which I have broken into sections for easier discussion:

  • Please take a look at the Category:Wikipedia GLAM in the United States category to make sure all pages are actually US-centric. I am specifically questioning the Bookshelf page, which seems more universal than just the United States. Perhaps this page should be moved to just Wikipedia:GLAM/Bookshelf--feel free to discuss on the page's associated talk page.

By creating categories for each collaboration, we can easily find related pages for each partnership. Categorizing partnerships and pages for each nation will gauge activity within any particular country (again, here I go with metrics...) and also allow residents of a country to find related pages and resources. I hope this helps the project, and please let me know your thoughts, questions or concerns. Much more work remains (especially page moving), but these changes should result in a much more structured, organized project over time. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have also created categories for the UK, France, Norway, Israel and Spain. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

UK link[edit]

The "find local contacts" link for the UK goes to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cultural_partnerships - that's a page on the UK chapter wiki, about the chapter's GLAM collaborations, but that excludes other UK collaborations in which the chapter is not involved, such as my residencies at Staffordshire Archives and Heritage Service, Queen Street Mill and The New Art Gallery Walsall. How can we ensure that such initiatives are not excluded? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You would probably want to create a local UK GLAM page (including both chapter and non-chapter initiatives) to which that link could be directed instead. Ideally such a page would be created for all participating countries. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on new library search tool for Wikipedia[edit]

We have a new tool, Forward to Libraries, which helps readers find books at their local library related to the articles they are reading. There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) to determine how this tool should be used on Wikipedia. Users that are interested may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

US GLAM projects and WikiProject US[edit]

Greetings all, I'm not sure who is actively watching this page but I would like to add the rest of the US related GLAM projects to the Joint projects list of WikiProject US unless someone here has a problem with doing that. I don't want to change anything with the projects or replace the projects banners. I just want to add these as supported joint projects like was done with Archives of American Art, SI, SIA and a couple others. If you want to see an example please look at how the Smithsonian Institution or Archives of American Art projects are supported. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way that Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads could be added to this list at all? I joined this project because I thought I could get more sources to use on editing Interstate, U.S. Highway, and state route articles, among others. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Not likely. To state this as delicately as I can, some of the members of the US roads project can be very sensitive toward other projects. They take it very offensively to have their project approached for collaborations and have, in the past, been very vocal and harsh towards users who have suggested collaborating. I would supect that some of the GLAM projects would be happy to look for information though. NARA is one that comes to mind but I don't know if there are any Wikipedians in residence there at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem could be. Could you give me a link to the "NARA" project? Thank you for trying to help (and for being so prompt in replying). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Here is a link to the NARA project: Wikipedia:GLAM/National Archives and Records Administration. Is there something you are looking for specifically? Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly. Georgia just doesn't seem to have much resources for roads, including GDOT's website. I just was wondering if anything could be found, since I'm not good at research. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok, well I would suggest maybe leaving a note on the Georgia WikiProject. That might help. If you were to start a working list maybe updating some of the sections under Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/to do that might help some too. You could also try leaving a note at US roads, they are pretty active so they might help. Kumioko (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Then they need to be gently reminded that this is a collaborative project, escalating to ANI or RfC if neccessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Easier said than done I'm afraid. Kumioko (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since there were no objections so far I added the rest of the US related GLAM projects to the Joint supported projects list of WPUS here except for the Cross border project between US and Mexico and the World Digital library one. I think these have too much multinational content to be appropriate to add the the WPUS supported projects list. I have already added some of these to the WPUS template but I will work on getting the rest added in the next few days. Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove all GLAM projects from the WPUS template[edit]

A user that is not affiliated to GLAM or WikiProject United States has started a discussion at Template talk:WikiProject United States#Suggestion to remove GLAM projects from WPUS template to remove all of the GLAM projects from the WPUS template. Since the user notified WikiProject United States but not this one I wanted to let you know. Kumioko (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the discussion mentioned above I have removed all the GLAM projects from the WikiProject United States template and from the joint projects list of WikiProject United States. I have removed all the appropriate project entries from the WPUS template except the Library of Congress. That will be done in the next couple days. Kumioko (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library[edit]

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WiR GLAM Info booklet[edit]

User:OR drohowa and I were discussing the value in composing a relatively standardised information booklet for GLAM employees and volunteers. As WiRs we have both noticed that having a condensed, tangible source of information is something which many other WiRs have developed for their institution, and we thought that it might therefore be useful to develop one that was not affiliated with any organisation and ideally had input from a number of different GLAM representatives and Wikimedians. We also thought that making such a document more visible on Wikipedia itself, or making the GLAM:Wiki space more visible, might help introduce Wikimedians to the potential mistakes that GLAM reps might make when first contributing, and encourage them to offer assistance rather than reverting any COIs or non-neutral contributions.

At the moment, I have developed an information booklet for the National Library of Scotland's collaboration with Wikimedia UK, and I have adapted this booklet to remove any specific information or references to the Library. Unfortunately, I can't upload an easily editable file (i.e. txt or .doc or .docx) to any Wikimedia platform that I am aware of, and at about 30+ pages I feel that it is somewhat too long to translate into Wiki syntax. Eventually I'd love to transfer some of the more relevant information into the Contribute section or a similar Wikipedia section, but right now the aim is to develop a downloadable PDF file that future or current WiRs and other ambassadors and Wikimedians can download for GLAM training events or to help persuade GLAM organisations to collaborate with Wikimedia.

Input and thoughts on the most efficient way to do this, or other, similar ideas are much appreciated! The non-affiliated PDF file of the booklet I've created is available on commons as well:

Information booklet designed to be distributed to GLAM employees and volunteers in both digital and print formats as part of training events. Covers introduction to Wikimedia's mission, basic editing, open licensing, Wikimedia Commons, as well as some GLAM-Wiki specific information and more detailed advice in the appendix.Contributions and revisions very welcome!

ACrockford (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have uploaded an editable version of the booklet to Google Drive and made it publicly available - I welcome any/everyone to contribute and edit as they see fit! ACrockford (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Section in Manual of Style?[edit]

I am interested in creating manuals of style for institutional pages, library entries, and archival/museum collections entries to aid the GLAM-Wiki initiative. Perhaps they could even be written under a section title GLAM-Wiki in the Manual of Style or the Visual arts Manual of style. Or do people think that it would be better if another article titled something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/GLAM was created to house these kinds of GLAM-specific templates, and that could be referred to in GLAM learning resources. Thoughts? Conversation can also be continued at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#GLAM-Wiki Section OR drohowa (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I would glad to help build a new Wikipedia:Manual of Style/GLAM, or perhaps to begin by fleshing out some of these notions in the existing related guideline pages (and glad to see this conversation getting off the ground!).--Pharos (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested too, although I think we need more people and would like to see an outline before people start writing in detail. -- kosboot (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I wonder whether the best way to approach this would be for someone to start a draft in their userspace and share the link so we can all work on it and build it up that way? I think that it is an excellent idea to have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/GLAM article that is clearly labelled for GLAM representatives and volunteers and which would be visible to non-GLAMWiki contributors as well. I'm happy to start up a draft page in my userspace if this sounds like a good plan, although it's quite a daunting start so I'm not sure where I would begin other than by transplanting some of the guidelines from Wikipedia:GLAM pages. ACrockford (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Or perhaps it could be started on a subpage of the GLAM pages. I think an initial step would be to define the reasons and scope for a MOS. -- kosboot (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of starting with the reasons and scope. Should we do this here, or perhaps I could make a page called Wikipedia:GLAM/MOS/Draft that we could work from? OR drohowa (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
To start, I think a summary of possible topics for such a section should be presented here in this talk section, to see what the project would involve. Then editors can decide whether it is worth proceeding with it and how. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha! Here is my draft of Justifications for GLAM Manual of Style OR drohowa (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. The GLAM-Wiki movement is rapidly growing and more GLAM professionals are searching for resources to help guide them in adopting editing policies everyday.
  2. There are dozens of GLAM-Wiki resources dispersed throughout Wikipedia, with similar, overlapping content. By synchronizing these resources, there could be more understanding and common language within the GLAM community.
  3. Though there are dozens of GLAM-Wiki resources, new Wikipedians-in-Residence often still feel the need to generate more guides because there is no definitive set.
  4. The Manual of Style already includes information and templates that speak to the GLAM-community, but it would be helpful for GLAM editors and Wikipedians-in-Residence if they were aggregated together. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts.
  5. GLAMs have a lot of documents and artifacts, such as museum collections, catalogs, finding aids, and archival materials, that can be difficult to put into the current templates provided, and questions about these materials are extremely common among GLAM professional Wikipedians, especially in the early days of their involvement with GLAM-Wiki.
  6. Adding GLAM content to the manual of style would help WiRs and GLAM editors resolve disputes by having particular pieces of MOS code to cite on talk pages
  7. It would be helpful for private, non-GLAM editors to have a GLAM manual of style so that they could help monitor and regulate GLAM editing and watch out for COI
  8. GLAM-Wiki editors have a unique set of conflict of interest concerns that could be laid out in the Manual of Style and/or a page addressing those concerns could be linked to in the MOS.
The closest things we have now are: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Museums and collections, red links in outreach:GLAM/Model projects, and a whole lot of different learning resources in the GLAM Bookshelf, as well as some resources floating on user pages, GLAM pages, etc. OR drohowa (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks but I was looking for a list of topics, rather than a list of justifications. For example, from your link Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Museums and collections would come the following entry in a list of possible topics.
1. Describing location and ownership of works that are in museums and collections.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
IDEAS: GLAM Manual of Style Sections to Include:
Ok, in response to your request, here's a preliminary list. Some of the sections in this list are already on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts page or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page, but it would be nice to see these sections either be adapted to specifically suit GLAMs, or, the idea that I like best, to draw from these sections to create a GLAM-page in the MOS. See MOS directory: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents
  1. Describing location and ownership of works that are in museums and collections. (include/revise entry in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Museums and collections
  2. GLAM Institution Pages- adding department, archive and institutional library sections
  3. Creating ‘highlights of the collection’ sections
  4. Lists of collection items
  5. Galleries of Images on institution pages (include/revise entry in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Galleries
  6. Lists of Exhibitions on institution page
  7. Articles about exhibitions
  8. Citing Museum catalogs and digitized collections
  9. Citing Internal Documents and Museum publications
  10. COI concerns for GLAM-Editors (when WiR is present/ when WiR is not present)
  11. Creating categories for your institution and its collections
  12. Wikipedia:GLAM organizational pages- when to create
  13. Uploading images from your institution into Wikimedia Commons
  14. Batch uploading/large volume uploading (include/revise entry in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Uploading
  15. Using infoboxes and templates (include/revise entry in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Using infoboxes and templates
  16. List of curators (history)
  17. Board of Trustees list (notability guidelines)
OR drohowa (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks. That's what I was requesting. It looks like too much for a section in MOS, so creating a subpage of MOS might be considered. However, after the subpage is created, a section in MOS might be considered for creation that is a summary of the subpage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - this looks like a fantastic outline for a GLAM MOS subpage, and the material/model could also be included in the GLAM namespace to enhance and better present the existing materials that OR drohowa described above (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Museums and collections, red links in outreach:GLAM/Model projects, learning resources in GLAM Bookshelf, resources on user pages and GLAM pages, etc). On a slightly related note, I've uploaded the GLAMWiki Information Booklet into an open, editable document which is publicly available on Google Drive, and encourage any/everyone to contribute and edit it as they see fit; perhaps as relevant material is being added to the GLAM MOS, it could also be drafted into the info booklet. ACrockford (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What is now Wikipedia:GLAM/Contribute, which is supposed to be the starting point for GLAM pros, used to be under another name & much longer (and better imo), with stuff covering many of these issues. I think the list above is a good starting-point (or restarting point), but stuff relevant to articles on institutions should be separated from other stuff - these pages are a good deal more sensitive for COI. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:GLAM/Contribute is a good resource in a way as a starting point (although I would wonder whether this kind of more simplified page is needed when there's also the Beginner's Guide available. But I would agree that there needs to be a separate approach to articles on institutions; within the context of a GLAM MoS I wonder whether that would be better placed under a larger COI category? I've found that aside from workload, COI concerns have been the most significant sticking point for curators and librarians I've dealt with, so I think that this section in particular needs to be extremely clear. ACrockford (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I've now found it I think - Wikipedia:GLAM/Getting started - which nothing much seems to link to. There's still good stuff here, & less of a bullet-point style. I remember it being even longer though. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I remember this page! Came across it by chance and then lost it. I think that the MoS either should incorporate or build on this material, perhaps with some more specific information as well. Also will try and link this up a bit better for the time being. ACrockford (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Below is a list all the places we've mentioned as spots that serve as GLAM beginner guides that can possibly be compiled and/or benefited by a GLAM/MOS. My original reason for proposing working on a GLAM section in the MOS of style was because there are so many of these beginner guides on GLAM pages that all have good but slightly different information- that things seem a bit disorganized and it's hard referring interested people to a complete page. The current GLAM beginner guides that we have mentioned are listed. Are there others I'm forgetting?
  1. Wikipedia:GLAM/Contribute - project guide (v. basic) John, do you have any sense of why the page you mentioned that was similar to this and longer/under another name was deleted?
  2. Wikipedia:GLAM/BeginnersGuide - basic editing guide
  3. Wikipedia:GLAM/Getting started
  4. outreach:GLAM/Get started - I'm not sure what the difference between this page and the GLAM pages on Wikipedia are but its pages seem a lot less 'fleshed out' than the Wikipedia:GLAM pages.
Compiling these pages so they're consistent is a good place to start. I personally feel that it would be easier if the info on the contribute page was added to the beginner's guide, and then was deleted. Thoughts on all these beginner guides? I also like Bob's idea of creating a subpage of the MOS for GLAM-specific information, especially information about editing institution pages. I think this is a sound idea, but I also would like more input from more of the GLAM Wiki community. I've started a userspace page to draft the MOS/GLAM subpage User:OR drohowa/sandbox/MOSdraft. Please contribute if you'd like to help write this, and refer other GLAM participants to this conversation so we can get more people involved. OR drohowa (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been around since day one of these discussions around GLAM guides, and have a lot of reasons for the way things are organized now. However, I no longer have the time to maintain these pages, so I can't really help if my work is wiped out. This conversation seems to be going in that direction. That said, I totally am in agreement about a GLAM:MOS, I just don't think that the current structure of the GLAM:US Consortium page, the GLAM:Contribute page, and the GLAM: Contacts page, which myself and others have worked very hard on, need to be replaced. I think there's good reason to maintain these pages & add a MOS.
I first want to make sure that what you're looking at in the GLAM:Contribute page is actually the full page -- there are many "show" tabs that list many more details as GLAM professionals work through the questions. I was an educator in my past life and I spent many hours developing this page in a way that would not be overwhelming, and that would allow GLAM professionals to go step by step in understanding what works best for them. If you have feedback about how these "show" buttons could be made more clear, I'd definitely appreciate it. I would, however, hope that it wasn't just deleted. It was decided at multiple GLAMcamps over the years that the prior "Getting started" page was one long narrative that no one would actually read. It used to be even longer but a few of us took some of the sections out and made them into sub pages, since the nuance of the guides was becoming too detailed to have all on one page. I also was involved in creating the FAQ's and Guides that are linked off from the Getting Started page, because we were trying to make it more digestible. Again, I know that we're all working to improve the documentation here. But I'd hope that there could be some discussion before things are just deleted.
I agree and see the need for more resources for Wikipedians in Residence, however I will point out that the Wikipedian in Residence page on Outreach is very digestible and a great resource, especially for GLAM professionals looking to understand what a WIR does. If there is a separate guide for Wikipedians in Residence themselves, that may be good. But I wouldn't remove what already exists.
All of that said, again, I'm absolutely thrilled with the prospect of a GLAM:MOS. We absolutely need one and I love the prospect of there being established standards. Can we just please do this in addition to the resources that already exist, rather than deleting them? In particular, we had a very specific purpose for the Contribute page. I present about it everywhere I go, and GLAM professionals always tell me that it was a great place to start. It'd essentially make me a liar to all of those I've presented at in the past (including last weekend to 50 archivists), if it suddenly doesn't exist.
Thank you for considering the past work of others. Your continued, great work in GLAM really is truly appreciated. LoriLee (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Lori, I want to clarify, we have just begun discussing the help pages on the GLAM main page here and were not at all going in the direction of deleting any of these resources, which I think we would all agree are very helpful, and having worked on guides myself, I know how much time and discussion it takes to get these kinds of pages up. We were starting the discussion about what those resources lack and what we can do to improve them. I don't want you to feel like we were trying to dramatically change the main GLAM pages. I started this section so we could open the discussion up about GLAM related resources and figure out where the gaps are. I know in my work in a consortium, I'm constantly having to answer questions about 'norms' in GLAM editing, and I was looking to start creating resources that really go into some of the specific problems that GLAMs face, like making 'collections' lists or sections on their institution pages, and writing articles on exhibitions etc.
If you are interested in the prospect of a GLAM:MOS I'd love to know the best format you think would be to get a draft going. I've started one, as I said, but I definitely think that there needs to be a lot of GLAM wiki professionals in order for it to be a source that we can rely on. OR drohowa (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Answering your question above, as I recall the original set-up was replaced overnight after the New York GLAM workshop. Personally I thought this was in many ways not an improvement, and it left the pages excessively US-oriented in terms of where they linked to, which many still are. They used to be ludicrously so. I've never much liked the design either; like many professionally designed pages it tries to keep things simple but just makes them mysterious. Frankly I find Lori asking for "some discussion before things are just deleted" a bit rich under the circumstances. The full version of the old page can be seen in this diff (with lots of show/hide boxes). It was long, but it actually had a lot of information of the type you are talking about, which doesn't seem to be anywhere now. The page was originally called Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector, and was not exactly a "getting started" page, more dealing with issues that come up once you are started. I agree with the comments below that much of this isn't actually MOS-type material (though some is), but should live in the GLAM pages. For example COI & notability issues aren't MOS issues. Johnbod (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where to start with this comment. Your history of events is completely fictitious and your hostility is unwarranted. If things have been US-heavy, it is because either a lot of equivalent material does not exist for non-US regions and non-US people have not been as involved in writing these pages. Everyone has an interest in making it a universally applicable page, even us Americans; for example, it now links to the GLAM pages for several countries right on the main portal—this was done in a redesign at the US GLAM Boot Camp in April. Dominic·t 00:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah - look at the page histories. Where for example does the para on "What about non-unique works?" in the Notability section of the old page linked above now live? Lori's edits (as HstryQT) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGLAM%2FGetting_started&diff=475701764&oldid=470344342 removed 30 kb from the page on 7-8 February 2012, supposedly to Outreach, though it doesn't seem to be there now, or anywhere. Where were the online discussions about this? Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
John I'd appreciate a little bit of WP:AGF here. Why would I just delete helpful content? If you look more closely at the page, there's linked pages on each of the headers in each section, and so it's not so very hard to see here that the FAQ on "Notability in GLAMs" is located on Outreach. I'm human (believe it!) and may not have made all of these moves to Wikimedia cross-project standards, but it was not done in bad faith. I actually agree that the Getting Started page would be a good thing to further improve and bring back to the forefront more (however, not at the expense of the Contribute page, which is a different audience/rationale.) There was no malicious intent in not linking it in the tabs. You asked where the discussion occurred? It occurred in person at two separate GLAM camps. Overnight? More accurately over the course of a day with a productive group of Wikipedians. It's not worth hurting feelings over. Everyone's just trying to do their best to improve GLAM documentation. LoriLee (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but I expect you can understand why I couldn't find it. That's my problem with the current GLAM help pages; if I find it very difficult to find anything when I know what's there (which I do), how must it be for others? Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think that this is really something that should go in a MOS page—what you are proposing doesn't really fit in any of the sections at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. Writing it before getting feedback from the community at WT:MOS is a bad idea, IMHO. This sounds more like something that could bolster the Contribute page mentioned above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I kinda agree with The ed - that's why I think it's important to define what the project is going to be before brainstorming. A MOS would be about things such as standardizing procedures, standardizing names, etc. so that GLAMers don't have to recreate the wheel each time. Promotional and outreach activities are something else (which are important - but not usually MOS material). -- kosboot (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone was planning on making any contributions to the MOS without consulting the WT:MOS community first; the initial post in this conversation, and indeed the point from which OR drohowa and I began, was the observation that WiR and ambassadors at GLAM organisations are often tasked with designing style guides and informational booklets with a particular bent. This is in no way outreach or promotional material, but is a way of responding to the unique concerns and interests of potential GLAMWiki contributors who are not familiar with Wikimedia's guidelines as they currently exist. I don't know whether an MoS is the best way of going about this, but if I could summarise some of the aims, perhaps more experienced Wikipedians could suggest the most efficient way of approaching the task:
  1. To introduce GLAM staff and volunteers to basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but to do so from a perspective that corresponds to their likely methods of contribution. This means, to an extent, filtering an excessive technical jargon and presenting the information in a way that will be more accessible to non-experienced users. It also means identifying which questions are most likely to be relevant to GLAM organisations (COI in particular has quite a unique focus in this context), in order to clarify their introduction.
  2. To introduce experience Wikipedians to some of the concerns that GLAM contributors might initially face to help facilitate cooperation. I know that many WiRs have referred to the fact that without a WiR or ambassador, GLAM organisations make simple mistakes which result in their edits being reverted and put them off the prospect of collaborating in the future. We want to address this issue from both angles.
  3. To construct a clearer, more efficient introduction to Wikipedia through the GLAM portal. As has been discussed already, there are a lot of existing resources that are effective to various degrees, and some crucial information is not easily available if it exists, while other information is contained only within Wikipedia help pages which, I find, are a bit of a maze making it difficult for new users to actually find the information they need.
It may be the best approach is to compose an MoS within GLAMspace only, or to better link existing articles in GLAMspace to make the information easier to access while enhancing them with relevant information from Wikipedia help articles, rather than expecting new GLAM contributors to go hunting for this information on their own. I also think that it is an excellent idea to make more visible on Wikipedia itself some of this information, not only to direct new and potential GLAM contributors without a WiR or ambassador to this information, but also to make it available to Wikipedians who may otherwise not see it. I think this is where the conversation about the MoS began to arise, but if it is not the best approach, we can absolutely find a better way. Regardless of how the information is disseminated, I think that it is crucial that GLAM contributors and collaborators start compiling information for GLAM institutions on the draft page OR drohowa has started in her userspace here, so that we can then get a better sense of what is currently available, and in what forms, and what needs to be added. ACrockford (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this conversation is very confusing to me, because it started out with Dorothy talking about developing certain styles for writing GLAM-related articles, but it has also morphed into a conversation about style guidelines for writing about GLAMs, guidelines for GLAMs editing, and generally fixing up Wikipedia:GLAM pages. I think we need to not do all this at once, so we can talk through it before making drastic changes to Wikipedia:GLAM pages especially. To address your specific issues, I think #1 is what the Beginner's Guide is already for, and you should raise the issues with that page as you see them, so we can discuss specifics; #2 is maybe something that doesn't exist in a single page yet, but an "Avoiding common pitfalls" page sounds like a useful addition; and #3 is, of course, something we always struggle with, and you are welcome to propose specific changes so we can consider them.
A lot of busy people put a lot of time and thought into the WP:GLAM pages, and they are not perfect, but they are the way they are for a reason. For example, the Contribute page is not intended to tell people how to do everything they might want to do. It is an outreach page which directs both professionals and Wikipedians towards projects and resources. We need to keep in mind who our audience is, and for a lot of these pages, the audience is people who are still trying to learn more about what GLAM-Wiki is and why they should participate. The beginner's guide is a walkthrough for various basic activities, for who would like to go further. It would not be very useful to our audience to assume they only need instructions. Wikipedia:GLAM/Getting started was the original GLAM outreach page that was retired once we build out a more user-friendly portal to serve our needs, instead of a single long wiki page. I think one of the reasons Lori was getting upset was that a lot of the conversation seemed to disregard the audience. Some things are intentionally simplified or omitted because these pages are often not directed at Wikipedians, but GLAM professionals who will be easily overwhelmed and turned off by overexplaining and wiki jargon. A common problem is that these pages have gone through cycles of complete neglect, and then someone new comes upon them and wants to redesign them, and then realizes halfway through how much work that is and leaves them changed but not perfect for the next person to come across after a period of neglect and want to redo.
A manual of style is for the encyclopedia as a whole, and mostly used by advanced editors, not GLAM professionals, so that seems like a very different thing than what the discussion has drifted into. I think it's worth working on standardizing some of those topics, bearing in mind Ed's comments, especially since he has a lot more experience in that area than most people. I think you'll find that people are likely to bristle at any attempt to change or add to the general MOS if it's seen as being forced on the community by the smaller GLAM-Wiki subset of the community. Dominic·t 00:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Dominic I think you are right that these conversations should be had on the talk pages of the particular articles we are going to be editing, but maybe people that are having those conversations could also post here to update the broader GLAM community about changes they are proposing if they have to do with the resources on the GLAM page(s), GLAM guidelines, or MOS information specific to GLAMs so we know where to go to contribute to these conversations and everyone can keep in the loop?
I like the idea of adding an "Avoiding common pitfalls" page to the GLAM pages. In my opinion it seems like a good way to get Ally's #2 point covered. On this page we could address issues to the specific COI concerns and other pitfalls that GLAMs face.
Thanks for your input about MOS, Ed. I definitely think that the conversation should be continued with the community at WT:MOS. I did start a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#GLAM-Wiki Section in Manual of Style?, which perhaps is where we can continue to have the discussion about a GLAM MOS. No response from MOS community yet.
But also, as another idea, Quoting Dominic, "It may be the best approach is to compose an MoS within GLAMspace only, or to better link existing articles in GLAMspace to make the information easier to access while enhancing them with relevant information from Wikipedia help articles, rather than expecting new GLAM contributors to go hunting for this information on their own." I think this is an interesting suggestion, and I wonder how others feel about this?- creating an MOS within GLAMspace. If we did I think it still would be important to ask the WP:MOS community for suggestions/contributions.
I'm with KosbootBob that a GLAM MOS, however it took form, would be about things such as standardizing procedures, standardizing names, etc. so that GLAMers don't have to recreate the wheel each time," as he said. Though the MOS is generally used by experienced editors, a GLAM MOS could be referred to in learning resources for GLAMs getting involved. In my experience as a WiR that does a lot of training events, librarians and archivists, perhaps because of the nature of their work, consistently ask for the style guidelines of Wikipedia and article writing and really enjoy templates and the kind of structured reference that the MOS provides. I also think a GLAM MOS would be a great tool for WiRs and particularly new WiRs to use and discuss thinks like pages on GLAM collections, pages on GLAM exhibitions etc and the particulars of these types of articles. OR drohowa (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

'Going dark' and impact on GLAM projects?[edit]

A colleague of mine at the National Library of Scotland sent me an interesting conversation regarding this and other articles on hidden traffic that took place on a Museums Computer Group mailing list. She sent it to me because there was a specific mention of whether or not the proposed change to https for all all Wikipedia users would impact on GLAM projects' ability to monitor impact via web statistics, and whether this would in turn impact the desire for GLAM organisations to contribute as extensively. I wasn't entirely sure how to respond, as I don't really recall seeing anyone discussing it on the GLAMWiki mailing list. That said, the announcement seems to have come early in my residency when I was still very much getting settled, so it's possible that I missed out. Would appreciate any thoughts - might take this to the mailing list as well if there's interest. ACrockford (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the Wikipedia page on https- Though I don't think this page really answers your question. OR drohowa (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! It doesn't really, unfortunately, so I think I might pose the question to some various mailing lists this week, at risk of exposing my technological ignorance. ACrockford (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing more about this as well - could you post what you find here or to the GLAM-US email list? ps with you on the technological ignorance - I'll need to read this a few times to really get it! Cheers, Bdcousineau (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
According to the the Wikipedia page it only effects logged-in users - editors, right? - so the casual reader of a Wiki article who then travels to your site as the result of a link still has the referral data attached to their trail...so GLAM projects should still be able to track (increased) web traffic as a result of content donations. Bdcousineau (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment it only affects logged-in users, however, the initial article that I posted included a link to an announcement by the Wikimedia Foundation that they do hope to roll out https for all users except those in exempted areas where it would preclude them access. I think it's less the current state of things and more the possible change that was being discussed by some of my colleagues at the Library; I also know that you can opt out of https, and I imagine that would be the case with a general roll-out as well, but I think it's not likely that the majority of casual Wikipedia users will do this (or could do this without an account?) so that's when the concerns on the part of GLAM organisations come into play. ACrockford (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

GLAM related edit, may need outreach[edit]

Hey All, I just noticed this recent edit by a University of Colorado Art Museum org. Could someone reach out/point them towards the best practices. I don't have a good boiler template with the best links, Sadads (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

GLAM in Archives - Can we use Finding Aids as Records?[edit]

I'd like some feedback about using Online Archival Finding Aids or collection information, for example: [2] as a cited reference in Wikipedia articles. These online pages are technically published on the GLAM website but they still seem to be in a gray area. For example, I wouldn't feel that an article satisfied the notability policy if it's only references were finding aid links. Thoughts? OR drohowa (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We do use those sorts of sources relatively often. I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind. A finding aid is unlike other bibliographic metadata: it often has long sections of prose (e.g., bio note or scope and content note), some of which may contain facts which establish the subject's notability. For certain marginally notable subjects which have exhibitions or media coverage, but not a lot of good biographical works written about them, the finding aid may actually be the most comprehensive single source about them. (Because the archivist has done a lot of research of their own!) It's also important to point out that while the finding aid is sort of metadata about a subject, it's certainly not a primary source; it's been written by a professional and published by the institution which holds the papers and is an authority on them. At the same time, (in theory) every archival collection will have a finding aid, so the existence of a finding aid is not proof of notability. I agree with you that if there are only finding aid references, then I think that may not demonstrate much notability. I think the rule of thumb would be that notability would be demonstrated by what is contained in the finding aid and by what other supporting sources can be marshaled for the subject as well. Dominic·t 22:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that, although if the topic is "internal" or otherwise related to the archiving institution, the note might be primary, or less than independent. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding project[edit]

Hi project members. I noticed that there is a Czech GLAM at cs:Wikipedie:WikiProjekt GLAM/Slezské zemské muzeum/QRpedia. Is there any scope for integrating this into the English Wikipedia? Thanks, C679 16:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Exhibitions[edit]

In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Usernames for GLAM participants[edit]

I would like to remind GLAM organizers of the policy WP:GROUPNAME that Wikipedia accounts whose usernames are the names of groups or organizations are not permitted - accounts must be for individuals, who are personally responsible for them. So a Wikimedian-in-residence at XYZ Museum should not attempt to register an account "User:XYZ Museum"; but "User:James at XYZ Museum" is perfectly acceptable, and a good way to make the affiliation clear. Is there any instruction or "How-to" page where it would be useful to add this? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that Feedback. We have made a SUL account for the Swiss National Library which is good for the german and the french Wikipedia and is already verified in the german Wikipedia. It is also good for Commons to upload media. Obviously it violates rules here in the English Wikipedia. - We have now decided that we will not contribute to the GLAM project in the English Wikipedia. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A French administrator has indicated at fr:Discussion utilisateur:Swiss National Library#Profil promotionnel that fr-wiki, too, would prefer individual accounts. It is my impression that Commons and German Wikipedia are the exception in allowing corporate usernames. You will be better able to contribute across the Wikimedia projects if you adopt individual ones. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In the french wikipedia it is already fixed and the account is ok. - Accounts for individuals make absolulety no sense in a GLAM context because the library as a whole and as a corporate personhood will contribute and not the Wikipedians in Residence as individuals. - This fact is also important for uploading media because only then it is legally clear that behind the account is an institution which can give the rights for reuse the media. - The idea for this account is also a single point of contact to the institution. After our engagement of Wikipedian in Residence ends in fall 2014 the institution has still the interest to communicate with the community. But as an institution and not as individual employees. It is also easier for the community to track issues on one talk page and not always to know which one ist actually responsible for the communication beetween the library and the community. - I think the community has not understood yet that the GLAM itself is not a commercial institution which has the interest to get customers here. It is just paid by tax and to provide media is one of their duty. But if a project like Wikipedia shows them that they are not wanted here as an institution their interest to collaborate is extremely limited. The GLAMs actually don't need to provide media on Wikipedia. It was always the community which tries to get pictures, sources and other media from them under a free licence and without barriers. - With your rules here you do not promote the collaboration with GLAM. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The username policy has very recently been debated, again, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC, closed only today.
Quite apart from the username issue, it has been settled policy for at least six years that accounts are for individuals and may not be shared - see WP:ISU and WP:NOSHARE. I am not aware that this has been a problem in previous GLAM initiatives, and would welcome comment here from others involved. Any change to the username policy or the policy on shared accounts to provide a GLAM exception would certainly require another WP:Request for comment. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The experiences with GLAM-Accounts in der German Wikipedia and Commons are the following:
1. de:Benutzer:Zentralbibliothek_Zürich - active Talk Page on the german Wikipedia de:Benutzer Diskussion:Zentralbibliothek_Zürich - Uploaded that media on Commons commons:Category:Media_contributed_by_Zentralbibliothek_Zürich
2. de:Benutzer:Zentralbibliothek Solothurn - verified - talk page on commons commons:User_talk:Zentralbibliothek_Solothurn - Uploaded that media on Commons commons:Category:Media_contributed_by_Zentralbibliothek_Solothurn - still active as an institution in Wikipedia and still in projects with Wikimedia.ch
3. de:Benutzer:Swiss Federal Archives - verified - active Talk Page on the german Wikipedia de:Benutzer Diskussion:Swiss Federal Archives - Uploaded that media on Commons commons:Category:Media_contributed_by_the_Swiss_Federal_Archives - Wikipedian in Residence from July to November 2013 - still active as an institution in Wikipedia and still in projects with Wikimedia.ch
4. de:Benutzer:Swiss National Library - verified - young account - Uploaded that media on Commons commons:Category:Media_contributed_by_the_Swiss_National Library - Now are two Wikipedians in Residence (one french and one german speaking and both administrators on their "home" Wikiepdias) active from Januar to October 2014
--Micha L. Rieser (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems to me that Micha L. Rieser has a significant point and that we should consider a rule change. What harm exactly is the rule against shared accounts intended to prevent? Would this kind of account be likely to cause such harm? I am not asking rhetorically, I want us to define our terms and goals. Policy should not be enforced "just because", and this from the drafter of Process is important. If policy does not serve us well, we have a process to modify it: Consensus and consensus can change. DES (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the block review request was already closed I post my arguments here:
"Sorry, that's just a legalistic standpoint of the rules which is made without experience with GLAM accounts. In the German Wikiepdia the Account is used by more than one person but a) this is made transparent on the userpage, which people actually edit with this account b) it is also declared that they will only have an account for communication reasons and not to edit articles and c) they alway sign with the initals (for example: ^MLR --Swiss National Library) to make it transparent which person has actually answered. - My opinion is that it is better to make clear rules how such account have to work here. - Just to block each account which looks like they are used by multiple people is a simple but in my opinion not a intelligent solution. Because you ignore the requirements of a corporate personhood. And the GLAM are corporate personhood and a decision of uploading media with all legal consequences or the contribute in other way is always made in the name of an institution and not from individuals. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)"
--Micha L. Rieser (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Rules which I would prefere are the following: (For example)
An account of an corporate personhood is allowed if
1) the actual and the past editors are made transparent on the userpage. Description of name and role and the initials are mandatory.
2) they sign an answer with their initals or sign an edit in the edit summery with their initials (for example for John Doe: ^JD)
3) they do not write articles or edit articles in an essential way. If an edit is only a correction of a simple mistakes or a simple update of outdated information then it is accepted
4) does not write the article or edit the article about their own institution and uses the talk page there instead
--Micha L. Rieser (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The block review Micha refers to is here.
The basic reason for the WP:NOSHARE rule is, as a French admin put it here, to know who we are talking to and (when necessary) whose knuckles to rap. The advantage of a single-person account, even when anonymous, over an IP is that time and experience can build up a reputation and trust for the person behind the account. A shared account, for instance, could never be given any advanced rights, because although its users may in the past have edited responsibly, we do not know who may be using it tomorrow. Problems that might arise include the "that wasn't me" defence for problematic edits, or one user saying that he was not aware of previous warnings or agreements made by others. If all goes well and everyone behaves properly, no problems would arise; but we do not make the rules for the case when all goes well.
Users of a shared account would also have to accept that their individual attribution rights under CC-BY-SA would be lost; attribution would only be to the account. That is already the case for IPs, but the view is that by choosing to edit unregistered they are waiving their rights. I do not know whether there is a legal problem here: users might need to sign a waiver.
I have looked through the archives of the WP:Username policy talk pages. WP:NOSHARE was introduced in 2007 and the principle has never been seriously questioned. In 2012 a proposed exception for couples editing together was decisively rejected at this RfC and another discussion last year here on shared accounts for school classes showed little support for change.
Micha's proposals, where individual users identify themselves on the user page and sign their separate contributions, go a long way to alleviate the possible difficulties, but I question whether there is really a problem here that needs such a complicated exception, rather than separate accounts for "User:Micha at SNL" etc. English Wikipedia has taken part in a large number of GLAM initiatives (see here; not all are English-language, but many are), and I am not aware that this question has arisen before. I hope we will get more input from other GLAMmers. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"Users of a shared account would also have to accept that their individual attribution rights under CC-BY-SA would be lost; attribution would only be to the account." - That is actually a point that is important for the institution. A corporate personhood want that an edit made by that account is CC-BY-SA of this institution. If an employee of an institution is paid to make edits, than the BY-clause references to the institution not to the person. Ex. If I upload a picture than it is not me who gives the right to CC-BY-SA and an attribution of "Micha L. Rieser at Swiss National Library" is wrong. Actually I'm not the copyrigt holder. It is the library itself. It should be attributed to the institution.
The identification of the people and their role is only for the transparency for the community so that everybody always know who actually is answering a question and which role in the institution they have.
Apropos reputation and trust: It is important to see that an institution like a library will delegate the responsibility only to a few specific people. That are not every employee which are able to edit in Wikipedia with that account and in their name. If such an account is verified and the people names are made transparent than it should be possible to trust that account as a whole. - I personally think this more trustworthy than "John Doe at XYZ". I can also make an account "Micha L. Rieser at White House". Why should this be more trustworthy than a verified account of an institution? By single accounts you have always to believe that this information is correct or you have to check every single one if this person can actually speak in the name of the institution. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I can see that a case can be made for a change in the no-share policy, but to do that would require a WP:Request for comment, probably located at Wikipedia talk:Username policy. I am not myself convinced that such a change is necessary or desirable, but if you wish I will help you to start an RFC. However, I think it would be a waste of time unless there is some evidence that there would be support from other people, specifically other people engaged in GLAM activity. I am disappointed that no-one else has commented here. I have asked for an opinion from User:Pigsonthewing, who is well qualified to comment as he has been a Wikimedian-in-residence three times, but his user page says that he is busy until 8 Feb. Tomorrow I will post a message at the Village Pump to try to stir up more interest. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever we decide, we need a practice around this policy that avoids blocking GF GLAM partners. We can do this by permitting group accounts, by setting up accounts differently beforehand or by having better cleanup afterwards, but this current process of blocking our collaborators would be unbelievably childish, from any organisation other than WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Collaboration involves respecting each others' rules. This was not a knee-jerk block; it was made only when the collaborator, informed of the existing and long-established NOSHARE rule and after discussion, announced that they would not comply with it. JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we need to deal with the post-SUL reality, which is that if an account name is registered anywhere, then the account automatically exists here. It's not fair to punish good-faith people because we have different rules than the places where their accounts were created. It's also less transparent to have the same person operating under different account names at different wikis. IMO, if a name is okay at the home wiki (in this example, the Ukrainian Wikipedia), then we should probably consider accepting it here and maybe coming up with a category or template to label it rather than requiring someone to manage multiple accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That raises wider issues than just GLAM accounts. I understand that de-wiki permits company accounts, and I think there would be strong resistance to that here. JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Company accounts are accepted but PR is not. If an account makes obviously PR it is blocked immediately. - The problem is the PR and that some companies have financial interests in editing Wikipedia. The problem are not accounts of muliple users. - The rules I have figured out in the GLAM newsletter would work for GLAM and other institution which are interested in an collaboration and have no financial interests in editing Wikipedia. But they actually won't work for companies which are interested in PR. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think there should be an exception for GLAM but I see little logic in the NOSHARE policy at all. All the objections to shared accounts seem to me to apply to anonymous IP editing and, indeed, there is far more accountability for a named account even if it is shared. If a shared account produces unacceptable editing it can then be blocked. However, I think a shared account ought to be declared as such. Thincat (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: the Swiss National Library user account has also been blocked on it-wiki as "Nome utente inappropriato: ente istituzionale". A French admin has also indicated that fr-wiki would prefer individual accounts. I think it is clear that even if we at en-wp made an exception and allowed an SNL institutional account, it would still have problems on other WPs. Anyone hoping to operate cross-wiki would be well advised to stick to individual accounts, perhaps using the "Micha at SNL" form. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • See also: outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Switzerland_report. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this particular account intends to harm Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would probably be the rule most applicable; here is an example of a policy actively discouraging a contributor from improving Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. Judging from their activities on other projects, including German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, are there any actual problems arising from their contributing here, asides from violating a policy? It's clearly the policy then that is most problematic, not the user(s) nor edit(s) it's trying to mitigate. We can, and should, make a temporary exception for the GLAM accounts here, then worry about changing the policy page later (preferably with an RFC immediately afterwards) to provide a permanent exemption for shared accounts who want to attribute their contributions under an organization's free license. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Convenient break[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to comment and apologies for the time it has taken me to do so - I've been busy elsewhere. It strikes me that two issues are emerging. The larger one is the en.WP policy, and it would certainly do no harm for there to be a wider community debate about whether it should be relaxed. However, given the sensitivities - sometimes well-founded; sometimes verging on hysterical paranoia - around CoI editing and paid advocacy, I have little faith that that policy will change in the near future.

The more specific issue is around the involvement of SUL and User:Micha L. Rieser's statement that they "have now decided that we will not contribute to the GLAM project in the English Wikipedia". That would be very unfortunate, and I am confident that the advantages to SUL of remaining involved will outweigh the minor inconvenience of having to register separate accounts. As an experienced Wikipedian in Residence, I'm aware that we all edit here by the grace of the wider community; and I would be happy to discuss these issues with Micha and colleagues here, or off list (I can be emailed via my user page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

I need some help understanding this project, how it works and what I need to do to work with museums. Is there someone willing to assist me?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark: Take a look at the main GLAM page on Outreach: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM. It might be easier to discuss things on the email list. You can subscribe here: https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/cultural-partners -- kosboot (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

West Midlands Police Museum editathon[edit]

Wikipedians are invited to an editathon at the West Midlands Police Museum, Birmingham, England, on Saturday, 15 March 2014. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Contacting a museum to get permission to use their photos - British Museum[edit]

Hi, i've done a bit of digging around and it seems noone has ever asked the British Museum if we can have copyright authorisation to use the photos from their excellent website (see the terms here).

Before I try to contact them on behalf of all of us, I was wondering:

  • Assuming they consent, what exactly do they need to send us? An email? If so, to whose email address?
  • Is there a list anywhere of the other GLAMs we have such an arrangement with? It would be good to send them this to show what excellent company they would be in
  • Does anyone have any other tips / war stories from when other GLAMs were asked the same question?

Thanks all.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed copyright of their images over the years. The answer is likely to remain no, but that is part of the reason for our volunteers taking photographs and using behind the scenes photos. -- (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fae. Do you remember who reached out in the past? I'd like to see the correspondence so I can build on it when emailing the museum. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who did most of the asking in this case. When working there as the Wikipedia in Residence I even gave presentations to the Web, Marketing, Legal and Sales departments. While I believe I achieved a lot while I was there, the big-ticket item that I did NOT achieve was getting the BM to release its own images. Believe me I tried. Oncenawhile - there's probably various attempts at contact hidden away in OTRS but trust me, they know about our desire to access and use their pics of objects and while the answer has been a definitive "no" for some time, there is awareness and sympathy for our arguments within the organisation. One day they might change their policy but emailing them from a cold-start to suggest they change to cc-by-sa will not get you anywhere. Sorry. Wittylama 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks Witty. It took me some time but I finally found Commons:Commons:Partnerships, which I think should be advertised on the GLAM project page as it might encourage more people to try to build further new relationships. On a related point, I tried to find my way into the OTRS system to find any historical correspondence with these institutions but I couldn't work out how to search through it. Can we make such correspondence open to editors?
As to the British Museum, do you know whether it was ever discussed at the Board of Trustees level? If we could understand their concerns we might be able to work around them. Or perhaps arrange a pilot project where they give access to a handful of photos that they don't otherwise gain commercial benefit from.
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it never reached to the trustees, and that there will be very little in writing between the BM & wikimedia. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oncenawhile, if you would like to get some traction, there are some Wikipedians in India who have the idea that when the British left India, they took with them government archives which should have been the property of people of India and not the property of the British crown. These archives, including documents, photos, and video, are now held by the British Library which formerly was part of the British Museum. These editors have expressed interest in requesting digital copies of these archives, which they believe the British Library to hold but not to have made available online. The goal would be to make these archives available to the people of India on Wikipedia.
If you would like an in to the British Museum a request backed by a few Indian editors could start a conversation which would be thoughtfully considered by a range of stakeholders. This could be particularly timely as Indian editors will be visiting the British Museum during London Wikimania in a few months.
How much appetite do you have for drafting a letter, talking things over with Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia India, then helping the Indian editors make a request? If that request can be sorted, then I expect whatever you want could be requested in the same vein and also all kinds of museums everywhere would become aware that Wikipedians sometimes request digital copies of the artifacts of their heritage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
As you say the BL was part of the BM. It no longer is so, and has a much better attitude on sharing its content, so I'm not sure how discussion of archives in the BL will help to change the minds of people at the BM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the National Archive actually has all the "government" papers, and these will be open to in-person researchers once released under the 50 year rule in the normal way. There will be an enormous volume of these, probably little digitized (like the UK papers). It sounds to me like they need to focus their request before an approach. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I appreciate the thought from Blue Raspberry but am inclined to agree with Andy - they are now separate institutions. Anyway, digitising 14 kilometres of shelves of volumes, files and boxes of papers, together with 70,000 volumes of official publications and 105,000 manuscript and printed maps is likely to have a signifcant cost implication, but I suspect if the Indian government is willing to contribute then the BL will be receptive to the request. So I suggest our Indian colleagues prepare a funding plan before going for a big push with the BL.
Blue, your point on wikimania London is a great idea by the way. What better excuse to reinitiate the request for collaboration with the BM.
Witty, I know you think there's limited chance but I am prepared to invest the time if you can advise me who to contact? I think WikimediaUK may be collaborating with the BM as part of wikimania anyway?
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No cooperation planned as far as I am aware, though a social tour is fairly easy to arrange closer to the event. -- (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Cardy at WMUK is the main contact with the BM now, but we need to play a long game here. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Museums vary a lot as to their attitude to photography and images, my view is that we should concentrate on working with the ones that are aligned with us rather than the ones that are more cautious about intellectual property rights. On the wider issue of transparency in our discussions with museums, I don't see how we can record this on wiki without betraying confidences. I have had several discussions with Museum people who are considering adopting a more open policy towards image releases, but if we started publicly logging such discussions I suspect they would clam up. Now that we have the mass upload tool we can ramp up our promotion of mass uploads and the Wellcome for example would make for a great case study. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) If you ever hear of any discussion about people making media requests for public information from institutions which do not seek the benefits of sharing, please ping me. I would like to work with others to establish best practices and a community review process for doing this. MuckRock is an example of an organization which makes this kind of requests in an open community model and while the intent of their establishment was for journalism, there are actually a lot of materials useful to Wikipedians in the government, commercial, and nonprofit sectors which are supposed to be for public reuse yet not made available through any accessible channel. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The BM's stuff is very accessible - they have " currently 2,125,581 records available (online), which represent more than 3,500,000 objects. 821,630 records have one or more images" - I imagine the largest museum website in the world. It just isn't on open licences (only personal re-use permitted free), nor very likely to be so for a while. Many 2D images are on Commons using Bridgeman-Corel, but most of their stuff is 3D. They have in practice a more relaxed attitude to visitor-taken photos than the website policy suggests, and have at times arranged for photo sessions for Wikipedians to photo stuff not on dislay, eg for Roman metalwork at Hoxne Hoard (see this Commons category for example, and for prehistoric stuff (see these categories for example), Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon[edit]

Hi all, the article on Edit-a-thon could use a little wikilove. Also, if you have attended one or know of any pictures already on commons, please help categorizing from the container category posted on the page. Thx. Jane (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for those of us engaged in promoting edit-a-thons step back a little, as we may have a mild conflict of interest. The term "edit-a-thon" does get heavily used by us Wikimedians, however the English Wikipedia needs to take care to ensure that neologisms like this have sufficient general notability to make it worth a long term stand alone encyclopaedia article. I for one, am cautiously not editing this new article. -- (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I of course respect your opinion, but I know we have had extensive press coverage in the Netherlands in the past and I was curious if this was the case in other countries. In any case, pictures of edit-a-thons that have taken place have already been uploaded to Commons, but may be hard to trace due to other naming (meetup or some such). If you can find any, just add them in to the category. Thanks, Jane (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, though it had not occurred to me otherwise. You may wish to check the policy I linked to above. Press coverage that happens to use the word is not considered particularly good evidence in user to use Wikipedia to establish a neologism. It is worth noting that as of this moment, even Wiktionary does not include the word. Having a category on Commons is not an issue, there is far simpler policy there. -- (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There has always been huge coverage in the English-language press - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royal_Society/Women_in_Science_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_at_the_Royal_Society,_March_2014#Media for just one recent event. Observer, Guardian x2, New Scientist, Economist .... though not all use the word. The New York Times is always running pieces. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Now hiring: Wikipedia Summer of Monuments project manager[edit]

Hello everyone! Wikimedia DC is now hiring a project manager for the Wikipedia Summer of Monuments campaign. For more information about the position, see our blog post. Feel free to apply, or if you would like to be an interviewer for the position, let me know. Harej (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation of wikitown articles and projects[edit]

Where can I find information about how to categorise wikitowns, their articles, and associated administrative pages and categories? There's Category:WikiTowns, which is the encyclopaedic content (i.e. the articles about both the projects themselves, and the articles that are pointed to by the plaques in these places), but I can't quite figure out what the situation is with the administrative categories about all this. Thanks! Sam Wilson 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

interested group needs help[edit]

can someone help this person/group? Draft:Wikipedia:GLAM/American Folk Art Museum. thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ICAA MFAH[edit]

Someone please look at WP:ICAAMFAH and bring them into the GLAM fold. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)