On 17 August 2011 04:04, Fae <faenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In the light of the British Library's recent
agreement with Google
Books to partner with them to scan and release a vast number of "old"
books on Google's well known system, I remain uncertain about whether
digitization for larger projects is the best use of WM-UK funds. These
are all good projects that push forward our mission of opening up
knowledge for maximum possible public access, however it can also be
argued that such projects may be far more effectively managed by a
specialist partner (such as Google or established academic
institutions and charities with specialist skills and equipment).
Yes, this is certainly true. However, I'd argue that in most cases,
we'd want to go to the specialist partner for the digitisation work
itself anyway. We don't have the specialist equipment, we don't have
the specialist skills, we don't have the expertise in handling
digitisation projects, etc etc. If we try to do it ourselves, with
volunteers, it's likely that we'd get lower quality work, and a higher
risk of the actual digitisation stalling half-way for some reason,
alongisde the significant costs of leasing the hardware to do it with
and trying to manage the data workflow. (Plus, as Christophe says
below, outsourcing it saves a lot of conservation headaches...)
This isn't to say we shouldn't do it; one main reason for us to
support the actual digitisation process would be to ensure that the
content is suitable for WM projects - that there aren't problematic
copyright assertions, and that we can get hold of it in a convenient
fashion (suitable file types, metadata, etc).
Once it's been digitised by the specialists, then we can work with it
in the manner we do best - process it, host it on WS or Commons,
incorporate it into articles, etc.
Images (photographs or artwork) are probably better for showing the
value-added effects of Wikimedia involvement rather than papers or
collections of documents - documents we merely catalogue and host, and
any secondary work done on them may take a long time to materialise,
whereas images can quickly be incorporated into other projects, and so
we get a more visible result.
Are the proposed digitisation projects asking us for additional
funding, or to underwrite the entire process?
I welcome any feedback on how well these projects
fulfil our mission
and how often our funds ought to be invested in these projects
compared to other projects which may have greater impact for new user
outreach or wider "e-volunteer" engagement.
They're very different things, certainly. We shouldn't prioritise this
*over* editor outreach, etc, but it's certainly a legitimate
complement to it.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk