No, I don't mind. I am not on the Cultural Partnerships list but have always had a big interest in culture. I think Laura is a leader of things to do with sport and she seems to know what is needed and be driving it along. Others could perhaps join in to make similar improvements to sport and sports history. Presumably, sporting organisations could assist WP, the way that some GLAM organisations now have, if their needs were worked out. I don't follow the progress of sports in WP but it seems that Laura is applying what has been learned in GLAM to a different field and her championing of it is producing results that could be built on.

On 17 January 2012 05:35, Sarah Stierch <> wrote:
It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the concept of gender and into the question of "sport versus GLAM". and Laura, I'd like to forward/move this conversation to the Cultural Partnerships Mailing List, if you two don't mind? I think it's a pretty valuable conversation!


On 1/16/12 5:59 AM, Gillian White wrote:

Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” as Juliet said. (Although it was in her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women’s participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be categorised as such for the reasons I give below.


WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and maintain good articles.


In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums, Sport, History, Education, Entertainment, Politics and Science all are. So we could keep going and call it GLAMSHEEPS.


However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need to control their scope.


I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its articles. To do that we made them a special category.


What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets, context and the mission - that’s probably the most important thing as we try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks such as the one here in New South Wales would, somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or Opera Companies.


At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation. However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and credibility.  If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we have to be credible and make sense to them.  So if we went to the Art Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar. It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed in Australia and it is easier to get popular and financial support for it than it is for the arts, or for “culture” in the narrower sense, and that is another reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying attention to it, all the more reason to be careful that potential GLAM supporters do not feel betrayed by the usual diversion of attention to sport. Politicians in particular are terrified of arts organisations and artists in case they do something scandalous (again) that is incomprehensible to the voting public. Sportspeople and their organisations on the other hand, are readily excused for their scandals and have easier access to sponsors and champions. So these differences in funding and understanding make a difference to the way we approach partners.


Thus, if everyone knows the Olympics as sport, then I guess it’s sport. If you asked people in similar industries – for example, if you asked a publisher, a curriculum developer, a reporter or writer, athlete or politician whether the Olympics was sport or culture they would say: “sport.” If you asked Priya if she was contributing to Australian culture or sport, I think she would say “sport”.


I am glad someone is paying attention to sport and especially to women in sport as I am not much interested in it. Personally, I wanted to help WP with articles on the kind of culture that is found in GLAMs which I have been devotedly visiting and studying all my life.

On 16 January 2012 15:23, Laura Hale <> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Gillian White <> wrote:

This is great because it means that all the excellent work on the paralympics and paralympians can be moved to "Sport" where they belong.

Paralympic articles and Paralympians are already under sport. :D It is fantastic that Australian Paralympians are covered under several Wikiprojects like Australia, Sport and the Paralympics.

Articles about women’s sport are not primarily GLAM articles, they are sports articles, just as articles about women artists are primarily GLAM articles.

Yes, articles about Australian Paralympians done as part of the HOPAU GLAM program, that are part of the biggest GLAM incentive contribution effort to date and in a country where culture identity is tied into sport are primarily GLAM articles, just like articles about female artists are primarily GLAM articles.

  Describing an article on [[Priya Cooper]] as a GLAM article, as we have been doing, is as confusing as it would be to describe the article on Bernini’s wonderful [[Apollo and Daphne (Bernini)]] as an article on the sport of archery.

No, it is a GLAM article.  Priya Cooper is a huge part of Australian sporting culture.  The article was written as part of the HOPAU GLAM project.  Images were donated by the Australian Paralympic Committee.  The work was supported by the library called the National Sport Information Centre. :D  Isn't it fantastic the opportunity this GLAM has presented to improve women's content related to Australia?  And it isn't just an issue of improving sport content, but women's content and disability related content! :D  So awesome!  Priya Cooper was the first GA in the APC/NSIC/HOPAU GLAM effort.  Hopefully, we have many more to come.  It would be great to have a list of other GAs/FAs/DYKs/FLs featuring women that were done as part GLAM movement.


So this sports portal means things can be made less confusing.

The sport portal and sport Wikiproject have been around for a while. :)   If you want to learn more about the GLAM project, it is there.  The Wikiproject about Women's sport is completely independent of the Wikiproject. :)


The obvious overlaps between women and sports (for example, individual sportswomen and women’s sport, such as individual paralympians or sporting competitions like the Olympics) are comparable to the obvious overlaps between GLAM and women (for example, women artists or exhibitions of their work). Now, with their primary category made clearer, it should all be more coherent. Good.

The overlap between GLAM is obvious and coherent.  It is fantastic that culturally important women are getting recognition on Wikipedia by having images donated by cultural institutions to support them, by having a GLAM support efforts to improve these articles, and by providing resources and access to resources to continue to support them. :D also provides a fantastic opportunity for women in Australia to work on this and gain access to opportunities they might not otherwise have.  It is fantastic, and coherent.  You should hear the passion from institutional stakeholders in our GLAM about this. :D


There are opportunities for good GLAM articles when all three converge – GLAM, sport and women.

Yes these are good opportunities when a GLAM project, , can converge to encourage the improvement of culturally important articles like Priya Cooper. :D  Hopefully, we can get more GLAM opportunities to improve similar content.

If you know any women Wikimedians in Australia, please encourage them to participate in because it would be fantastic to have women participate, to have women improve women's oriented content, and for them to have an opportunity to attend the London Paralympics to cover the games live… especially if they cover them with a focus on women competitors.

twitter: purplepopple

Gendergap mailing list

Gendergap mailing list

Sarah Stierch
Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
>>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate today<<

Gendergap mailing list