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 <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the
concept of gender
and into the question of "sport versus GLAM". Whiteghost.ink and Laura,
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 *G*alleries, *L*
ibraries,* A*rchives, *M*useums,* S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation, *E*ntertainment,
*P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it
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
somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or
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 <laura(a)fanhistory.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Gillian White <
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
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
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
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 http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/HOPAU/W2G
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.
Gendergap mailing list
*Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Gendergap mailing list