Hello,
I support what David and Bob proposed and what Lori clarified. All base discussion about Wikipedia-related projects should happen in an existing Wikimedia project and then all other communication channels such as social media would be used as outreach to deliver digests and solicit comments on what happens in Wikimedia projects.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Now I understand better Lori's proposal about the use of social media, I agree that multiple chennels should be used to increase awareness of the work of GLAM projects, both to encourage participation in the existing projects and the development of new ones, and--equally important--to increase and diversify the public use of the resulting material.
It is nevertheless important to maintain balance between the effort expended on publicity for the work, and on the actual work. Once we have set up communications in a particular medium, and people have responded, we have an obligation to continue our dialog with them, and cannot simply produce an announcement, and then walk away. It it is common in our various communities to initiate more than we can properly follow up.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Lori Phillips lori.byrd.phillips@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks everyone for your feedback. This has been great.
I want to just briefly say that any use of social media (in particular
FB &
Twitter) will purely be to replicate content that we are already
producing
on our core platforms. This is what I meant, but did not explain
clearly, by
"broadcast." There will never be anything new/unique in the way of news
or
updates on the social media channels. They are only meant to share out
the
information we have on our core platforms (likely the mailing list and
the
GLAM portal) with those audiences who are on those social platforms. It would never be expected that you have to follow every social media space
in
order to keep up.
(This is separate from the idea that we may occasionally do a Twitter
chat
or something similar, which may produce unique content. This is not "broadcast" but is just a different form of engagement for some special event.)
I'll turn my social media theory off now : ).
Lori
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org
wrote:
Concerning platform for interactions I strongly agree with David, in
great
part because of the nature of Wikimedia projects. Our conversations
are not
just for ourselves but lay the groundwork for those people who will
want to
see what and how we've tried to plan things. In that sense, preserving
the
record on a Wikimedia wiki (Wikipedia or elsewhere) is really essential.
As far as social media, I agree again with David that the number of
tools
we have available threatens to diffuse the focus of what we're trying to accomplish. A tool is only a tool; it should not be our main focus,
and due
to the variety of people involved, we should select something that
everyone
is comfortable with.
Bob
-- Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
- My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:03 AM, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com
wrote:
I also agree with Sarah about IRC. However, I also suggest that organizing a separate wiki would be counterproductive. There are already too many places for this and similar wikipedia-associated projects, and I think the appropriate direction is to condense and concentrate them. Internal is necessary only for things that inherently cannot be public, and meta only for things which fundamentally concern cross-wiki matters such as mediawiki platform development -- other things posted there are normally lost to most of the enWP community. Similarly for the now-deceased strategy wiki, and any other accessory projects. .
As this is a US project, working I think almost entirely in English, appropriate project pages on the enWP is the obvious location. Anyone outside the WP community could as easily learn to use this as any separate wiki.
As for other social media, we may need them for outreach, but they do simply constitute additional places to divide our efforts. I'm aware I may be old-fashioned in this, and just stubbornly fixed on staying with mailing lists, the medium I have predominantly used since they were developed. I did adjust to wikis though, and our projects are so entwined with WP that it is the natural place.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Paula Kate Marmor pkm@pobox.com
wrote:
I work in technology, i have done online community work since 1991,
and
I heartily loathe IRC, for all the reasons Sarah mentions. Hear, hear.
Paula
On Thursday, September 6, 2012, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Hi Lori! See my responses inline, as well.
IRC An open chat platform used often by Wikipedians, but unfamiliar
among
most GLAM professionals. Arguments can be made for and against; so
discuss
away.
IRC is terrible, archaic, and uncomfortable for the majority of people. This is 2012, not 1992. People are welcome to have an IRC GLAM US channel but I bet, the majority of the people using it are the same old
people
who use IRC now. I think we should scrap any focus on IRC and
communicate
through social media, wiki, and mailing lists. I figure, if people want to have me involved in something or have a question for me, they will send me an email, wiki me, or Tweet me - and not sit around and wait for me
on
IRC.
We could always have an IRC office hours for GLAMWIKI but, again, that'd be just a strict ubergeek thing and that's not inclusive of the broader GLAM community (and those of us Wikipedians who hate IRC because we
stopped
using it when BBSes disappeared).
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- Lori Phillips Digital Marketing Content Coordinator The Children's Museum of Indianapolis
US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
703.489.6036 | http://loribyrdphillips.com/
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
GLAM-US mailing list GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us