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