Over the course of various email threads some suggestions have been made regarding ways to communicate and share information within the Consortium. I am compiling them all here in order to further the discussion. Some of my reactions are in-line.
I apologize for the lengthy email, but I let these go scattered for too long. Please do keep the discussion centralized here. We can paste responses on the Wikipedia talk page as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium#Proposed_plat...
*Public chats/hangouts* * Develop a Google+ profile and host quarterly or monthly online public hangouts on agenda items that can be organized on the wiki. * A forum, chat, Google Hangout, or something multimedia where one or two people lead with a success story or challenge, which could be useful to others already in GLAM engagements or interested in GLAM.
*A wiki* One platform can be the wiki as the anchor for our projects and conversations. Models include: http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/ - Smithsonian 2.0 Wiki http://wiki.museummobile.info/ - MuseumMobile http://museums-social-media.wikispaces.com/ - Musesocial
My immediate reaction is to think it odd for a Wikipedia project to use a
separate wiki to organize, when we have a perfectly fine wiki that we're already organized within here on the GLAM:US portal. However, perhaps there are additional features in wikispaces that I'm not aware of that would make this more useful. If anything, maybe it would be useful for Advisory Group organizing, but I'd argue against it being used for the Consortium as a whole. A lot of time and energy has been put into the GLAM:US Portal and that will remain our predominate space for organizing, with the added perk of being connected with the broader Wikipedia community. I'm willing to be further convinced regarding the Advisory Group, though.
*Twitter* We can use Twitter for public conversations that bring Wikipedians and GLAM professionals together. Hashtag #glamwikius? A widget should be added to the wiki for recent updates.
*My thoughts*: I love the idea of doing Twitter chats occasionally to reach
audiences that are comfortable there. But I'd argue against creating a new hashtag specific to the US. The #glamwiki hashtag is well-known and well-watched and if we take it over occasionally to have our own chat it wouldn't bother anyone; we would, however, have a captive audience, which is great. This doesn't deter from the suggestion to have a widget added to the blog (or wiki) with the #glamwiki hashtag, as the volume on that feed is very manageable and the content is applicable, in spite of its being global.
*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.
*Email* The GLAM-US mailing list is likely the most efficient means of communicating on a platform comfortable for both Wikipedians and GLAMs. This makes the most sense in regards to ongoing discussions, announcing projects and events, asking general questions, and planning for other Consortium-wide activities (such as the above mentioned public chats/hangouts.)
*Forms of broadcast* Most of the best forms of broadcast (rather than dialogue) we're already doing; these include: *Blog*: Already created at blog.us.glamwiki.org. We can discuss a strategy in more detail. *Social Media*: Already have Facebook (US) and Twitter (global) accounts. *Newsletter*: This Month in GLAM. Global readership and widely read. Likely not useful to create our own.
In summary, it is my suggestion that Broadcasting remain on the blog,
newsletter, and social media channels, and that dialogue remain predominately on the email list (GLAM-US), with discussion and decisions being copied to the GLAM/Consortium wiki page for future reference. Additionally, the idea of having a regularly scheduled chat that is off of email and wiki, either in the form of a public Google Hangout or otherwise, is a good means for allowing dialogue in a focused way. This component is what likely will require further discussion in regards to what platforms best suit both Wikipedians and GLAM Professionals' needs. It may be that it shifts depending on the information being presented (maybe sometimes it's a Twitter chat, other times a Google Hangout, or even possibly an IRC chat.)
Please do continue to discuss these options!
Hi Lori! See my responses inline, as well.
*A wiki* One platform can be the wiki as the anchor for our projects and conversations. Models include: http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/ - Smithsonian 2.0 Wiki http://wiki.museummobile.info/ - MuseumMobile http://museums-social-media.wikispaces.com/ - Musesocial
I think it'd be cool to have our own wiki for this. A wiki built specifically for the project, based on MediaWiki, might be easier for not only Wikipedians, but for museum staff who are tech savvy and comfortable working in their own atmosphere. If museums professionals aren't going to come to us, we have to go to them :) Think of it as a GLAMWIKI INTERNAL or something.
*Twitter* We can use Twitter for public conversations that bring Wikipedians and GLAM professionals together. Hashtag #glamwikius? A widget should be added to the wiki for recent updates.
I think #glamwiki is fine. I do love the idea of also having an #askaglampedian or #askawikipedian type of thing like museums do #askacurator or #askalibrarian.
Another cool idea: create a monthly or bi-monthly "GLAM-US Day" or something (they do that for the askacurator events)
*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).
*Email* The GLAM-US mailing list is likely the most efficient means of communicating on a platform comfortable for both Wikipedians and GLAMs. This makes the most sense in regards to ongoing discussions, announcing projects and events, asking general questions, and planning for other Consortium-wide activities (such as the above mentioned public chats/hangouts.)
+1
I also like the idea of a hangout - as long as we have someone serving as agenda/cat wrangler :)
-Sarah
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 todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
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
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
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
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
Hi All,
Maybe we should all take a vote using a free online polling service about platforms to decide how to move forward?
Neal
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Lori Phillips lori.byrd.phillips@gmail.comwrote:
Over the course of various email threads some suggestions have been made regarding ways to communicate and share information within the Consortium. I am compiling them all here in order to further the discussion. Some of my reactions are in-line.
I apologize for the lengthy email, but I let these go scattered for too long. Please do keep the discussion centralized here. We can paste responses on the Wikipedia talk page as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium#Proposed_plat...
*Public chats/hangouts*
- Develop a Google+ profile and host quarterly or monthly online public
hangouts on agenda items that can be organized on the wiki.
- A forum, chat, Google Hangout, or something multimedia where one or two
people lead with a success story or challenge, which could be useful to others already in GLAM engagements or interested in GLAM.
*A wiki* One platform can be the wiki as the anchor for our projects and conversations. Models include: http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/ - Smithsonian 2.0 Wiki http://wiki.museummobile.info/ - MuseumMobile http://museums-social-media.wikispaces.com/ - Musesocial
My immediate reaction is to think it odd for a Wikipedia project to use a
separate wiki to organize, when we have a perfectly fine wiki that we're already organized within here on the GLAM:US portal. However, perhaps there are additional features in wikispaces that I'm not aware of that would make this more useful. If anything, maybe it would be useful for Advisory Group organizing, but I'd argue against it being used for the Consortium as a whole. A lot of time and energy has been put into the GLAM:US Portal and that will remain our predominate space for organizing, with the added perk of being connected with the broader Wikipedia community. I'm willing to be further convinced regarding the Advisory Group, though.
*Twitter* We can use Twitter for public conversations that bring Wikipedians and GLAM professionals together. Hashtag #glamwikius? A widget should be added to the wiki for recent updates.
*My thoughts*: I love the idea of doing Twitter chats occasionally to
reach audiences that are comfortable there. But I'd argue against creating a new hashtag specific to the US. The #glamwiki hashtag is well-known and well-watched and if we take it over occasionally to have our own chat it wouldn't bother anyone; we would, however, have a captive audience, which is great. This doesn't deter from the suggestion to have a widget added to the blog (or wiki) with the #glamwiki hashtag, as the volume on that feed is very manageable and the content is applicable, in spite of its being global.
*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.
*Email* The GLAM-US mailing list is likely the most efficient means of communicating on a platform comfortable for both Wikipedians and GLAMs. This makes the most sense in regards to ongoing discussions, announcing projects and events, asking general questions, and planning for other Consortium-wide activities (such as the above mentioned public chats/hangouts.)
*Forms of broadcast* Most of the best forms of broadcast (rather than dialogue) we're already doing; these include: *Blog*: Already created at blog.us.glamwiki.org. We can discuss a strategy in more detail. *Social Media*: Already have Facebook (US) and Twitter (global) accounts. *Newsletter*: This Month in GLAM. Global readership and widely read. Likely not useful to create our own.
In summary, it is my suggestion that Broadcasting remain on the blog,
newsletter, and social media channels, and that dialogue remain predominately on the email list (GLAM-US), with discussion and decisions being copied to the GLAM/Consortium wiki page for future reference. Additionally, the idea of having a regularly scheduled chat that is off of email and wiki, either in the form of a public Google Hangout or otherwise, is a good means for allowing dialogue in a focused way. This component is what likely will require further discussion in regards to what platforms best suit both Wikipedians and GLAM Professionals' needs. It may be that it shifts depending on the information being presented (maybe sometimes it's a Twitter chat, other times a Google Hangout, or even possibly an IRC chat.)
Please do continue to discuss these options!
-- 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
Hiya Lori, I like you summary and largely agree. Replying inline for specifics.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Lori Phillips lori.byrd.phillips@gmail.comwrote:
Over the course of various email threads some suggestions have been made regarding ways to communicate and share information within the Consortium. I am compiling them all here in order to further the discussion. Some of my reactions are in-line.
I apologize for the lengthy email, but I let these go scattered for too long. Please do keep the discussion centralized here. We can paste responses on the Wikipedia talk page as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium#Proposed_plat...
*Public chats/hangouts*
- Develop a Google+ profile and host quarterly or monthly online public
hangouts on agenda items that can be organized on the wiki.
- A forum, chat, Google Hangout, or something multimedia where one or two
people lead with a success story or challenge, which could be useful to others already in GLAM engagements or interested in GLAM.
I think that it would be a good idea to schedule public chats around specific topics. And I much prefer using something other than IRC for times when we want to have virtual chat meetings. Not familiar which ones are the most popular and easiest to use but let's investigate and pick one. If Google Hangout fits the bill that would be great.
*A wiki* One platform can be the wiki as the anchor for our projects and conversations. Models include: http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/ - Smithsonian 2.0 Wiki http://wiki.museummobile.info/ - MuseumMobile http://museums-social-media.wikispaces.com/ - Musesocial
My immediate reaction is to think it odd for a Wikipedia project to use a
separate wiki to organize, when we have a perfectly fine wiki that we're already organized within here on the GLAM:US portal. However, perhaps there are additional features in wikispaces that I'm not aware of that would make this more useful. If anything, maybe it would be useful for Advisory Group organizing, but I'd argue against it being used for the Consortium as a whole. A lot of time and energy has been put into the GLAM:US Portal and that will remain our predominate space for organizing, with the added perk of being connected with the broader Wikipedia community. I'm willing to be further convinced regarding the Advisory Group, though.
I advice against creating a new wiki at this time if ever. For one thing
the administration of them is time consuming. I don't think that it is the best use of our time now to be cleaning up vandalism and removing spam. Also, I think since this is focused very much on the English language, using Wikipedia English as our wiki to collaborate makes the most since now. As you point out loads of time has been put into GLAM:US Portal so using it makes the most sense to me.
*Twitter* We can use Twitter for public conversations that bring Wikipedians and GLAM professionals together. Hashtag #glamwikius? A widget should be added to the wiki for recent updates.
*My thoughts*: I love the idea of doing Twitter chats occasionally to
reach audiences that are comfortable there. But I'd argue against creating a new hashtag specific to the US. The #glamwiki hashtag is well-known and well-watched and if we take it over occasionally to have our own chat it wouldn't bother anyone; we would, however, have a captive audience, which is great. This doesn't deter from the suggestion to have a widget added to the blog (or wiki) with the #glamwiki hashtag, as the volume on that feed is very manageable and the content is applicable, in spite of its being global.
I agree that we should use the main #glamwiki hashtag. It is a good way to
keep everyonein the glamwiki world aware of what we are doing.
*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.
I agree that we should not use IRC as our main place for informal conversations between people, or our main place for larger group meetings. If people that are comfortable with IRC want to gather in a channel that would be fine but I can't see us directing people who are not familiar with IRC to it as a main point of contact.
But I do think that it is appropriate for us to have occasional IRC meeting as part of the rotation of topics that are presented to the wider WMF movement. This would be especially important if we need to get buy from Wikipedia English community about some topic.
*Email* The GLAM-US mailing list is likely the most efficient means of communicating on a platform comfortable for both Wikipedians and GLAMs. This makes the most sense in regards to ongoing discussions, announcing projects and events, asking general questions, and planning for other Consortium-wide activities (such as the above mentioned public chats/hangouts.)
Email is a basic form of communication for everyone.
*Forms of broadcast* Most of the best forms of broadcast (rather than dialogue) we're already doing; these include: *Blog*: Already created at blog.us.glamwiki.org. We can discuss a strategy in more detail. *Social Media*: Already have Facebook (US) and Twitter (global) accounts. *Newsletter*: This Month in GLAM. Global readership and widely read. Likely not useful to create our own.
I'm really glad that we have all these forms of communication. Each one does something different. Facebook and Twitter seem to popular because people can easily use them for both personal, professional, and hobby work. I agree that we don't need a separate newsletter now.
I love the look of the blog. Think it has great potential to integrate with Facebook and Twitter.
In summary, it is my suggestion that Broadcasting remain on the blog,
newsletter, and social media channels, and that dialogue remain predominately on the email list (GLAM-US), with discussion and decisions being copied to the GLAM/Consortium wiki page for future reference. Additionally, the idea of having a regularly scheduled chat that is off of email and wiki, either in the form of a public Google Hangout or otherwise, is a good means for allowing dialogue in a focused way. This component is what likely will require further discussion in regards to what platforms best suit both Wikipedians and GLAM Professionals' needs. It may be that it shifts depending on the information being presented (maybe sometimes it's a Twitter chat, other times a Google Hangout, or even possibly an IRC chat.)
Please do continue to discuss these options!
My inline views pretty much agree with your summary. Sydney
-- 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