Researchers in museums - GLAM - lists.wikimedia.org

Daniel Mietchen

20 Mar 20 Mar

11:28 p.m.

Dear all, two documents come to mind that address these issues to some extent (bias alert: I was involved in drafting both): (1) the Wikimedia Foundation recently released its Open Access policy (cf. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/18/wikimedia-open-access-policy/ ), and there is no reason why chapters or thematic orgs or other Wikimedia partners should not take inspiration from that and issue a policy on the same or similar terms. (2) the Bouchout Declaration (cf. http://bouchoutdeclaration.org/ ) is an attempt to move an entire research community towards increased openness, and it was in large part driven by museums (18 of 91 signatory organizations so far, as per http://www.bouchoutdeclaration.org/signatories/organizations/ ). While focused on biodiversity research, I think this model might be a good starting point for other research communities to address openness in a more systematic fashion. What about proposing a session on that for https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Wikipedia_Science_Conference ? Thanks and cheers, d. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Pat Hadley <pat(a)pathadley.net> wrote:

...

Hi all, There's been a recent bit of coverage in the UK over the issue of museums charging researchers for collection access. The strongest arguments for free and open access have come from the Prehistoric Society and can be seen on the Museum's Association Website. At York Museums Trust (hosts of my project) they do not charge researchers and have recently begun insisting that visiting researchers openly licence any photographs they take of collections items and encouraging them to pursue open access publishing of the research output (not always possible). I was wondering whether the GLAMwiki movement might like to speak on the issue and encourage GLAMs with which we are working to consider this part of their openness strategy. Research is one of the key ways in which collections are enriched. I for one am fed up with finding obscure notes on collection databases implying the existence of research done in the last decade which is now invisible online and/or has no paper-trail at the museum. What do people think? Cheers, Pat -- Pat Hadley Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire pathadley.net @pathadley _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

Reply

Liam Wyatt

12:58 p.m.

Of course I think that researchers should have free access to the collections as a core service of a public cultural collection. That's their raison d'etre. It should go without saying. But I can't help also feeling that there is a two-class system in place, and all of a sudden these researchers have seen what it's like to be in the non-favoured-class... In the wiki-verse, and indeed any online user of public cultural collections, we're very very used to being told that our access requests will incur a fee (e.g. to get access high-resolution copy of an already digitised public-domain image) - even when requests to access the same object in-person would be considered a free service. Obviously, operating a physical institution that accommodates access to the collection (e.g. a reading-room in a research-library with all the lights, heating, security, staffing...) is an expensive service to operate, but it is considered an important service to provide for free to the public. Yet, the much cheaper operating cost of providing a digital access service (an online database) is considered to be a different class of access-request. Online access-requests are frequently, not always, considered an opportunity for the institution to make money, whereas physical access requests are considered core-business. I think that this is underpinned by a culture that makes a value-judgement about what is the "right" kind of access. So now the UK Prehistoric Society would like the digital open-access community to stand with them to fight for the right to have free access to research collections - and I agree. But, would the UK Prehistoric Society stand with the digital open-access community in our fight to have digital usage considered no longer be considered a "second-class citizen"? I think there is an interesting parallel with 1968 Ford motor company strikes in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968 (see also the 2010 film "made in Dagenham"). At the time, the women working for Ford were paid less for an equivalent level of skilled work. The women had supported the men's previous unionised-action for better work-conditions, but when they asked for the Union's support in their equal-pay fight, the Union wasn't interested. The (male) union-leaders like having the female employees support for their own claims but didn't consider the women's claims to be serious/important - and feared that if the women were paid the same amount as the men, then the company would fire some of the men to keep costs down. A two-class system... Eventually the right to equal-pay-for-equal-work became the law and the world didn't end... So, I would like the UK Prehistoric Society researchers to know I support their right to free-access to undertake their research in the public collections of the UK. But, would they support us in return? -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 20 March 2015 at 21:38, Pat Hadley <pat(a)pathadley.net> wrote:

...

Hi all, There's been a recent bit of coverage in the UK over the issue of museums charging researchers for collection access. The strongest arguments for free and open access have come from the Prehistoric Society and can be seen on the Museum's Association Website <http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/17032015-museums-criticised-for-charging-researchers-for-access> . At York Museums Trust (hosts of my project) they do not charge researchers and have recently begun insisting that visiting researchers openly licence any photographs they take of collections items and encouraging them to pursue open access publishing of the research output (not always possible). I was wondering whether the GLAMwiki movement might like to speak on the issue and encourage GLAMs with which we are working to consider this part of their openness strategy. Research is one of the key ways in which collections are enriched. I for one am fed up with finding obscure notes on collection databases implying the existence of research done in the last decade which is now invisible online and/or has no paper-trail at the museum. What do people think? Cheers, Pat -- Pat Hadley Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire pathadley.net @pathadley <http://twitter.com/pathadley> _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

Reply

Andrea Zanni

1:26 p.m.

I can't agree more with Liam here. I'm not an expert in museums, but I know libraries. When I worked at the university of Bologna, I spoke with hundreds of researchers, Phd students, professors regarding Open Access. As readers, they were completely in favour. But they were always mumbling and thinking otherwise when they, as authors, were asked to provide their writings/articles in open access. The good part of this story is: this is how closed access look like. We should emphasize that. Aubrey On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Of course I think that researchers should have free access to the collections as a core service of a public cultural collection. That's their raison d'etre. It should go without saying. But I can't help also feeling that there is a two-class system in place, and all of a sudden these researchers have seen what it's like to be in the non-favoured-class... In the wiki-verse, and indeed any online user of public cultural collections, we're very very used to being told that our access requests will incur a fee (e.g. to get access high-resolution copy of an already digitised public-domain image) - even when requests to access the same object in-person would be considered a free service. Obviously, operating a physical institution that accommodates access to the collection (e.g. a reading-room in a research-library with all the lights, heating, security, staffing...) is an expensive service to operate, but it is considered an important service to provide for free to the public. Yet, the much cheaper operating cost of providing a digital access service (an online database) is considered to be a different class of access-request. Online access-requests are frequently, not always, considered an opportunity for the institution to make money, whereas physical access requests are considered core-business. I think that this is underpinned by a culture that makes a value-judgement about what is the "right" kind of access. So now the UK Prehistoric Society would like the digital open-access community to stand with them to fight for the right to have free access to research collections - and I agree. But, would the UK Prehistoric Society stand with the digital open-access community in our fight to have digital usage considered no longer be considered a "second-class citizen"? I think there is an interesting parallel with 1968 Ford motor company strikes in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968 (see also the 2010 film "made in Dagenham"). At the time, the women working for Ford were paid less for an equivalent level of skilled work. The women had supported the men's previous unionised-action for better work-conditions, but when they asked for the Union's support in their equal-pay fight, the Union wasn't interested. The (male) union-leaders like having the female employees support for their own claims but didn't consider the women's claims to be serious/important - and feared that if the women were paid the same amount as the men, then the company would fire some of the men to keep costs down. A two-class system... Eventually the right to equal-pay-for-equal-work became the law and the world didn't end... So, I would like the UK Prehistoric Society researchers to know I support their right to free-access to undertake their research in the public collections of the UK. But, would they support us in return? -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 20 March 2015 at 21:38, Pat Hadley <pat(a)pathadley.net> wrote:

Hi all, There's been a recent bit of coverage in the UK over the issue of museums charging researchers for collection access. The strongest arguments for free and open access have come from the Prehistoric Society and can be seen on the Museum's Association Website <http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/17032015-museums-criticised-for-charging-researchers-for-access> . At York Museums Trust (hosts of my project) they do not charge researchers and have recently begun insisting that visiting researchers openly licence any photographs they take of collections items and encouraging them to pursue open access publishing of the research output (not always possible). I was wondering whether the GLAMwiki movement might like to speak on the issue and encourage GLAMs with which we are working to consider this part of their openness strategy. Research is one of the key ways in which collections are enriched. I for one am fed up with finding obscure notes on collection databases implying the existence of research done in the last decade which is now invisible online and/or has no paper-trail at the museum. What do people think? Cheers, Pat -- Pat Hadley Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire pathadley.net @pathadley <http://twitter.com/pathadley> _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

_______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

Reply

Pat Hadley

1:33 p.m.

That doesn't surprise me. They're a very weird organisation - with an aging membership and a bizarre legacy. Having said that, they were good to me as an archaeology student and even funded some research travel. I haven't been a member for a few years now but the new president was a lecturer of mine. Maybe I'll see if I can meet him and wave the Open Access flag! *twirls villainous moustache* On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:12 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

According to its website, The Prehistoric Society, which has never made its publications available open access except for abstracts, has recently switched from publishing its own proceedings, to Cambridge University Press , [ http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/about/news/switch_to_cup_as_publisher/] , which sells an annual subscription for $175 to libraries, and access to an individual article for $30. (Individual membership, which includes a subscription, is £ 35/year . (It does make its newsletter freely available, at [http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/publications/past/]; its "Research papers" are also paid access only. One could call it hypocrisy, except for the problem of how, except for memberships and subscriptions, are they to get the money to publish? Probably, like most such societies, most of the members are members primarily in order to get the Proceedings. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I can't agree more with Liam here. I'm not an expert in museums, but I know libraries. When I worked at the university of Bologna, I spoke with hundreds of researchers, Phd students, professors regarding Open Access. As readers, they were completely in favour. But they were always mumbling and thinking otherwise when they, as authors, were asked to provide their writings/articles in open access. The good part of this story is: this is how closed access look like. We should emphasize that. Aubrey On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Of course I think that researchers should have free access to the collections as a core service of a public cultural collection. That's their raison d'etre. It should go without saying. But I can't help also feeling that there is a two-class system in place, and all of a sudden these researchers have seen what it's like to be in the non-favoured-class... In the wiki-verse, and indeed any online user of public cultural collections, we're very very used to being told that our access requests will incur a fee (e.g. to get access high-resolution copy of an already digitised public-domain image) - even when requests to access the same object in-person would be considered a free service. Obviously, operating a physical institution that accommodates access to the collection (e.g. a reading-room in a research-library with all the lights, heating, security, staffing...) is an expensive service to operate, but it is considered an important service to provide for free to the public. Yet, the much cheaper operating cost of providing a digital access service (an online database) is considered to be a different class of access-request. Online access-requests are frequently, not always, considered an opportunity for the institution to make money, whereas physical access requests are considered core-business. I think that this is underpinned by a culture that makes a value-judgement about what is the "right" kind of access. So now the UK Prehistoric Society would like the digital open-access community to stand with them to fight for the right to have free access to research collections - and I agree. But, would the UK Prehistoric Society stand with the digital open-access community in our fight to have digital usage considered no longer be considered a "second-class citizen"? I think there is an interesting parallel with 1968 Ford motor company strikes in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968 (see also the 2010 film "made in Dagenham"). At the time, the women working for Ford were paid less for an equivalent level of skilled work. The women had supported the men's previous unionised-action for better work-conditions, but when they asked for the Union's support in their equal-pay fight, the Union wasn't interested. The (male) union-leaders like having the female employees support for their own claims but didn't consider the women's claims to be serious/important - and feared that if the women were paid the same amount as the men, then the company would fire some of the men to keep costs down. A two-class system... Eventually the right to equal-pay-for-equal-work became the law and the world didn't end... So, I would like the UK Prehistoric Society researchers to know I support their right to free-access to undertake their research in the public collections of the UK. But, would they support us in return? -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 20 March 2015 at 21:38, Pat Hadley <pat(a)pathadley.net> wrote:

Hi all, There's been a recent bit of coverage in the UK over the issue of museums charging researchers for collection access. The strongest arguments for free and open access have come from the Prehistoric Society and can be seen on the Museum's Association Website <http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/17032015-museums-criticised-for-charging-researchers-for-access> . At York Museums Trust (hosts of my project) they do not charge researchers and have recently begun insisting that visiting researchers openly licence any photographs they take of collections items and encouraging them to pursue open access publishing of the research output (not always possible). I was wondering whether the GLAMwiki movement might like to speak on the issue and encourage GLAMs with which we are working to consider this part of their openness strategy. Research is one of the key ways in which collections are enriched. I for one am fed up with finding obscure notes on collection databases implying the existence of research done in the last decade which is now invisible online and/or has no paper-trail at the museum. What do people think? Cheers, Pat -- Pat Hadley Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire pathadley.net @pathadley <http://twitter.com/pathadley> _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

_______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

-- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

-- Pat Hadley Yorkshire's open culture brain-for-hire pathadley.net @pathadley <http://twitter.com/pathadley>

Reply