Hello.
Interesting discussion.
Having worked in galleries, museums, public libraries, research libraries, library special collections, and archives, I would suggest that the relevance of Wikipedia varies for each, depending on many factors. For instance: What types of patrons are served? Is the institution publicly funded? What are its institutional priorities? How flexible is its institutional planning? How do decisions get made? How is it adjusting to the tectonic shifts in technology, media consumption, and participatory culture?
Showing the relevance of Wikipedia to GLAM institutions might be achieved quickly, with a one-size-fits-all approach. But more likely it'll happen gradually, one convert at a time, depending on context.
The American Library Association, for instance, is a big, complex organization with some 61,000 members. Here are just a few of the sub-groups within ALA, each very different, and suggestive of the diverse ways ALA members might relate to Wikipedia:
- American Association of School Librarians (AASL) - Assn. for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) - Assn. for Library Service to Children (ALSC) - Assn. of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) - Assn. of Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends & Foundations (ALTAFF) - Assn. of Specialized & Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA) - Library & Information Technology Assn. (LITA) - Library Leadership & Management Assn. (LLAMA) - Public Library Assn. (PLA) - Reference & User Services Assn. (RUSA) - Young Adult Library Services Assn. (YALSA)
And ALA is merely one of the many professional organizations that address GLAM concerns. That said, Wiki-GLAM partnerships have so much potential. It's totally worth the effort.
All the best,
Anne Cambridge, Massachusetts