(changing the title to give it its own thread)
I think this discussion would indeed be best on the feedback page. But I will respond to some of the points already here.
First off: I personally do not think this will be an ever lasting event. I think that a country can only organize Wiki Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I actually have the feeling next year (2013) might very well be the last year that we organize it on an international level. But I hope someone will proof me wrong!
I agree with Yaroslav that a real life organization would be a possibility. We don't need that though. Actually, I think it would be a worse situation than what we're in right now. It would cause a lot of bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one of the people who would have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations committee).
An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate heritage projects would perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly suitable for it as it also involves a lot of other things - but it is probably better than the alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far from the content side of things etc. I don't think it would be a priority of myself, but I can definitely see the added value. I do not think it could or should replace current efforts, but it should be complementary.
Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves Monuments is a GLAM project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm no fan of acronyms and especially not this one. If you would use the alternative 'cultural heritage institutions' (or if you prefer acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the definition well. However, at the same time it is quite different from all the other initiatives that are ongoing in this field by Wikimedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and not institution-facing. We're focused on participation by individuals, and while the institutions that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are critical - they are primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I usually consider it more a seperate thing from traditional cultural heritage initiatives in Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every national Wiki Loves Monuments competition has probably one or several Cultural Heritage collaborations. In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum association (prize sponsor), National heritage board (providing the lists), a monument/heritage association (networking partner, outreach and prize sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor), Open Monument Days (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other countries you will likely see similar collaborations especially in the second/third year develop.
Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great idea to have a cleanup project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself recently on some countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think it could use some help. I think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now WLM is over, what's next).
Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on Commons?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Well I wouldn't mind changing it to GLAMM - the extra M for monuments...
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to create a permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
Heritage
(scope to be discussed). It could be based on Commons or on Meta (to be discussed, both options have advantages and disadvantages). This must
be a
meta-project, because it coordinates efforts of many different projects: Different language Wikipedias, Commons (with which the interaction was sometimes not ideal), and potentially different languages in
Wikivoyage, may
be even Wikidata. Many components of this meta-project already exist on Commons and are supported by Maarten and other enthusiasts.
Well actually it would be a kind of repetition of GLAM / Outreach portal /wiki . I would rather suggest to better integrate WLM with GLAM inititative of which WLM is just one of many other projects. Quite successful - but not the only one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Many of these projects are about the same as WLM is - i.e. they upload many photographs and then, there is no-one to effectively use them in Wikipedias. Actually there is plenty of photographic/database content around which is not very effectively "consumed" by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The bottleneck is manpower of wiki-editors, not the number of free pictures or public domain governmental data.
So, maybe it would be interesting to have a project "Commons heritage cleanup project" which might just screen how Common's content is organized in Commons and how effectively it is used in other Wikimedia projects.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
When we finish Wiki Loves Monuments, we can do Wiki Loves Earth, imitating this project http://www.geograph.org.uk but worldwide.
One image per km2 in the world (discarding oceans). Coverage is biased for now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geolocated_images_in_Wikimedia_Commo...
2012/11/4 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
(changing the title to give it its own thread)
I think this discussion would indeed be best on the feedback page. But I will respond to some of the points already here.
First off: I personally do not think this will be an ever lasting event. I think that a country can only organize Wiki Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I actually have the feeling next year (2013) might very well be the last year that we organize it on an international level. But I hope someone will proof me wrong!
I agree with Yaroslav that a real life organization would be a possibility. We don't need that though. Actually, I think it would be a worse situation than what we're in right now. It would cause a lot of bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one of the people who would have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations committee).
An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate heritage projects would perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly suitable for it as it also involves a lot of other things - but it is probably better than the alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far from the content side of things etc. I don't think it would be a priority of myself, but I can definitely see the added value. I do not think it could or should replace current efforts, but it should be complementary.
Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves Monuments is a GLAM project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm no fan of acronyms and especially not this one. If you would use the alternative 'cultural heritage institutions' (or if you prefer acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the definition well. However, at the same time it is quite different from all the other initiatives that are ongoing in this field by Wikimedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and not institution-facing. We're focused on participation by individuals, and while the institutions that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are critical - they are primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I usually consider it more a seperate thing from traditional cultural heritage initiatives in Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every national Wiki Loves Monuments competition has probably one or several Cultural Heritage collaborations. In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum association (prize sponsor), National heritage board (providing the lists), a monument/heritage association (networking partner, outreach and prize sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor), Open Monument Days (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other countries you will likely see similar collaborations especially in the second/third year develop.
Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great idea to have a cleanup project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself recently on some countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think it could use some help. I think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now WLM is over, what's next).
Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on Commons?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Well I wouldn't mind changing it to GLAMM - the extra M for monuments...
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to create a permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
Heritage
(scope to be discussed). It could be based on Commons or on Meta (to be discussed, both options have advantages and disadvantages). This must
be a
meta-project, because it coordinates efforts of many different
projects:
Different language Wikipedias, Commons (with which the interaction was sometimes not ideal), and potentially different languages in
Wikivoyage, may
be even Wikidata. Many components of this meta-project already exist on Commons and are supported by Maarten and other enthusiasts.
Well actually it would be a kind of repetition of GLAM / Outreach portal /wiki . I would rather suggest to better integrate WLM with GLAM inititative of which WLM is just one of many other projects. Quite successful - but not the only one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Many of these projects are about the same as WLM is - i.e. they upload many photographs and then, there is no-one to effectively use them in Wikipedias. Actually there is plenty of photographic/database content around which is not very effectively "consumed" by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The bottleneck is manpower of wiki-editors, not the number of free pictures or public domain governmental data.
So, maybe it would be interesting to have a project "Commons heritage cleanup project" which might just screen how Common's content is organized in Commons and how effectively it is used in other Wikimedia projects.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Of course :) Let me be clearer: there are loads of alternative projects that can be run. It's just with a different topic :) But for that, I suggest to first run national pilots, and then see what works good and scale that up again.
Lodewijk
2012/11/4 emijrp emijrp@gmail.com
When we finish Wiki Loves Monuments, we can do Wiki Loves Earth, imitating this project http://www.geograph.org.uk but worldwide.
One image per km2 in the world (discarding oceans). Coverage is biased for now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geolocated_images_in_Wikimedia_Commo...
2012/11/4 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
(changing the title to give it its own thread)
I think this discussion would indeed be best on the feedback page. But I will respond to some of the points already here.
First off: I personally do not think this will be an ever lasting event. I think that a country can only organize Wiki Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I actually have the feeling next year (2013) might very well be the last year that we organize it on an international level. But I hope someone will proof me wrong!
I agree with Yaroslav that a real life organization would be a possibility. We don't need that though. Actually, I think it would be a worse situation than what we're in right now. It would cause a lot of bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one of the people who would have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations committee).
An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate heritage projects would perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly suitable for it as it also involves a lot of other things - but it is probably better than the alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far from the content side of things etc. I don't think it would be a priority of myself, but I can definitely see the added value. I do not think it could or should replace current efforts, but it should be complementary.
Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves Monuments is a GLAM project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm no fan of acronyms and especially not this one. If you would use the alternative 'cultural heritage institutions' (or if you prefer acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the definition well. However, at the same time it is quite different from all the other initiatives that are ongoing in this field by Wikimedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and not institution-facing. We're focused on participation by individuals, and while the institutions that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are critical - they are primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I usually consider it more a seperate thing from traditional cultural heritage initiatives in Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every national Wiki Loves Monuments competition has probably one or several Cultural Heritage collaborations. In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum association (prize sponsor), National heritage board (providing the lists), a monument/heritage association (networking partner, outreach and prize sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor), Open Monument Days (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other countries you will likely see similar collaborations especially in the second/third year develop.
Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great idea to have a cleanup project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself recently on some countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think it could use some help. I think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now WLM is over, what's next).
Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on Commons?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Well I wouldn't mind changing it to GLAMM - the extra M for monuments...
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to create
a
permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
Heritage
(scope to be discussed). It could be based on Commons or on Meta (to
be
discussed, both options have advantages and disadvantages). This must
be a
meta-project, because it coordinates efforts of many different
projects:
Different language Wikipedias, Commons (with which the interaction was sometimes not ideal), and potentially different languages in
Wikivoyage, may
be even Wikidata. Many components of this meta-project already exist
on
Commons and are supported by Maarten and other enthusiasts.
Well actually it would be a kind of repetition of GLAM / Outreach portal /wiki . I would rather suggest to better integrate WLM with GLAM inititative of which WLM is just one of many other projects. Quite successful - but not the only one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Many of these projects are about the same as WLM is - i.e. they upload many photographs and then, there is no-one to effectively use them in Wikipedias. Actually there is plenty of photographic/database content around which is not very effectively "consumed" by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The bottleneck is manpower of wiki-editors, not the number of free pictures or public domain governmental data.
So, maybe it would be interesting to have a project "Commons heritage cleanup project" which might just screen how Common's content is organized in Commons and how effectively it is used in other Wikimedia projects.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Yeah! But don't discard oceans: take photos down from a height of 100m... A good WLE project would also have denser and less dense photo regions; to include things like "street view" of areas proportional to how much traffic they get.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:48 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
When we finish Wiki Loves Monuments, we can do Wiki Loves Earth, imitating this project http://www.geograph.org.uk but worldwide.
One image per km2 in the world (discarding oceans). Coverage is biased for now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geolocated_images_in_Wikimedia_Commo...
2012/11/4 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
(changing the title to give it its own thread)
I think this discussion would indeed be best on the feedback page. But I will respond to some of the points already here.
First off: I personally do not think this will be an ever lasting event. I think that a country can only organize Wiki Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I actually have the feeling next year (2013) might very well be the last year that we organize it on an international level. But I hope someone will proof me wrong!
I agree with Yaroslav that a real life organization would be a possibility. We don't need that though. Actually, I think it would be a worse situation than what we're in right now. It would cause a lot of bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one of the people who would have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations committee).
An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate heritage projects would perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly suitable for it as it also involves a lot of other things - but it is probably better than the alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far from the content side of things etc. I don't think it would be a priority of myself, but I can definitely see the added value. I do not think it could or should replace current efforts, but it should be complementary.
Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves Monuments is a GLAM project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm no fan of acronyms and especially not this one. If you would use the alternative 'cultural heritage institutions' (or if you prefer acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the definition well. However, at the same time it is quite different from all the other initiatives that are ongoing in this field by Wikimedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and not institution-facing. We're focused on participation by individuals, and while the institutions that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are critical - they are primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I usually consider it more a seperate thing from traditional cultural heritage initiatives in Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every national Wiki Loves Monuments competition has probably one or several Cultural Heritage collaborations. In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum association (prize sponsor), National heritage board (providing the lists), a monument/heritage association (networking partner, outreach and prize sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor), Open Monument Days (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other countries you will likely see similar collaborations especially in the second/third year develop.
Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great idea to have a cleanup project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself recently on some countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think it could use some help. I think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now WLM is over, what's next).
Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on Commons?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Well I wouldn't mind changing it to GLAMM - the extra M for monuments...
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to create
a
permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
Heritage
(scope to be discussed). It could be based on Commons or on Meta (to
be
discussed, both options have advantages and disadvantages). This must
be a
meta-project, because it coordinates efforts of many different
projects:
Different language Wikipedias, Commons (with which the interaction was sometimes not ideal), and potentially different languages in
Wikivoyage, may
be even Wikidata. Many components of this meta-project already exist
on
Commons and are supported by Maarten and other enthusiasts.
Well actually it would be a kind of repetition of GLAM / Outreach portal /wiki . I would rather suggest to better integrate WLM with GLAM inititative of which WLM is just one of many other projects. Quite successful - but not the only one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Many of these projects are about the same as WLM is - i.e. they upload many photographs and then, there is no-one to effectively use them in Wikipedias. Actually there is plenty of photographic/database content around which is not very effectively "consumed" by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The bottleneck is manpower of wiki-editors, not the number of free pictures or public domain governmental data.
So, maybe it would be interesting to have a project "Commons heritage cleanup project" which might just screen how Common's content is organized in Commons and how effectively it is used in other Wikimedia projects.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
2012/11/4 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
Yeah! But don't discard oceans: take photos down from a height of 100m...
Hahaha nice point. Award to the best underwater photography. ; )
A good WLE project would also have denser and less dense photo regions; to include things like "street view" of areas proportional to how much traffic they get.
Sure. I think that making a grid over an OSM map with geolocated Commons images (imitating that geograph.org.uk project) is almost trivial for a geotool developer (not my case). Perhaps someone in the Toolserver wants.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:48 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
When we finish Wiki Loves Monuments, we can do Wiki Loves Earth, imitating this project http://www.geograph.org.uk but worldwide.
One image per km2 in the world (discarding oceans). Coverage is biased for now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geolocated_images_in_Wikimedia_Commo...
2012/11/4 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
(changing the title to give it its own thread)
I think this discussion would indeed be best on the feedback page. But I will respond to some of the points already here.
First off: I personally do not think this will be an ever lasting event. I think that a country can only organize Wiki Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I actually have the feeling next year (2013) might very well be the last year that we organize it on an international level. But I hope someone will proof me wrong!
I agree with Yaroslav that a real life organization would be a possibility. We don't need that though. Actually, I think it would be a worse situation than what we're in right now. It would cause a lot of bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one of the people who would have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations committee).
An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate heritage projects would perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly suitable for it as it also involves a lot of other things - but it is probably better than the alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far from the content side of things etc. I don't think it would be a priority of myself, but I can definitely see the added value. I do not think it could or should replace current efforts, but it should be complementary.
Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves Monuments is a GLAM project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm no fan of acronyms and especially not this one. If you would use the alternative 'cultural heritage institutions' (or if you prefer acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the definition well. However, at the same time it is quite different from all the other initiatives that are ongoing in this field by Wikimedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and not institution-facing. We're focused on participation by individuals, and while the institutions that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are critical - they are primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I usually consider it more a seperate thing from traditional cultural heritage initiatives in Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every national Wiki Loves Monuments competition has probably one or several Cultural Heritage collaborations. In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum association (prize sponsor), National heritage board (providing the lists), a monument/heritage association (networking partner, outreach and prize sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor), Open Monument Days (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other countries you will likely see similar collaborations especially in the second/third year develop.
Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great idea to have a cleanup project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself recently on some countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think it could use some help. I think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now WLM is over, what's next).
Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on Commons?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Well I wouldn't mind changing it to GLAMM - the extra M for monuments...
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to
create a
permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
Heritage
(scope to be discussed). It could be based on Commons or on Meta (to
be
discussed, both options have advantages and disadvantages). This
must be a
meta-project, because it coordinates efforts of many different
projects:
Different language Wikipedias, Commons (with which the interaction
was
sometimes not ideal), and potentially different languages in
Wikivoyage, may
be even Wikidata. Many components of this meta-project already exist
on
Commons and are supported by Maarten and other enthusiasts.
Well actually it would be a kind of repetition of GLAM / Outreach portal /wiki . I would rather suggest to better integrate WLM with GLAM inititative of which WLM is just one of many other projects. Quite successful - but not the only one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Many of these projects are about the same as WLM is - i.e. they upload many photographs and then, there is no-one to effectively use them in Wikipedias. Actually there is plenty of photographic/database content around which is not very effectively "consumed" by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The bottleneck is manpower of wiki-editors, not the number of free pictures or public domain governmental data.
So, maybe it would be interesting to have a project "Commons heritage cleanup project" which might just screen how Common's content is organized in Commons and how effectively it is used in other Wikimedia projects.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada http://LibreFind.org - The wiki search engine
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Lodewijk, Don't give up on this initiative for the long term, we definitely need a WLM2013, and I even believe in a WLM2020!! It's great to see the results coming in now for 2012 - what amazing photo's! That picture of the walls of Aquila I saw this morning has got my fingers itching to write an article about that wall.
I agree WLM doesn't fit in GLAM as GLAM is now, and the heritage organizations are mostly government sponsored groups who live, work and act completely differently than institutions in the GLAM world (the name says it all). Monuments people are field workers, they like to go outside, look at buildings and places, ask questions, and (most important of all) are not scared of meetups.
I agree that this is a much more public-facing initiative than other Wikimedia projects. The message from participants is clear - they want more! Did you watch the latest monthly Wikimedia Highlights video? You and Maarten got thanked personally, and they credit WLM for pushing the page views for September over the 19 billion mark for the first time.
I also agree with Yaroslav that it would be good to somehow organize the WLM organization in some way that we can help standardize the insertion of all this great new Commons media into Wikipedia content. How? Dunno
I am against moving from the "just one month, and that month is September". Clearly everyone benefits from having a timeline with (sub) deadlines, and the whole prize thing only works if you have a period that juries can cope with.
Jane
2012/11/4 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
(changing the title to give it its own thread)
I think this discussion would indeed be best on the feedback page. But I will respond to some of the points already here.
First off: I personally do not think this will be an ever lasting event. I think that a country can only organize Wiki Loves Monuments 3 or 4 times in a row without exhausting enthusiasm about it. I actually have the feeling next year (2013) might very well be the last year that we organize it on an international level. But I hope someone will proof me wrong!
I agree with Yaroslav that a real life organization would be a possibility. We don't need that though. Actually, I think it would be a worse situation than what we're in right now. It would cause a lot of bureaucracy (conflict of interest: I would be one of the people who would have to review the bylaws in the Affiliations committee).
An ongoing project on Commons to coordinate heritage projects would perhaps be a good idea. Commons isn't exactly suitable for it as it also involves a lot of other things - but it is probably better than the alternatives. Outreachwiki would drive us too far from the content side of things etc. I don't think it would be a priority of myself, but I can definitely see the added value. I do not think it could or should replace current efforts, but it should be complementary.
Some people suggested over time that Wiki Loves Monuments is a GLAM project. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm no fan of acronyms and especially not this one. If you would use the alternative 'cultural heritage institutions' (or if you prefer acronyms: CHI) it indeed fits the definition well. However, at the same time it is quite different from all the other initiatives that are ongoing in this field by Wikimedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments is mostly public facing and not institution-facing. We're focused on participation by individuals, and while the institutions that provide the infrastructure (the lists) are critical - they are primarily a tool to reach that goal. That is why I usually consider it more a seperate thing from traditional cultural heritage initiatives in Wikimedia - but it has many interfaces. Every national Wiki Loves Monuments competition has probably one or several Cultural Heritage collaborations. In the Netherlands we collaborate with the Museum association (prize sponsor), National heritage board (providing the lists), a monument/heritage association (networking partner, outreach and prize sponsor), the Architecture museum (prize sponsor), Open Monument Days (networking partner and outreach) etc. In other countries you will likely see similar collaborations especially in the second/third year develop.
Anyway - I definitely cheer upon Poli's great idea to have a cleanup project. I have been doing a bunch of that myself recently on some countries (India, Canada, Argentina) and I think it could use some help. I think Maarten sent recently an email about it (now WLM is over, what's next).
Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on Commons?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/4 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
Well I wouldn't mind changing it to GLAMM - the extra M for monuments...
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to create a permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
Heritage
(scope to be discussed). It could be based on Commons or on Meta (to be discussed, both options have advantages and disadvantages). This must
be a
meta-project, because it coordinates efforts of many different
projects:
Different language Wikipedias, Commons (with which the interaction was sometimes not ideal), and potentially different languages in
Wikivoyage, may
be even Wikidata. Many components of this meta-project already exist on Commons and are supported by Maarten and other enthusiasts.
Well actually it would be a kind of repetition of GLAM / Outreach portal /wiki . I would rather suggest to better integrate WLM with GLAM inititative of which WLM is just one of many other projects. Quite successful - but not the only one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Many of these projects are about the same as WLM is - i.e. they upload many photographs and then, there is no-one to effectively use them in Wikipedias. Actually there is plenty of photographic/database content around which is not very effectively "consumed" by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The bottleneck is manpower of wiki-editors, not the number of free pictures or public domain governmental data.
So, maybe it would be interesting to have a project "Commons heritage cleanup project" which might just screen how Common's content is organized in Commons and how effectively it is used in other Wikimedia projects.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 04.11.2012 15:39, Jane Darnell wrote:
I agree WLM doesn't fit in GLAM as GLAM is now, and the heritage organizations are mostly government sponsored groups who live, work and act completely differently than institutions in the GLAM world (the name says it all). Monuments people are field workers, they like to go outside, look at buildings and places, ask questions, and (most important of all) are not scared of meetups.
WLM doesn't fit in GLAM because WLM is a well defined format with specific objectives and the organization is easy because people can take 12 or 6 or 3 months to organize it because the format is basically the same.
WLM is a good example to organize an event coordinating several organizations because the formula is clear.
GLAM at the moment is a "quid" that may change every time and in every context. For this reason it seems that GLAM can include WLM.
If I may just provide input, at the height of Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines, we received a phone call from Natural Wonders Foundation (Philippines) about a proposal that they would like to launch a similar project like Wiki Loves Monuments, in this case featuring the natural beauty of the country. I informed them that we are very interested about it, we may just need to discuss it after WLM international has completely wrapped-up, by then we would have finished our documentation. Though in the hindsight we are looking at Cultural mapping activities, because unlike most countries, heritage is often neglected in our country, so we better start going around photographing and documenting it.
Roel WLMPH
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On 04.11.2012 15:39, Jane Darnell wrote:
I agree WLM doesn't fit in GLAM as GLAM is now, and the heritage organizations are mostly government sponsored groups who live, work and act completely differently than institutions in the GLAM world (the name says it all). Monuments people are field workers, they like to go outside, look at buildings and places, ask questions, and (most important of all) are not scared of meetups.
WLM doesn't fit in GLAM because WLM is a well defined format with specific objectives and the organization is easy because people can take 12 or 6 or 3 months to organize it because the format is basically the same.
WLM is a good example to organize an event coordinating several organizations because the formula is clear.
GLAM at the moment is a "quid" that may change every time and in every context. For this reason it seems that GLAM can include WLM.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.**wikimedia.orgWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**org http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
The sustainability of the project in the long term really depends on the country, what's been done so far, and other factors.
I can see why in the Netherlands you might feel that you almost exhausted the options, but this is not the case for other countries, because: 1) Many countries didn't participate this year, including quite a few with active communities and/or chapters, including: Australia, Bangladesh, Finland, Hong Kong and Macau, Hungary, Indonesia, Portugal, Taiwan, UK and Venezuela. 2) For many countries the whole issue of monuments is new, maybe because the government doesn't pay too much attention to it and there are no well-defined lists, maybe because there is no awareness in the public, etc. Examples include Israel and Ghana (correct me if I'm wrong). 3) Many countries simply can't realize their potential because of lack of volunteering organizers, or geographic size, or other reasons. The biggest example in the United States where at the current pace the competition can be held for hundreds more years (this is a compliment btw, not criticism). On the flip side, countries not facing this problem, e.g. Germany and Netherlands, can probably identify many monuments in their tens-of-thousands-long-lists that are underrepresented, and put more effort into getting people to photograph those, e.g. by organizing free trips to underrepresented cities, etc. 4) We really have to look at how many of the pictures we get are actually good (usually a very small percentage, for example in Israel 219 pictures out of over 6,000 passed the screening process) and do two things with that, which can extend the life of the competition for a long time to come: we can encourage the photographers who submitted the best pictures to participate, for example by giving them better equipment (for chapters that have access to it, or through partnerships with photography schools, etc.) on the condition that they submit photos. On the flip side, consider monuments that have many pictures but no good ones as underrepresented and steer participants to those monuments.
Having said all of the above however, the question we should ask is whether there is no better of the extraordinary effort requires by all of our volunteers to organize this competition. I'm sure that for some countries the answer is yes, there are better ways to spend this time. However, the answer is rarely clear-cut and each country needs to consider all the options.
—Ynhockey.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Roel Balingit < roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph> wrote:
If I may just provide input, at the height of Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines, we received a phone call from Natural Wonders Foundation (Philippines) about a proposal that they would like to launch a similar project like Wiki Loves Monuments, in this case featuring the natural beauty of the country. I informed them that we are very interested about it, we may just need to discuss it after WLM international has completely wrapped-up, by then we would have finished our documentation. Though in the hindsight we are looking at Cultural mapping activities, because unlike most countries, heritage is often neglected in our country, so we better start going around photographing and documenting it.
Roel WLMPH
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.comwrote:
On 04.11.2012 15:39, Jane Darnell wrote:
I agree WLM doesn't fit in GLAM as GLAM is now, and the heritage organizations are mostly government sponsored groups who live, work and act completely differently than institutions in the GLAM world (the name says it all). Monuments people are field workers, they like to go outside, look at buildings and places, ask questions, and (most important of all) are not scared of meetups.
WLM doesn't fit in GLAM because WLM is a well defined format with specific objectives and the organization is easy because people can take 12 or 6 or 3 months to organize it because the format is basically the same.
WLM is a good example to organize an event coordinating several organizations because the formula is clear.
GLAM at the moment is a "quid" that may change every time and in every context. For this reason it seems that GLAM can include WLM.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.**wikimedia.orgWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**org http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
--
*ROEL BALINGIT* *Treasurer* *______________________________________________________________* *WIKIMEDIA PHILIPPINES* *G/F Gervacia Center, 152 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City* *T: +63-2-8123277 | F: +63-2-8127177 | M: +63-917-8807635 * *W: **www.wikimedia.org.ph | E: roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph*
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I hope this is not off topic, but I would like to state that, no matter what, Italy is going to organize WLM 2013 (and hopefully in 2014 and more). Our perceptions is that the competition was very felt at national level and little at the international level (eg. the sponsors and institutions were pretty interested in the national aspect of the thing), but the experience and help from the international committee and group has proven unvaluable (for tools, competences, expertise, kindness, enthusiasm). of course our situation is kinda unique (a *lot* of monuments and cultural heritage to document, bad laws and a lot of work to do for advocacy and raising awareness). this is not to say that we are indifferent of the international aspect of the thing, but rather to underline that our goal now is to make WLM long term at a national level. The project was a *huge* success (hopefully, more detailed mail coming soon) and we had great feeback, chapter-wise.
Take all this as a thank you.
Aubrey
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Ynhockey ynhockey@gmail.com wrote:
The sustainability of the project in the long term really depends on the country, what's been done so far, and other factors.
I can see why in the Netherlands you might feel that you almost exhausted the options, but this is not the case for other countries, because:
- Many countries didn't participate this year, including quite a few with
active communities and/or chapters, including: Australia, Bangladesh, Finland, Hong Kong and Macau, Hungary, Indonesia, Portugal, Taiwan, UK and Venezuela. 2) For many countries the whole issue of monuments is new, maybe because the government doesn't pay too much attention to it and there are no well-defined lists, maybe because there is no awareness in the public, etc. Examples include Israel and Ghana (correct me if I'm wrong). 3) Many countries simply can't realize their potential because of lack of volunteering organizers, or geographic size, or other reasons. The biggest example in the United States where at the current pace the competition can be held for hundreds more years (this is a compliment btw, not criticism). On the flip side, countries not facing this problem, e.g. Germany and Netherlands, can probably identify many monuments in their tens-of-thousands-long-lists that are underrepresented, and put more effort into getting people to photograph those, e.g. by organizing free trips to underrepresented cities, etc. 4) We really have to look at how many of the pictures we get are actually good (usually a very small percentage, for example in Israel 219 pictures out of over 6,000 passed the screening process) and do two things with that, which can extend the life of the competition for a long time to come: we can encourage the photographers who submitted the best pictures to participate, for example by giving them better equipment (for chapters that have access to it, or through partnerships with photography schools, etc.) on the condition that they submit photos. On the flip side, consider monuments that have many pictures but no good ones as underrepresented and steer participants to those monuments.
Having said all of the above however, the question we should ask is whether there is no better of the extraordinary effort requires by all of our volunteers to organize this competition. I'm sure that for some countries the answer is yes, there are better ways to spend this time. However, the answer is rarely clear-cut and each country needs to consider all the options.
—Ynhockey.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Roel Balingit < roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph> wrote:
If I may just provide input, at the height of Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines, we received a phone call from Natural Wonders Foundation (Philippines) about a proposal that they would like to launch a similar project like Wiki Loves Monuments, in this case featuring the natural beauty of the country. I informed them that we are very interested about it, we may just need to discuss it after WLM international has completely wrapped-up, by then we would have finished our documentation. Though in the hindsight we are looking at Cultural mapping activities, because unlike most countries, heritage is often neglected in our country, so we better start going around photographing and documenting it.
Roel WLMPH
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.comwrote:
On 04.11.2012 15:39, Jane Darnell wrote:
I agree WLM doesn't fit in GLAM as GLAM is now, and the heritage organizations are mostly government sponsored groups who live, work and act completely differently than institutions in the GLAM world (the name says it all). Monuments people are field workers, they like to go outside, look at buildings and places, ask questions, and (most important of all) are not scared of meetups.
WLM doesn't fit in GLAM because WLM is a well defined format with specific objectives and the organization is easy because people can take 12 or 6 or 3 months to organize it because the format is basically the same.
WLM is a good example to organize an event coordinating several organizations because the formula is clear.
GLAM at the moment is a "quid" that may change every time and in every context. For this reason it seems that GLAM can include WLM.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.**wikimedia.orgWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**org http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
--
*ROEL BALINGIT* *Treasurer* *______________________________________________________________* *WIKIMEDIA PHILIPPINES* *G/F Gervacia Center, 152 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City* *T: +63-2-8123277 | F: +63-2-8127177 | M: +63-917-8807635 * *W: **www.wikimedia.org.ph | E: roel.balingit@wikimedia.org.ph*
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:14:15AM +0200, Ynhockey wrote:
Having said all of the above however, the question we should ask is whether there is no better of the extraordinary effort requires by all of our volunteers to organize this competition. I'm sure that for some countries the answer is yes, there are better ways to spend this time. However, the answer is rarely clear-cut and each country needs to consider all the options.
Just a quick reply on this remark, I think you can say that the Netherlands will become a bit more exhausted regarding WLM, however as being 'the country that started it all', I think we should keep participating if only to implicitely support the other countries by having a lot of countries participate. Although indeed most organisations will be focussed national, being part of something big worldwide will certainly help there.
And if you have the lists already, the organisation is much easier.
Regards,
Andre
Long term, let's "do nothing" and see what happens. I mean to say that we should just let WLM grow and morph organically in a natural way. We have a successful formula today in the Netherlands, that's for sure. The decrease in entries for 2012 over 2011 only shows how extraordinary the amount was in 2011 and the effort last year was bigger than this year. But we sure got lots of gorgeous photo's again in 2012, so why stop ever?
I think an important long term contribution from WLM should be it's formula for successful non-controversial Wikipedia-Government relations. Look at the Gibraltor hype - because there is no clear-cut "unique-id list" we are seeing a lot of negative publicity about "product placement". One could possibly claim that some fancy restaurant somewhere claims "product placement" by placing detailed photo's of their protected restaurant in a castle, old monastery, or whatever. Personally, I think it's a good thing. You force the product-placers into a strict Wikipedia-formula and a win-win situation occurs, i.e. they are on Wikipedia, and we get the illustration for historic articles on people and places.
According to recent internal squabbling on the English Wikipedia, the Did-You-Know? part of the homepage today (right now) features a Gibraltor product placement. I read the article and thought it was very interesting, and the pictures and subject are all cultural heritage.
WLM has managed to avoid such controversy, because of the unique identifiers, and I think this process, as a formula, is what WLM needs to properly document going forward.
In the Netherlands, municipal monuments have just been added, so next year should be interesting! Perhaps in future, outdoor art could be added (if there's a valid list anywhere). Such outdoor art could only be photographed in countries with full FOP rights however... Jane
2012/11/7 Andre Koopal andre@molens.org
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:14:15AM +0200, Ynhockey wrote:
Having said all of the above however, the question we should ask is
whether
there is no better of the extraordinary effort requires by all of our volunteers to organize this competition. I'm sure that for some countries the answer is yes, there are better ways to spend this time. However, the answer is rarely clear-cut and each country needs to consider all the options.
Just a quick reply on this remark, I think you can say that the Netherlands will become a bit more exhausted regarding WLM, however as being 'the country that started it all', I think we should keep participating if only to implicitely support the other countries by having a lot of countries participate. Although indeed most organisations will be focussed national, being part of something big worldwide will certainly help there.
And if you have the lists already, the organisation is much easier.
Regards,
Andre
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org