[Wiki Loves Monuments] Long term
jane023 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 4 14:39:26 UTC 2012
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
2012/11/4 Lodewijk <lodewijk at 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
> Yaroslav, Polimerek: would you like to volunteer to set up such portal on
> 2012/11/4 Jane Darnell <jane023 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2012/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru>:
>> >> Another option, which I personally find more attractive, is to create a
>> >> permanently functioning meta-project, smth like Project Cultural
>> >> (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
>> >> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>> > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WikiLovesMonuments