GLAM-on-Tour/2018/MAMCO/Feedback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
    Program   Participants   MAMCO   costs   Accomodation   Tools   Ideas   Feedback
GLAM on Tour June 22d – 24th 2018



Results[edit]

New Articles[edit]

  1. de:Musée d’art moderne et contemporain (Genf) (MAMCO; started before the event & updated during the event)
  2. de:Adelina von Fürstenberg
  3. fr:Françoise Ninghetto
  4. fr:Société genevoise d'instruments physiques
  5. it:Utente:Alexmar983/Ulla von Brandenburg (I will publish it after other tasks)
  6. it:Sylvie Fleury
  7. it:Natacha Lesueur
  8. it:Mai-Thu Perret
  9. it:Marcia Hafif
  10. fr:Église anglaise de Genève (I will update it)
  11. de:Bâtiment d’art contemporain
  12. de:Société genevoise d’instruments de physique (SIP) (I will update it)
  13. de:Holy Trinity Church (Genf) (with new photo)
  14. de:Lionel Bovier
  15. de:Bains des Pâquis
  16. en:Holy Trinity Church, Geneva
  17. de:Catherine Queloz (with photo)
  18. de:Le Magasin
  19. de:Phare des Pâquis (with new photo)

Other results[edit]

New Photos[edit]

  • New Photos & categories for:
    • Françoise Ninghetto
    • Lionel Bovier
commons:category:Mokè
commons:category:J. D. 'Okhai Ojeikere
commons:Category:Kane Kwei Carpentry Workshop
commons:Category:Cheik Ledy

Discussions[edit]

I'm not happy with this first choice for a GLAM-on-Tour location in Romandie. A contemporary art museum is difficult for two reasons: the objects are not old enough to be in the Public Domain and are generally rather hard to describe for the average person. An archaeological site in Romandie (f.ex. Roman museums in Lausanne, Martigny, or Avenches) or the Chillon Castle for instance would have been better options. --Pakeha (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that with "contemporary art museum" is general a Problem. This type of art are generally to be subject to restrictions of the copyright act, it is never enough old to be in the public domain. A contemporary art museum can typically don't give a CC-by-sa Licences. But the other bigger Problem with Art from living people are; "have you enough science-based literature?". Have the Museum a library with more than exhibition catalogue's? It is a science-based research library with enough secondary literature? Elsewise whe get into trouble with en:Wikipedia:No original research.
I see two big Problems, why are this GLAM are not a good idea.
1. No Photo's from the exposition and work of art (not a result an Commons).
2. Problems to writhing Artikel's, since we have not enough literature and so we became into trouble with "No original research" (not a lot of new ore upgraded articles).
Have we with this two problems a good profit and loss statement from Wikimedia? --Bobo11 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Yes, a modern art museum is not the best choice for contributions to Wikimedia Commons. Nevertheless, the MAMCO has a very rich library that is not available to the general public, and they will select from it and give us access to interesting books about the contemporary artists they exhibit or have exhibited. This should leave Wikipedians many options to contribute to writing or improving articles. My main regret is that their books are mainly in French, and a few in English, so only participants who can read that language will benefit from the stay, nevertheless, they will be able to edit Wikipedia in any language they prefer.
--Flor WMCH (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC
I am very happy with the choice of this museum, because concerning the gender gap for instance, the museum has a rich collection of past women artists exhibition. They have made to effort to prepare documentation by subject, and have not forgotten women. This is a very positive action that I have not seen i other GLAM events so far: we had to design our own working list on women, and this was time consuming. Also it is a nice change to be able to write on contempoary art. Nattes à chat (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]