Grants talk:PEG/SarahStierch, HstryQT, Peteforsyth - GLAM-WIKI US/GLAMcamp DC/Report

Excellent report.

• Would you mind providing me with a quick breakdown of the results of your project against the measures of success you outlined in your original proposal: Grants:GLAM-WIKI_US/GLAMcamp_DC#Measures_of_success. I know most of this information is included in your report, but it would be nice to see a direct summary how your report lines up with these measures. For example, did you ever create the list of potential partners you mentioned, or obtain the partnership letters from 2 GLAMs, or improve the case studies on the landing page you mentioned?
• Good insights into organization / problems with the venue. These are good lessons, and a lot of very sophisticated organizations encounter the same types of problems when organizing events like this.
• Also, you state in your report that "Relationships with the GLAMs that participated directly in the event were deepened". Would it be possible for you to elaborate a bit more specifically here? About how many GLAMs do you think participated / were affected and how specifically were the relationships deepened? What sort of follow up is being planned? Is there anything else about this you can share?

Thank you for the report, and I look forward to your responses and to receiving your documentation of expenditures.

Wolliff (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the significant delay. Pete will be responding to the first point, and I'll respond here to the second.

While the GLAMcamp was specifically targeting an inward-focused group of Wikipedians to jump-start the GLAM volunteer effort in the US, a number of representatives from cultural institutions took part, and relationships with these institutions were in fact deepened. This includes...

• The Library of Congress: Jefferson Bailey of the LOC attended for the duration of the event and was a significant contributor to our discussions and our deliverables. He is now a strong advocate for GLAM-Wiki within the Library of Congress and was instrumental in coordinating a GLAM-Wiki-focused post on the Library of Congress blog. LOC is now carrying out repeating lunch meetings for those interested in Wikipedia among staff.
• The Walters Museum of Art: Dylan Kinnett came from Baltimore to attend GLAMcamp, with the specific goal of establishing a workflow for a mass image donation alongside Ryan Kaldari. Together they worked on documentation that will be used for future GLAM image donations and will be important in the development of the GLAM-Wiki Toolset Project being carried out by Europeana.
• Chemical Heritage Foundation: Preston Stone of the Chemical Heritage Foundation came from Philadelphia to attend the event. He was particularly interested in connecting more with Dominic to understand the role of WikiSource in sharing and transcribing digitized resources.
• Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities: Grant Dickie of MITH attended and began the process of creating a Wikipedia citation plug in tool. This was an important first step in networking with this organization, who will likely be part of the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium.
• Creative Commons: While Creative Commons has always been an ally within the Wikimedia and GLAM-Wiki initiatives, having Jane Park as a Creative Commons representative at GLAMcamp went far in deepening this relationship. Jane is interested in connecting GLAM with the School of Open and has invited representatives of GLAM-Wiki to their forthcoming workshop in late 2012. The School of Open was also one of the first to sign up as an affiliate organization within the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium.
• US National Archives: The National Archives served as our hosts and were proud to be a part of the event. The Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, mentioned as much in his closing plenary at Wikimania 2012 in DC.

While this seems merely a handful of organizations, they are all important in furthering the goals of the GLAM-Wiki community in the US. With GLAMcamp typically being an inwardly-focused event, these outreach-focused results are outstanding. Each instance also further illustrates the growth of the GLAM movement in reaching a point where cultural professionals are becoming more actively engaged within the community. This is an important step in the success of the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium.

Thank you for your patience in this reply. And I'll look for Pete to respond to your first question very soon. HstryQT (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to measures of success

Below are the measures of success as originally set out in the grant proposal. We invited GLAMcamp DC participants to take a strong role in setting their own goals, based on these; so in some cases, the outcomes predicted were not produced, but in other cases, high quality products emerged that we did not anticipate. The latter are listed below the original list.

• The creation/improvement of 7 model projects:

• Undertaking an image donation

The Walters Art Museum adopted a free license immediately prior to GLAMcamp DC, and completed an upload of 19,000 images on March 26, 2012. A system for reporting errors was implemented. This all was accomplished through the efforts of six GLAMcamp DC participants. The process was documented at commons:Commons:Walters Art Museum for details, in a press release, and on the Wikimedia blog. Also, see this section of the present report.

• Improving the quality of OCR

This project was not undertaken (to the best of my knowledge).

• Improving and using Wikipedia articles for an exhibition

This project was not undertaken (to the best of my knowledge).

• Engaging a different language or cultural community

This project was not undertaken (to the best of my knowledge).

• Creating a Wikipedian in residence program

This project was not undertaken (to the best of my knowledge).

• Running Edit-a-thons

This project was not undertaken (to the best of my knowledge).

• Updating your institution's article

This project was not undertaken (to the best of my knowledge).

• Improvement of the case studies landing page and further expansion and improvement of 4 case studies and the creation of 1 new study.

In communication with all involved parties, we determined that building GLAM/US Portal on English Wikipedia was a higher priority. This portal, its five case studies, and its four sub-pages were built during GLAMcamp DC, and refined and improved by participants after the fact.

• Two new recommendation letters from GLAMs about partnerships for success stories to be scanned and uploaded onto outreach.

This was not completed. Based on the strong engagement of the institutions Lori mentioned above, it should be straightforward to solicit these letters now if desired.

• Improvement and expansion of the success stories landing page.

See above.

• Create a "potential partners" list developed by outreach Wikimedians, featuring 10 outreach opportunities for the US.

This was addressed by the creation of the GLAM Connect page on English Wikipedia, breaking out outreach efforts by state, and soliciting contacts at state WikiProjects. The list has grown since GLAMcamp DC. As of this writing, 10 states are listed with a contact, and 25 volunteers (mostly, but not entirely, GLAMcamp DC participants) are listed.

• Clean up and improvement of the GLAM tools and request page.

This was not accomplished.

• The completion and implementation of the mass uploader.

We determined that documenting upload processes was a higher priority; see these notes.

• Report of event for This Month In GLAM.

See here: outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/February 2012/Contents/USA report

-Pete F (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional outcomes

Please see the main report for the following additional outcomes:

• Wikipedia citation tool
• GLAM Bookshelf
• GLAM one-pager
• Strong sense of shared purpose among participants in carrying this work forward

-Pete F (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Marking as "Incomplete"

We are marking this grant report as Incomplete, as the grantee still has not responded to request for more information on 3 April 2012.

Grant reports may be marked incomplete when a grantee does not provide information requested by WMF for 30 days or more. Once the grantee provides WMF with the requested information, the grant may be marked Under Review or Accepted.

Wolliff (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am moving this back to Under Review now. Thanks for the responses! Wolliff (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Report accepted

Thank you for responding to our comments and for submitting a quality report: this grant report is accepted. Wolliff (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Winifred! -Pete F (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)