Talk:Wikimedia GLAM User Group

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to our discussion page!

Please feel free to ask questions, share ideas and add topics to be discussed after the group forms.

Future topics to work on[edit]

  • Deciding on a name
  • Membership
  • Governance
  • Tool development
  • Curation
  • Supporting newcomers

GLAM, LAM, Wiki and other issues[edit]

Good to see the enthusiasm in this group forming. Some things to consider:

  1. The term GLAM is not necessarily universal, as many organizations/sectors use LAM, seeing "galleries" as redundant to museums.
  2. In the experience of the GLAM Wiki US Consortium (a user group that has been active in the past but has been dormant recently), we found the GLAM Wiki label was sometimes cumbersome when explaining to others or used in marketing materials. It's not a dealbreaker, but it is something to think about. The Facebook group name "Wikidata + GLAM" actually might be something to emulate, so that a title like "GLAM + Wiki User Group" might work.
  3. We might want to have a "See also" section here to point to existing efforts that are like-minded. I'm thinking the GLAM newsletter and the recent GLAM conferences.

Thanks for starting this. -- Fuzheado (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another usergroup[edit]

I'm looking forward to the results of this User Group proposal and I wish you the best but, as I mentioned back in Berlin, I don't see it as something needed right now. I said the same regarding the eduwiki proposal. As some of you may know, I'm very interested in the evolution of glamwiki initiatives since 2010 and I'm particularly interested in making GLAM programmes grow. I also believe that spaces where glamwiki community meet, talk and debate are needed and welcomed, but I don't personally see that creating a new governing infrastructure or usergroup may be the best option to boost the ongoing and future programs. I know that this is a personal approach. I won't vote against its creation but I wanted to document my scepticism about it. That said, if the proposal move forward and projects come out of it, I'd be happy to collaborate. I'm more likely to invest resources in programmes and projects than in yet another infrastructure. Best--Kippelboy (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Though I think I understand your concern, I look at it from the opposite direction, which is "why not take the success that chapters have had with GLAM initiatives and promote and amplify them to a wider audience?". So I am all for more GLAM in all shapes and forms, including but not limited to this one. I am mostly for building a common place where experiments can be shared, global tool needs documented, and cross-project collaboration can flourish (Wiki Commons, Wikidata, Wikipedia, Wikisource, in alphabetical order). Jane023 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger with OpenGLAM @ Open Knowlege International?[edit]

I would consider merging this new GLAM User Group with the OpenGLAM Working Group / Initiative at Open Knowledge International.

As to the values, the ones at Wikimedia and at Open Knowledge are pretty much the same – at least as far as GLAM is concerned; I'm not so much involved in the other areas.

"OpenGLAM" is a bit wider in scope than "GLAM-Wiki", as it is not primarily focused on the projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, but on the idea of open heritage data and free knowledge more generally. In my opinion, this would be a plus, as it opens up some space for new areas of reflection and activities that could also trigger new developments within the Wiki community. Furthermore, it may reduce the risk that the new user group is just occupying the local chapters' space. And last but not least, we wouldn't just create yet another user group, but use this as an occasion to consolidate existing structures and to strengthen our ties with like-minded people and organizations.

--Beat Estermann (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry just seeing this now. I admit I have no clue what that is, so I will read up on it, but if it's true that our values are the same, then it sounds like an interesting idea. As someone who likes to test the edges of the GLAM-notability divide that exists on Wiki projects, I feel with you that working with an outside community could possibly "trigger new developments" and I am all for that. I really disagree that this group could ever occupy local chapters' space though. We need a "go-to" spot to help people find those chapter spaces. With all due respect, "Wikipedia" is still pretty much unknown or worse, misunderstood, by non-English communities. The poor chapters are not even allowed to use the Wikipedia logo. I really don't understand why chapters wouldn't welcome such an initiative to help them publicize their (in my opinion) valuable programs and collaboration opportunities. Jane023 (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The common denominator and main reference of the OpenGLAM Community are the five OpenGLAM Principles. --Beat Estermann (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)