Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
[NOTES] Open Authority: A New Way to Talk to GLAMs | Wikimania 2014 | London
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

[NOTES] Open Authority: A New Way to Talk to GLAMs | Wikimania 2014 | London

  • 424 views
Published

NOTES for a presentation given at Wikimania 2014 in London, sharing the genesis of Open Authority to Wikipedians in an effort to provide more confidence in speaking the language of the cultural …

NOTES for a presentation given at Wikimania 2014 in London, sharing the genesis of Open Authority to Wikipedians in an effort to provide more confidence in speaking the language of the cultural sector. This talk detail the theoretical background behind Open Authority, as well as the spectrum of Open Authority, and elements that make up an Open Authority project.

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
424
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Open  Authority:  A  New  Way  to  Talk  to  GLAMs   Saturday,  August  9,  2014               Hello.  I’m  Lori  Byrd  Phillips.  And  today  I’m  going  to  share  a  new,  or  more   nuanced,  way  for  you  to  talk  to  museum  professionals  as  you  pursue   Wikipedia  partnerships.  I’m  hoping  that  my  research  into  open   authority  can  be  a  useful  tool  for  you  to  more  confidently  speak  the   language  of  GLAMs.     Feel  free  to  tweet  me  @LoriLeeByrd.     Many  of  you  probably  know  me  as  the  former  US  GLAM  Coordinator  for   the  Wikimedia  Foundation,  and  a  founder  of  the  GLAM-­‐Wiki  U.S.   Consortium.  I  now  work  full  time  as  the  Digital  Marketing  Coordinator  at   The  Children’s  Museum  of  Indianapolis,  the  largest  children’s  museum   in  the  world.  The  Children’s  Museum  is  also  where  I  served  as  the   second-­‐ever  Wikipedian  in  Residence  from  2010-­‐2012.   That  said,  I’ll  be  talking  a  lot  about  museums,  specifically.  But  that   doesn’t  mean  that  these  things  don’t  also  apply  to  libraries  and   archives.  There  may  be  some  subtle  differences,  and  I  can  help  point   you  in  the  direction  of  those  who  can  chat  with  you  more  about  the   other  parts  of  “GLAM.”  They’re  all  around  you!             A  few  years  ago,  there  was  a  buzz  in  the  air  over  user-­‐generated   content  and  what  this  means  for  museums.       And,  on  the  user  side,  it  was  really  excited  buzz,  but  on  the  traditional   museumist  side  there  was  much  more  resistance.       At  that  time,  museums  were  terrified  of  the  idea  of  “the  crowd”,  fearing   that  curatorial  authority  would  be  sacrificed  in  the  name  of   crowdsourced  content.   Now,  slowly  but  surely,  museums  are  beginning  to  embrace  the  crowd,   with  Wikipedia  projects  being  one  of  the  best  examples.       But  there  are  still  fears  about  what  it  all  means  for  museum  authority.   So  I  became  interested  in  figuring  out:     How  can  museums  best  integrate  visitor  contributions  and  still  maintain   their  authority  and  established  reputations  as  experts?   Wikimania'2014'|'London' Open%Authority% A new way to talk to GLAMs Lori'Byrd'Phillips'|'@LoriLeeByrd' The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis ccby-sa3.0,TheChildren’sMuseumofIndianapolis ccby-sa3.0,SarahStierch
  • 2.           I’m  going  to  describe  two  established  metaphors  that  led  me  to  my   answer.       First,  a  metaphor  from  the  museum  world.  In  my  museum  studies   graduate  program,  the  1971  article,  “The  Museum:  A  Temple  or  the   Forum”  was  pounded  into  our  heads  so  much  that  it  essentially  became   its  own  meme.   (This  was  actually  our  class  t-­‐shirt.)     But  this  graphic  is  kind  of  misleading,  because  the  author  wasn’t  saying   that  museums  shouldn’t  be  temples.  It  was  that  museums  should  be   both  revered  temples  AND  forums  for  dialogue.  The  two  should  be   related  but  distinct.       This  was  an  important  moment  in  museum  theory,  because  it  expanded   on  the  idea  of  the  museum  as  a  keeper  of  objects,  to  also  become  a   place  where  a  community,  the  “crowd,”  could  come  and  share  their   ideas.       And  remember,  this  was  1971!  I’ve  learned  that  museums  aren’t  slow  to   come  UP  with  the  big  ideas,  but  they  can  sometimes  be  slow  to   implement  them.         My  work  with  Wikipedia  had  already  inspired  me  to  think  about  where   museums  fit  into  the  world  of  open,  collaborative  communities.  And   this  led  to  the  other  half  of  my  answer.       It  didn’t  take  me  long  to  discover  that  the  open-­‐source  movement  had   its  OWN  temple  and  forum  metaphor,  which  some  of  you  may  have   heard  of-­‐-­‐  it’s  called  the  Cathedral  and  the  Bazaar.       I  really  was  shocked  by  how  closely  these  metaphors  fit  together,  at  first   glance.  And  I  was  glad  when  these  lessons  from  the  cathedral  and  the   bazaar  really  could  be  applied  to  the  temple  and  forum.     Eric  Raymond  wrote  The  Cathedral  and  the  Bazaar  in  1997-­‐  &  it   compares  the  Cathedral  -­‐  which  is  top-­‐down  software  development  (like   Microsoft),  with  the  Bazaar  (Linux),  where  everyone  is  free  to  adapt  and   improve  open  source  software.   and ccby-sa2.0Hades2K Microsoft Linux
  • 3.       As  Wikipedians,  you  may  already  know  Raymond’s  most  important   point-­‐  “given  enough  eyeballs,  all  bugs  are  shallow.”  Or,  The  more   people  you  have  looking  at  a  problem,  the  more  quickly  you’ll  find  a   solution.   While  this  may  seem  obvious  to  you  all,  this  is  still  something  that   museum  professionals  need  to  better  understand.             Raymond’s  ideas  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  museums  should  go  one   step  beyond  the  idea  of  the  forum,  and  embrace  the  collaborative   bazaar,  instead.     So  that  means  that  museums  can  be  temples  and  bazaars!     But  since  it  takes  a  lot  for  me  to  explain  what  I  mean  by  “temple  and   bazaar,”  all  the  time,  this  phrase  evolved  to  become  “Open  Authority.”     I  define  Open  Authority  as:     The  coming  together  of  museum  expertise  with  community   contributions,  both  online  and  on-­‐site.         “Authority”  is  still  important  in  all  this,  because  museums  should  still   maintain  that  level  of  respect  as  a  “temple,”  but  in  a  way  that  makes   sense  for  the  world  we  now  find  ourselves  in.     Rob  Stein,  a  leading  museum  technologist  and  enthusiast  for  open   content,  recently  described  the  state  of  authority  in  museums,  pointing   out  that  museums  should  remain  authoritative  in  their  expertise,  but   avoid  being  authoritarian.       They  should  move  away  from  being  an  omniscient  voice  or  final  “truth.”   Instead,  museum  professionals  should  be  at  the  center  of  an  open   discussion  with  the  public.  Again,  authoritative,  not  authoritarian.       In  reality,  the  increase  in  user-­‐generated  content  has  made  the  role  of   the  museum’s  authority  even  more  important.     There’s  so  MUCH  information  out  there,  that  someone  needs  to  sift   through  it  all,  and  also  take  part  in  the  conversation.       Maintaining  authority  and  being  open  do  not  have  to  be  mutually   exclusive.  It’s  not  all  or  nothing.  It’s  not  that  the  museum  is  necessarily   always  right,  or  that  the  crowd  is  always  right.  It’s  that  we  can  make  it   even  better,  together.  This  is  open  authority.     GIVEN ENOUGH EYEBALLS, ALL BUGS ARE SHALLOW. Linus Law — Eric S. Raymond Museum Community & contributions expertise Temple & Bazaar Open Authority !! !! Authoritarian Authoritative ccby-sa3.0,AndrewDunn
  • 4.       Open  Authority  is  another  way  of  talking  about  a  broader  paradigm  shift   in  the  cultural  field,  which  GLAM  professionals  are  already  grappling   with.  By  putting  a  name  to  it,  they  can  become  more  comfortable  with   the  idea,  and  be  more  prepared  to  consider  how  their  work  fits  into  this   new  community-­‐focused  trend.     Partnerships  with  Wikipedia  are  just  one  way  that  museums  are   opening  up  to  their  communities.  But  there  are  many  other  ways  that   museums  can  embrace  Wikipedia.  To  better  illustrate  the  types  of   projects  that  encompass  “open  authority,”  I  came  up  with  a  spectrum.           The  spectrum  of  Open  Authority  begins  with  more  conservative   approaches  (often  what  museums  are  doing  now)  and  leads  to  more   progressive  approaches.     More  conservative  projects  are...Contributory,  where  the  public   contributes  data  to  a  project  designed  by  the  organization.     The  spectrum  then  moves  on  to...  Collaborative,  where  the  public  helps   refine  project  design,  with  the  project  still  led  by  an  organization.     At  the  far  end  of  the  spectrum  is...Co-­‐Creative,  where  the  public  can   take  part  in  all  processes,  and  all  parties  design  the  project  together.     Generally  the  spectrum  is  moving  from  having  less  dialogue  between   the  museum  and  the  community,  to  having  more  dialogue  and   interaction.         Contributory  projects  are  often  what  we  consider  crowdsourcing.     Crowdsourcing  involves  asks  directed  toward  a  shared  goal  that  cannot   be  done  automatically,  and  they  usually  have  inherent  rewards  for   participation.   This  can  include  projects  that  require  Voting,  Tagging,  Identifying   objects,  Transcribing  documents.     Community  Sourcing  is  a  more  nuanced,  collaborative  approach  to   crowdsourcing,  and  involves  bigger  asks  made  of  a  more  committed,   loyal  community     Community  sourcing  can  include  Memory  Sharing,  Community  Blogging,   Idea  Generation  and  Dialogue,  or  Sharing  Media     ccby-sa3.0JamesAlexander Open Authority !" Contributory Collaborative Co-Creative Tagging Voting Identifying Transcribing Community Sourcing Participatory Interpretation Crowdsourcing Memory Sharing Community Blogging Idea Generation / Dialogue Sharing Media Reggio Emilia A Spectrum of Open Authority Open Authority !" Contributory Collaborative Co-Creative Tagging Voting Identifying Transcribing Community Sourcing Participatory Interpretation Crowdsourcing Memory Sharing Community Blogging Idea Generation / Dialogue Sharing Media Reggio Emilia A Spectrum of Open Authority
  • 5. And  at  the  end  of  the  spectrum  is  true  participatory  interpretation,  or   co-­‐creation.   The  Reggio  Emilia  educational  approach  is  the  best  model  of  co-­‐creation   in  museums,  but  I  won’t  have  time  to  talk  about  that  today.  There  will   be  plenty  of  time  later  for  that,  if  you  come  find  me.         So  where  on  the  spectrum  are  GLAM  partnerships?  GLAM-­‐Wiki  projects   are  clearly  an  example  of  open  authority,  and  not  just  online,  but  offline   too.  Because,  whether  it’s  on  a  GLAM  WikiProject  page,  or  sitting  side   by  side  at  an  Edit-­‐a-­‐Thon,  GLAM  partnerships  bring  together  the   expertise  within  museums  with  amateur  experts  and  enthusiasts  in  the   Wikipedia  community.             GLAM  partnerships  are  really  the  quintessential  example  of  “community   sourcing.”  Many  have  described  Wikipedia  as  crowd-­‐sourcing,  but  this   drives  me  crazy.  Because  Wikipedia  isn’t  just  crowdsourcing  –  it’s  so   much  more!     Crowdsourcing  is  just  dropping  in  and  out  to  contribute  content  to  a   project  that’s  been  created  by  some  outside  entity.  When  museums   work  with  Wikipedia,  they’re  working  with  a  thriving  community,  made   up  of  tens  of  thousands  of  active  Wikipedia  volunteers.   We  can  help  museums  better  understand  what  we  are  if  we  begin   describing  it  as  community  sourcing  instead  of  crowd  sourcing.       But  why  is  Wikipedia  not  co-­‐creation?  That  would  be  a  great  goal,  but   GLAM-­‐Wiki  partnerships  aren’t  fully  there  yet.  Co-­‐creation  requires   both  the  organization  and  the  community  to  be  a  part  of  building  a   collaborative  project  from  the  beginning.       For  now,  the  Wikipedia  community  is  the  one  that  has  a  little  too  much   authority  and  makes  it  difficult  for  new  editors  to  lead  in  creating  a  new   program.  When  cultural  professionals  begin  to  take  an  active  role  in   developing  GLAM  projects  alongside  Wikipedians,  we’ll  be  on  the  more   co-­‐creative  end  of  the  spectrum.  As  more  cultural  professionals  become   involved,  this  is  happening  more  often.  But  it’s  not  yet  the  norm.           Wikipedia, in real life. So much more than crowdsourcing. ccby-sa3.0,AdamNovack
  • 6.     Wherever  they  land  on  the  spectrum,  many  museums  you  may   collaborate  with  are  probably  already  embracing  open  authority,  but   they  just  don’t  realize  it.     To  help  better  visualize  what  makes  a  project  “open  authority,”  here  are   some  elements  to  be  aware  of.     Open  Authority  projects  include  Access  to  Expertise  as  well  as   Community  Participation.  We’ve  already  talked  about  Open  Authority   being  a  combination  of  institutional  expertise  and  community   contributions.  So  these  are  the  first  two,  basic  elements.     Open  Authority  requires  a  Platform  or  a  method  for  your  community  to   engage  with  you.  It  could  be  an  existing  platform,  like  a  Wikimedia   project,  of  course.  But  it  can  also  be  a  newly  created  platform,  if  not  a   GLAM  project.     The  project  also  needs  Content  or  a  topic  that  motivates  your   community  to  participate.    In  GLAM  projects,  this  content  must  be   openly  available  for  use,  but  in  other  projects  this  may  not  be  the  case.     Open  Authority  always  needs  Shared  Control  and  Dialogue.  The   museum  should  be  a  continued  part  of  the  conversation.     In  a  GLAM  project,  Wikipedians  and  the  GLAM  professionals  should   have  a  shared  sense  of  ownership  over  the  project.       There  should  be  a  focus  on  process,  not  product.  Early  on  with   crowdsourced  projects,  the  focus  was  on  the  end  result  (like  how  many   letters  were  transcribed),  when  the  more  valuable  aspect  is  the   community  and  the  process  behind  that  product.     Finally,  there  should  be  Evidence  of  Collaboration.  There  needs  to  be   some  way  of  illustrating  that  the  community  played  a  key  role.  If  in  the   end  the  museum  alone  takes  credit,  then  that  defeats  the  purpose  of   open  authority.         We’ve  come  far  over  the  past  years  in  connecting  with  GLAMs,  but  for   those  who  need  to  feel  more  comfortable  with  the  idea  of  opening  up   to  Wikipedia,  I  hope  that  open  authority  can  help  bridge  that  gap.     Thank  you!     !  Access to expertise !  Community participation !  A platform !  Content to engage with !  Shared control & dialogue !  A focus on process, not product !  Evidence of collaboration Elements of Open Authority ccby-sa3.0,Fae Lest we forget…it all started at the British Museum.
  • 7. Since the GLAM-Wiki initiative organized in 2010, great strides have been made in strengthening the relationship between Wikimedians and the cultural sector. In spite of this progress, being "open" in regards to access and community collaboration is still far from the norm in most GLAM institutions. When pursuing a partnership, it is increasingly important to be able to speak the language of the cultural sector, and understand the nuances of their needs and concerns. Within the cultural sector, developments in the realm of online access have dovetailed with the concept of co- creation, leading collaborative online communities and the open source movement to inspire a reexamination of authority within the museums, libraries, and archives. "Open authority" is a term I established to describe the future of the cultural sector— the coming together of GLAM expertise with the insights and contributions of diverse audiences, both online and on-site. The open GLAM sees the visitor as a collaborator and active contributor in creating and interpreting content, and the curator as an engaged, expert facilitator. The Wikimedia community serves as inspiration for this model of open authority, which depends on dialogue from participants of all levels of expertise in order to create a more complete representation of a topic. The theory of open authority illustrates that an institution's traditional authority need not be swept away in the name of "crowdsourcing," but is instead even more valued. Authority can and should be combined with an open model of collaboration with the community, be they Wikipedians, a cultural group, or local visitors. Open authority will make the interpretation of our cultural heritage better, together. Wikipedia is one important facet of this broader paradigm shift. In this presentation I will share tips for initiating and sustaining a partnership with a cultural organization within the context of the cultural sector's current notions of openness in regard to digital access and community co-creation. Understanding the elements of open authority is a useful step toward speaking the language of GLAMs, and more effectively reaching our goal to bridge the gap between Wikimedia and the cultural sector. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Open_Authority:_A_New_Way_to _Talk_to_GLAMs