GLAM Survey presentation OpenSym/WikiSym 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

GLAM Survey presentation OpenSym/WikiSym 2013

on

  • 344 views

Slides of Swiss GLAM Survey presentation at OpenSym/WikiSym 2013 in Hong Kong

Slides of Swiss GLAM Survey presentation at OpenSym/WikiSym 2013 in Hong Kong

Statistics

Views

Total Views
344
Views on SlideShare
344
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • CoordinatedDigitizationEfforts (2000)Single-Point-of-Access Offers (2000..)Web2.0, Personnalization (2005..)Crowdsourcing (2006..)Open Data (2009..)Linked Open Data (2010..)
  • CoordinatedDigitizationEfforts (2000)Single-Point-of-Access Offers (2000..)Web2.0, Personnalization (2005..)Crowdsourcing (2006..)Open Data (2009..)Linked Open Data (2010..)
  • CoordinatedDigitizationEfforts (2000)Single-Point-of-Access Offers (2000..)Web2.0, Personnalization (2005..)Crowdsourcing (2006..)Open Data (2009..)Linked Open Data (2010..)
  • Q: There is a trend among memory institutions to make reproductions / content of their objects freely available on the internet.Under which conditions could you imagine making reproductions / content of your objects available on the internet free of charge, without earning any extra money?(Provided that the contents are already available in digital format and are free from third parties’ copyright claims or confidentiality restrictions.)

GLAM Survey presentation OpenSym/WikiSym 2013 GLAM Survey presentation OpenSym/WikiSym 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • Are Memory Institutions Ready for Open Data and Crowdsourcing? Results of a Pilot Survey from Switzerland Beat Estermann, 5 August 2013 – OpenSym/WikiSym, Hong Kong This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
  • Recent Trends in the GLAM sector… 2 Coordinated Digitization Efforts Single-Point-of-Access EU: Lund Action Plan for Digitization (2001) Increased cooperation and coordination among GLAMs: - common catalogues - virtual libraries - coordination of digitization efforts - long-term archiving Wikimedia Commons, User:Dvortygirl (CC-by-sa) Source: http://www.europeana.eu/
  • 3 Interactivity / Personalisation Web 2.0 Source: http://www.facebook.com/Zentralbibliothek.Zuerich Flickr, User:victuallers2, (CC-by-sa)
  • 4 Linked Open Data Crowdsourcing / Collaborative Content Creation Free Licensing / Open Data Open Data / Content: - «freely» re-usable - machine readable «Web of Data» / Semantic Web - RDF triples - unique URLs Crowdsourcing Approaches: - Correction - Classification - Contextualisation - Co-curation - Complementing collections - Crowdfunding See: Oomen / Aroyo 2011 Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv and http://www.flickr.com/groups/greatwararchive Source: http://www.wikiarthistory.info (CC-by-sa) Source: http://www.creativecommons.org
  • Where do Swiss GLAMs stand today with regard to…? 5 …Digitization? …Exchange of metadata in multilateral cooperations? …Open Data? …Crowdsourcing? …Linked Open Data? What are the perceived risks and opportunities? (drivers vs. hindering factors) What are the expected benefits? Who are the beneficiaries? Awareness Evaluation AdoptionTrialInterest Innovation Diffusion Model, Everett Rogers, 1962
  • Pilot Study among Swiss GLAMs GLAMs in Switzerland: • ca. 600-700 independent GLAMs of national or regional significance • ca. 1000 independent GLAMs organized in three umbrella organizations Our sample: memory institutions of national significance in the German-speaking part of Switzerland • 197 organisations contacted (233 e-mail addresses) • 72 questionnaires completed (34% of the contacted organisations) Caveats: • The sample is rather small (results are not very precise with regard to the entire Swiss GLAM population, large confidence intervals apply) • Archives are over-represented in the sample (higher response rate); museums and «other institutions» are under-represented; libraries are about average. 6
  • Innovation Diffusion among Swiss GLAMs: The Overall Picture 7 A critical mass has been reached. How about the laggards? Will we see a higher rate of adoption for Open Data than for Crowdsourcing? Some institutions are starting to think about Linked Data…
  • Digitization and Availability on the Internet 8 42% 23% 11% 17% 37% 32% Metadata Reproductions of memory objects Background information Availability on the Internet (in % of institutions, N=71) "is partly the case" "is the case" 60% of institutions make metadata and reproductions at least partly available on the Internet. 40% still don’t!
  • Exchange of Metadata / Cooperation in Networks 61% of the responding GLAMs exchange metadata with other institutions. 39% don’t. 30% do so in the context of bilateral cooperation; 43% in the context of multilateral cooperation. For 29% the exchange of metadata is part of their core mission. 17% say this is partly the case. 9 61% 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% yes no Do you exchange metadata with other institutions? (in % of institutions; N=72) 15% 35% 29% 3% 15% 8% 17% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The exchange of metadata is important for us... (in % of institutions; N=72) "is partly the case" "is the case"
  • Metadata: Need for Improvement 10 11% 42% 21% 25% 10% 43% 23% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% urgent need need in the medium term no need no answer Metadata: Need for improvement? (in % of institutions; N=71) Quality of metadata (accuracy, completeness, up-to- dateness, clarity, availability) Interoperability of metadata (availability in digital format, conformity with standards) Ca. 50% of GLAMs perceive a need to improve their metadata. The needs to improve metadata quality and interoperability are highly correlated. – Does the envisioned exchange of metadata lead to higher quality requirements? 25% of responding GLAMs couldn’t answer this question. – What does this mean?
  • Metadata: What needs to be improved? 11 9% 51% 16% 30% 40% 42% 26% 60% 33% 40% 37% 23% 26% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% accuracy completeness up-to-dateness clarity availability digitization conformity with current exchange formats Metadata: What needs to be improved? (in % of institutions; N=43) "is partly the case" "is the case" The main challenges: completeness, availability, digitization
  • Open Data Readiness 12 7% 1% 32% 7% 21% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% for charitable projects, such as Wikipedia, which also permit commercial use for users who are intending to commercially exploit them The memory objects are available on the Internet... (in % of institutions; N=68) not accessible for free accessible at no charge (but you are not allowed to modify them) "freely" accessible Between 1% and 7% of responding GLAMs make scans/photographs of their heritage objects «freely» available on the Internet. Over half of them make them available on the Internet, but with restrictions. 40% don’t make them available at all. Over 50% of the GLAMs which make their heritage objects available on the Internet do not understand that you cannot make works available for Wikipedia and simultaneously prevent their modification and/or their commercial use!
  • Desirability and Importance of Open Data 13 0% 1% 6% 6% 7% 36% 25% 11% 6% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% -10 to - 8 -8 to -6 -6 to -4 -4 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 Desirability of Open Data (in % of institutions, N=71) 1% 8% 7% 3% 21% 31% 8% 14% 6% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% very important important neither, nor unimportant no answer Importance / Desirability of Open Data (in % of institutions; N=71) risks prevail opportunities prevail For over 80% of responding GLAMs the opportunities outweigh the risks of Open Data. Over 50% think Open Data is an important issue; almost all of these believe that the opportunities outweigh the risks.
  • Open Data / “Free” Licensing of Content 14 59% 76% 60% 29% 7% 69% 40% 21% 19% 23% 26% 9% 20% 34% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% For private useFor education and researchFor charitable projectsFor charitable projects, such as Wikipedia, which also permit commercial use For users who are intending to commercially exploit themOnly if the name of the institution remains attached to the dataOnly if the work will be re-used in unmodified form Conditions under which they would make memory objects freely accessible on the Internet (in % der Institutionen; N=70) "is partly the case" "is the case" Most GLAMs wouldn’t readily agree to «freely» license their content – even in the absence of third party rights: they would like to prevent the commercial use at no charge as well as the modification of works.
  • 15 Crowdsourcing 11% 4% 14% 3% 6% 1%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons Flickr Commons others Are any of your staff members engaging in projects which support open data or collaborative projects on the Internet? (in % of institutions; N=71) in their spare time as part of their professional activity 11% of responding GLAMs have staff members who contribute to Wikipedia as part of their professional activity. 10% of responding GLAMs say that online volunteering plays partly an important role for them. Interestingly, no correlation was found between the two variables.
  • 16 Desirability and Importance of Crowdsourcing 4% 15% 19% 11% 43% 3% 3% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% -10 to - 8 -8 to -6 -6 to -4 -4 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 Desirability of Crowdsourcing (in % of institutions; N=69) 10% 25% 14% 29% 16% 3% 1% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% very important important neither, nor unimportant no answer Importance / Desirability of Crowdsourcing (in % of institutions; N=69) risks prevail opportunities prevail For over 90% of the responding GLAMs the risks of Crowdsourcing are at least as great as the opportunities. For half of them the risks clearly prevail. Among GLAMs which think that Crowdsourcing is an important issue, the risk perception is equally high.
  • Linked Data / Semantic Web 17 6% 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Is „Linked Data“ / „Semantic Web“ an issue for your institution? (in % of institutions; N=71) Yes, it is an issue, but we haven't planned any projects yet Yes, we have already planned projects in this area 29% of responding GLAMs say that Linked Data is an issue for them. None of them has a running project.
  • Recapitulation 18 59% 60% 43% 53% 81% 7% 1% 38% 7% 10% 11% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Metadata available on the Internet Photos/scans of memory object available on the Internet Exchange of metadata takes place and is important Open Data is important Open Data is desirable Readiness to make data available for Wikipedia Readiness to make data available for commercial use Crowdsourcing is important Crowdsourcing is desirable Importance of online-volunteer work Professional engagement in Wikipedia Linked Data is an issue Different dynamics for Open Data and Crowdsourcing 60% of responding GLAMs are technically ready for Open Data.
  • Open Data: Opportunities 19 53% 65% 29% 50% 11% 68% 53% 67% 58% 36% 3% 24% 14% 22% 26% 19% 18% 21% 19% 21% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Why do we need Open Data from the point of view of your institution? (in % of institutions; N=72) "is partly the case" "is the case" Main target groups: research and education, private individuals, cultural institutions Main opportunities: better visibility and accessibility of holdings; better visibility of the institutions; better networking among GLAMs.
  • Open Data: Risks 20 66% 34% 32% 28% 18% 25% 3% 20% 34% 34% 23% 17% 34% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Time effort and expense for making them available The use of the data cannot be controlled Copyright infringements Infringements of data protection regulations Divulgation of classified information Increased time effort in order to respond to enquiries Loss of revenues What are the risks of open data for your institution? (in % of institutions; N=71) "is partly the case" "is the case" Major risk: extra time effort and expenses Considerable risks: loss of control, copyright, data protection, secrecy infringements Almost no risk: Loss of revenues
  • Crowdsourcing: Opportunities 21 6% 1% 4% 11% 3% 24% 24% 21% 20% 14% 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Correction and transcription tasks Enhancement and expansion of texts Completion of collections (contribution / identification of additional objects) Classification / completion of metadata Co-curators Crowdfunding (fundraising) What are the opportunities of crowdsourcing for your institution? (in % of institutions; N=71) "is partly the case" "is the case" Crowdsourcing is most likely to be employed for classification tasks.
  • Crowdsourcing: Risks 22 35% 42% 35% 38% 30% 6% 26% 30% 35% 28% 30% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unforeseeable results Considerable time/effort needed for preparation and follow-up Difficulties in estimating the time-effort No guarantee concerning long-term data maintenance Low level of planning reliability Fears among employees (job loss, changing roles and tasks) What are the risks of crowdsourcing from your point of view? (in % of institutions; N=69) "is partly the case" "is the case" All the enumerated risks are rated about the same, except for fears among employees which seem to play a minor role.
  • Economic Considerations • Extra time effort and expenses are seen as the greatest risks/shortcomings of Open Data and Crowdsourcing. • Expected losses of revenue play virtually no role. • The sale of image rights is evaluated at < 0.5 % of overall revenues • Lending fees at 1% of overall revenues • While the responding GLAMs may perceive at least some efficiency gains related to Open Data, they do not perceive any potential economies associated to Crowdsourcing (yet). 23
  • Outlook / Next Steps • Promote the study among GLAMs and political actors in Switzerland • Orient GLAM outreach activities in the light of the findings • Promote “free” licensing at a large scale, cf. OpenGLAM Principles • Foster mutual learning in the area of Crowdsourcing and (Linked) Open Data (OpenGLAM Network); make sure that benefits are achieved and documented; improve coordination along the supply-chain • Examine ways to improve digitization coverage • Evaluate the demand for follow-up studies: • Study with a larger sample in Switzerland • Longitudinal study in Switzerland (e.g. similar survey in 2014 to measure the changes) • International benchmark study Please contact me if you are interested! 24
  • Thanks for Your Attention! Full study report: English: http://tinyurl.com/SwissGLAMsurvey Deutsch: http://tinyurl.com/GLAMStudie Contact details: Beat Estermann E-mail: beat.estermann@bfh.ch Phone: +41 31 848 34 38 Affiliations: Research Associate, E-Government Institute, Bern University of Applied Sciences Member of opendata.ch (Swiss Chapter of the Open Knowledge Foundation) Member of Digitale Allmend (Swiss Chapter of CreativeCommons) Member of Wikimedia CH This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. 25