Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Access as generator of value: museum collec)ons in Wikipedia

294 views

Published on

① Why open collections?
Museums give access to collections.
Access gives memory, joy and awe + generates value.
② What is value?
Socio-cultural process to understand position of good.
Technology redefines values (assets).
③ Why Wikipedia?
Highly visible, sustainable, collection of knowledge, living archive.
Common mission: provide access to all human knowledge.
④ Why generate future value indicators?
Access and re-use, not income, as key impact indicator.
From anecdotal cases to transparent, systematic evidence.

Published in: Art & Photos
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Access as generator of value: museum collec)ons in Wikipedia

  1. 1. Access as generator of value: museum collec)ons in Wikipedia Trilce Navarrete Sharing is Caring – Brussels – 20 June 2017
  2. 2. ①  Why open collec)ons? Museums give access to collec)ons. Access gives memory, joy and awe + generates value. ②  What is value? Socio-cultural process to understand posi)on of good. Technology redefines values (assets). ③  Why Wikipedia? Highly visible, sustainable, collec)on of knowledge, living archive. Common mission: provide access to all human knowledge. ④  Why generate future value indicators? Access and re-use, not income, as key impact indicator. From anecdotal cases to transparent, systema)c evidence.
  3. 3. Why open collec)ons? •  Museums collect and preserve collec)ons to give access to present and future genera)ons. 1 File:Jan Brueghel I & Peter Paul Rubens - Sight (Museo del Prado).jpg
  4. 4. Why open collec)ons? •  Access collec)ons = history / joy / awe 1 Quai Branly Museum (2017) Picasso Primi)f
  5. 5. Why open collec)ons? •  Access collec)ons = s)mulate new discoveries 1 File:Avion III Art et Me)ers.jpg
  6. 6. Why open collec)ons? •  Only ±6% of collec)ons are accessible, due to limita)ons of exhibi)on walls, geo and )me. 1 File:Visual storage at V&A - 1 - S)erch.jpg
  7. 7. Why open collec)ons? •  Only I of 3 adults visit museums while nearly everybody views TV/radio and has Internet 1 hdps://www.google.com/culturalins)tute/beta/project/fashion-art
  8. 8. Why open collec)ons? •  Digital technology can provide access beyond museum objects. •  Museums can get closer to people. 1 File:Brooklyn Museum - Cool Picture View of Mt. Fuji - Utagawa Hiroshige (Ando).jpg
  9. 9. What is value? •  Value is shaped by social networks and conven)ons, hence changes in )me. 2 File:Cooper's Hawk on Edwin Blashfield mural in the Library of Congress.jpg
  10. 10. What is value? •  There are several (co-exis)ng) value scales, with non exchangeable rates. Economic value Moral value Aesthe)c value 2 File:Quen)n Massys 001.jpg
  11. 11. What is value? •  Cultural value can comprise Aesthe)c value, Authen)city value, Availability value, Heritage value, Historic value, Social value, Spiritual value, and Symbolic value. (Frey, 1998, Throsby, 2001) 2 File:West-zijde toren - Veghel - 20239979 - RCE.jpg
  12. 12. What is value? •  Informa)on is at the heart of all valua)on processes. 2 File:Jan van Eyck - Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife (detail) - WGA7695.jpg
  13. 13. What is value? •  We knew that. That is why museums have libraries, archives, and informa)on systems. 2 File:Bibliothek im Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.jpg
  14. 14. What is value? •  Digital technology can facilitate the access and (re)use of informa)on from museums. 2 Wiki Loves Art: user generated image
  15. 15. Why Wikipedia? •  Wikipedia, launched in 2001, con)nues to grow. •  15.5 billion views / mo Wikimedia. •  15.5 million views / mo Wikipedia. •  42.3 million pages. •  5.5 million ar)cles in English. •  300 languages. •  Rank 5 in Alexa. •  Older than many websites… 3
  16. 16. Why Wikipedia? •  Wikipedia is the backbone of content online 3 20
  17. 17. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can be reposi)oned in new contexts. 3 Symbolic value 3
  18. 18. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can be reposi)oned in new contexts. 3 Spiritual value
  19. 19. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can be reposi)oned in new contexts. 3 Historic value 13 1
  20. 20. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can be reposi)oned in new contexts. 3 Aesthe)c value 13 2
  21. 21. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can be reposi)oned in new contexts. 3 Informa)on value 260
  22. 22. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can reach new audiences. Change in accessibility: onsite (100yrs) and online (5yrs). –  Onsite peak: 300,000 visitors –  Average per year: 94,500 visitors –  Online Wikipedia peak: 18 million clicks –  Average per year: 1.7 million clicks –  (Average clicks per year on the NMWC website: 600,000) 3 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Number of visitors 0 5 10 15 20 Number of views in millions
  23. 23. Why Wikipedia? •  Collec)ons can reach new audiences. Change in object mobility: onsite exhibits and online ar)cles. –  Onsite use of collec)on (100 years): 10% of objects. –  Onsite peak (frequency): 10 exhibits. –  Online use of collec)on (5 years): 12% objects (of 1% of collec)on). –  Online peak (frequency): 135 ar)cles (May 2015). 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2010 March August October December April June August October December September November 2013 January March May July September November 2014 January March May July September November 2015 January March May Number of ar)cles English Wikipedia Indonesian Wikipedia German Wikipedia Dutch Wikipedia French Wikipedia Spanish Wikipedia 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 2010 March August October December April June August October December September November 2013 January March May July September November 2014 January March May July September November 2015 January March May Number of views (in thousands) English Wikipedia Indonesian Wikipedia German Wikipedia Dutch Wikipedia French Wikipedia Spanish Wikipedia Including traveling exhibits
  24. 24. Why Wikipedia? •  Online is complementary of onsite. Preference onsite for 3D and online for 2D: –  Objects photographed in context (e.g. tool in use). Onsite, object view increases with: –  Time (when accoun)ng for 3D). Online, object view increases with: –  Time. –  Quality of ar)cle (= greater number of images). –  Diversity of images (related to quality). –  English version, followed by Indonesian and Dutch. –  Topic (geography). 3 Navarrete and Borowiecki 2016 Cultural Trends
  25. 25. Why Wikipedia? •  Online, all objects are created equal (or not?). Dataset: 28,613 pain)ngs in 160,174 Wikipedia ar)cles (2015) Method: -  Using Wikidata (all pain)ngs: N=117,000, with image/ date/ keyword: N=64,700) -  Wikipedia API (complement data with author/ descrip)on) -  Iden)fy those with an ar)cle: N=28,613 -  Compared to Art Newspaper most viewed museums -  Ranked by online popularity 3 Superstar artworks from superstar museums
  26. 26. Why Wikipedia? 3 Onsite ranking 2014 Institution City Country Onsite visitors Online ranking 1 Musée du Louvre Paris France 9260000 8 2 British Museum London United Kingdom 6695213 7 3 National Gallery London United Kingdom 6416724 13 4 Metropolitan Museum of Art New York United States 6162147 2 5 Vatican Museum Rome Italy 5891332 1 6 Tate London United Kingdom 5785427 5 7 National Palace Museum Taipei Taiwan 5402325 17 8 National Gallery of Art Washington United States 3892459 9 9 National Museum of Korea Seoul South Korea 3536677 23 10 Musée d’Orsay Paris France 3440000 12 11 Centre Pompidou Paris France 3450000 14 12 National Folk Museum of Korea Seul South Korea 3271017 21 13 State Hermitage Museum St. Petersburg Russia 3247956 15 14 Victoria and Albert Museum London United Kingdom 3180450 6 15 Museum of Modern Art New York United States 3018266 4 16 Museo Reina Sofía Madrid Spain 2673745 18 17 Museo del Prado Madrid Spain 2536844 10 18 Somerset House London United Kingdom 2463201 20 19 Rijksmuseum Amsterdam The Netherlands 2450000 11 20 Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2399832 22 21 The National Art Center Tokyo Tokyo Japan 2384415 19 22 National Portrait Gallery London United Kingdom 2062502 16 23 National Gallery of Victoria Melbourne Australia 2035033 24 24 Shanghai Museum Shanghai China 2000977 26 25 MuCEM Marseilles France 1996154 25 26 Galleria degli Uffizi Florence Italy 1651210 3 Onsite vs online ranking
  27. 27. Why Wikipedia? 3 Navarrete (forthcoming) TATE 5 Louvre Uffizi Uffizi Uffizi Louvre 3 Louvre Louvre Prado Prado Na)onal Gallery of Art US 1 Louvre Na)onal Gallery UK 2 4
  28. 28. Why Wikipedia? •  Popularity translates and transforms online. Availability of images online leads to reuse (not always legal). New technology leads to change in consumer preference (favors 2D). Preference for portraits to depict concept = iconic use of artworks. Few 3D (due to technical limita)ons?). Cultural (linguis)c) preference for pain)ngs as icons. French and Portuguese edi)ons most likely to use artworks. Informa)on available to all consumers. Though reduced cost of discovery may lead to greater diffusion. 3 Superstar artworks from superstar museums
  29. 29. Why Wikipedia? •  Pain)ngs’ poten)al to illustrate ar)cles. Dataset: 10,054 pain)ngs English Wikipedia ar)cles Method: -  Wikidata ‘pain)ngs’ = 224,374 -  With loca)on / date / creator = 89,637 (excluding doubles) -  With image = 27,501 -  Wikipedia ar)cles = 10,054 (36% of images used in ar)cles) 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Long tail of image use in ar)cles 10,054
  30. 30. Why Wikipedia? •  Overview of 10,055 ‘pain)ngs’ by year. 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 -900 997 1230 1301 1337 1375 1404 1428 1448 1468 1487 1506 1525 1544 1563 1582 1601 1620 1639 1658 1677 1696 1715 1734 1753 1772 1791 1810 1829 1848 1867 1886 1905 1924 1943 1962 1981 2000 Pain)ngs Images The missing decade = copyright hole
  31. 31. Why Wikipedia? •  Exponen)al increase in views, •  New uses, new preferences, new discovery, •  Popular content source = accessible to all, •  Living archive = community of trust, •  Synergy = museums + collec)ons + users, •  Harmonized reports. 3 Why does it mader?
  32. 32. 5 13 1 9 14 2 3 11 12 8 19 15 16
  33. 33. Why generate future value indicators? •  Limited resources require decisions on what to collect, preserve and make accessible, and how. 4 File:Hoge Raad van Helen Verhoeven.jpg Need heritage copyright excep)on
  34. 34. Why generate future value indicators? 4 Value based on number of visits •  Eurostat has developed experimental sta)s)cs to reflect digital dimension.
  35. 35. Why generate future value indicators? •  Tracking page of heritage object is star)ng point to understand further re-use. 4 542 daily views 71
  36. 36. Why generate future value indicators? 4 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Facebook Twider YouTube Pinterest Value based on popularity •  Social media appears to be the place to be. •  Plaxorms are private en))es with no mandate to disclose sta)s)cs (including Google).
  37. 37. Why generate future value indicators? •  Tracking social media visibility complements access to and use of content. 4 Curated exhibits about a topic 32
  38. 38. Why generate future value indicators? 4 Benchmarking 0 100000000 200000000 300000000 400000000 500000000 600000000 700000000 800000000 900000000 Gallica Bri)sh Library Rijksmuseum Europeana Smithsonian Visibility of collec5ons in Wikipedia (2015) 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 •  Museums welcome comparable open metrics. •  Can we use common resources to safeguard common heritage? We need common metrics.
  39. 39. Take home ①  Museums = Memory, Joy and Awe for all ! ②  Access generates value (social process) ③  Trust is key = common future vision ④  Create relevant value metric (evidence based)
  40. 40. Thank you •  Lets create meaningful value metrics for our work 68
  41. 41. Borowiecki, Forbes and Fresa (eds.) (2016) Cultural Heritage in a Changing World. Springer. Eurostat (2016) Cultural StaGsGcs. Frey (1998) Superstar museums: An economic analysis. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(2), 113–125. Navarrete and Borowiecki (2016) “Change in access to heritage a|er digi)za)on: ethnographic collec)ons in Wikipedia.” Cultural Trends. Navarrete and Borowiecki (2016). “The long-tail of museum collec)ons: Ethnographic collec)ons onsite and online.” Symposium proceedings InternaGonal Symposium on the Measurement of Digital Cultural Products, HEC Montreal, Canada. Navarrete and Owen (2011) “Museum Libraries: Collec)ons of Collec)ons.” Palabra Clave (La Plata). October 2011, 1(1):12-20. Rizzo and Mignosa (eds.) (2013) Handbook on the Economies of Cultural Heritage. Edward Elgar. Throsby (2001) Economies and Culture. Cambridge. Towse and Handke (eds.) (2013) Handbook of the Digital CreaGve Economy. Edward Elgar. See more at: hdps://trilcenavarrete.com/publica)ons/ References

×