[OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

[Sarah Stierch]

*We need examples of where funding has came to an institution because of
OpenGLAM work.*
*
*
*And to challenge the comment about strategic plans, that's not so much the
case anymore - GLAMs are sharing their OpenGLAM work.
*

And most of us never receive or read annual plans for institutions, because
we're not that invested in it, unless we're the one's writing it or reading
it. As a non-major donor for most institutions, the only annual report I
generally read now that I no longer am getting my master's in business
administration (where you read these things until your head explodes) is
the organization I work for (Wikimedia Foundation) because we all get a
copy.

I just took a look at some of the North American organizations I've been
involved in, and that have also had OpenGLAM oriented activities I wasn't
directly involved in.

1) *Archives of American Art. *No mention of Wikipedia or OpenGLAM work,
despite releasing 200+ previously paywalled public domain images into the
Commons and writing tons of content and a report about my residency. No
surprise though, the temporary director was quite vocal about disliking
Wikipedia and the entire OpenGLAM "thing."  (Despite the director who I
came in under loving the idea) And they tend to lean towards impressing
donors like art institutions love to do.[1]

2)* Walters Art Museum*, who released over 20,000 images to the Commons
mentions it on page 9 under the Technology header. They have an entire
paragraph devoted to the project, talking about Creative Commons, too.
WIN!! [2]

3) I could not find the *Smithsonian Institution Archives* annual report. I
was Wikipedian in Residence there.  (and it got a lot of press, so I'm
surprised it wasn't mentioned, it's not every day that archives ends up in
Gawker.. ;) )

4) The *Children's Museum of Indianapolis*, the first museum to hire full
time a Wikipedian in Residence, mentions it on page 9 of their strategic
plan. Talks Jimmy Wales visiting, images released to Commons, and Lori's
work with the Wikimedia Foundation. WIN. [3]

5) *National Archives and Records Administration* mentions it, on page iv,
but this is a brief report. Their complete performance report is so
gigantic and my internet connection stinks, so I'm too lazy to wait for it
to load. It could be mentioned in there, I figure it would be since they
invested a decent chunk of money for the work.[4][5]

6) *OCLC* has a fabulous spread about Wikipedia and GLAM-Wiki partnerships
on their annual report. Page 32-33.[6]

[1] http://www.aaa.si.edu/files/publications/2011annualreport.pdf
[2]
http://thewalters.org/pdf/annual-report/walters-art-museum-annual-report-2012.pdf
[3] http://www.childrensmuseum.org/annualreport/2011/index.html
[4]
http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2011/par-summary.pdf

[5]
http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2011/par-complete.pdf
[6]
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/publications/AnnualReports/2012/2012.pdf


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Laurel L. Russwurm
<laurel.l at russwurm.org>wrote:

> Of course making content freely available digitally would be beneficial to
> GLAM institutions, whether they realize it or not.  Doing so is a
> combination of advvertising, outreach and education.  Most people don't
> care about art/artifacts  they have never heard about/seen.  When we have
> seen photos in books or online, we begin to learn about/start to appreciate
> them.  As a child I began to appreciate art in large part due to a board
> game called "Masterpiece" ~ which was my inroduction to van Gogh.  Although
> his work is freely available all over the place, including high quality
> digital scans online, I would most certainly visit any of his work in real
> life at any GLAM I was able to get to.  But I would never consider donating
> to a GLAM that hoarded their public domain holdings by refusing to make
> them digitally available.  Culture needs to be shared.
>
>
>
> On 13-09-16 05:13 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>> On 09/11/2013 05:54 PM, Estermann Beat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What I find revolting, however, are GLAMs withholding public domain
>>> works or attaching CC-non commercial licenses to two-dimensional scans
>>> without actually recouping a significant part of the production costs.
>>>
>>>
>> Your mistake is that you believe that making
>> content freely available would be beneficial to
>> GLAM institutions. If that were the case, then
>> they would consider it harmful to withhold
>> content. But you should read their annual
>> reports: Where do they brag about making
>> content freely available? They brag about
>> getting large donations and about having
>> many physical visitors. But making more
>> material freely available is usually not on
>> the plus side of their accounting.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-glam<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam>
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/open-glam<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam>
>



-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130916/c7af7c9f/attachment-0001.html>