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

cc b

y-sa

3.0

, The

Chi

ldre

n’s

Mus

eum

of I

ndia

napo

lis

cc b

y-sa

3.0

, Sar

ah S

tierc

h

     

 

 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

cc b

y-sa

2.0

Had

es2K

Microsoft

Linux

   

 

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

cc b

y-sa

3.0

, And

rew

Dun

n

 

 

 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  

 

cc b

y-sa

3.0

Jam

es A

lexa

nder

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

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.

cc b

y-sa

3.0

, Ada

m N

ovac

k

 

 

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

cc b

y-sa

3.0

, Fae

Lest we forget…it all started at the British Museum.

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