[Wikimediauk-l] Why is UK not part of Wiki loves monuments?
Rod Ward
Hi all,
Because of my tangential involvement with WikiProject:Historic Sites I spotted a note about a Europe wide contest “Wiki loves Monuments” (see http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu/ ).
The UK is included on the map but there is not link to the UK chapter and I wondered if this was a deliberate decision for some reason?
There is a wikiproject page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 – which seems to have lots of broken links) and more detail on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 )
They say “Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 is a public photo contest around monuments, organized by Wikimedia chapters.” And aims to improve the quantity and quality of CC licensed images of cultural heritage sites and objects. It may be too late for 2011 (it seems to run in September but unclear) but what about the UK participating in future years?
Rod
Michael Peel
Unfortunately, we couldn't find a volunteer to lead the UK involvement in the project. I'd love to see us participating in this in future years - but I think it is definitely too late now to organise something properly this year...
Thanks,
Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikime...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikime...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
WereSpielChequers
We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and
elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The
honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has
volunteered to run it, secondly in the UK we already have the
geograph mass upload which still has tens of thousands of uncategoried
images on commons. Not all of them are monuments by any means, but
enough are that our UK priority is probably more about categorising
and using what we already have whilst in other countries it may make
more sense to concentrate on filling in the gaps. Thirdly in the UK
chapter there seems to be more enthusiasm for collaborations with
Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, this has the potential in
some collaborations such as the British Museum backstage pass to get
our photographers access to stuff that is not normally on Public
display.
Having said all that I'm conscious from my own backyard there are
still lots of monuments that we don't have images of and I hope that
someone comes forward and volunteers to run wiki loves monuments in
the UK. I rather suspect that the UK chapter have a bit of budget
available if someone needed money for prizes etc.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
Charles Matthews
> Hi Rod,
>
> We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and
> elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The
> honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has
> volunteered to run it,
unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended,
(ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively
obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear
definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this
matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board
member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might
need to be a budget.
> secondly in the UK we already have the
> geograph mass upload which still has tens of thousands of uncategoried
> images on commons. Not all of them are monuments by any means, but
> enough are that our UK priority is probably more about categorising
> and using what we already have whilst in other countries it may make
> more sense to concentrate on filling in the gaps. Thirdly in the UK
> chapter there seems to be more enthusiasm for collaborations with
> Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, this has the potential in
> some collaborations such as the British Museum backstage pass to get
> our photographers access to stuff that is not normally on Public
> display.
"Filling in the gaps" is a good definition of how photographic scavenger
activity ought to directed.
Charles
Lodewijk
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote:Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It is
> Hi Rod,
>
> We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and
> elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The
> honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has
> volunteered to run it,
unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended,
(ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively
obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear
definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this
matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board
member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might
need to be a budget.
Charles Matthews
Hi Charles,
thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost, and couldn't resist to comment.
2011/7/9 Charles Matthews <charles.r...@ntlworld.com>
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote:Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It is
> Hi Rod,
>
> We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and
> elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The
> honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has
> volunteered to run it,
unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended,
(ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively
obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear
definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this
matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board
member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might
need to be a budget.
(i) the timeline is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Timeline (but would need tweeking in individual countries)(ii) the concept description is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Concept and there is even a clear outline of how it worked last year in the Netherlands with many tips&tricks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2010/post_mortem(iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK.
There are other routes: local government officers are responsible for lists in their areas. That is some hundreds of people to contact, however. I found out something about this through an archaeologist friend. There is also an online archaeological database I found, but you have to pay for that also.
(iv) this definition is different in every country, because every government has its own definition. We did not want to introduce an artificial definition, but rather go with the existing ones. It would make no sense for us to define a British monument. The UK (or English etc) government already did that for us.
I am very sorry that you did not ask these questions in an earlier stage, I could have given you these answers then already. However, you ought to realize that the national contest would have to be organized by local volunteers - we will not do that for you. The work would still be with UK people, but collegues throughout Europe could have helped you with advises, ideas and brainstorming. You would have been welcome also to participate in the Wiki Loves Monuments summit in Berlin.
I definitely do hope that questions like this next time will be asked early and directly at the relevant people.
Charles
Andrew West
> On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote:
>
> (iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia
> Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella
> organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and
> have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with
> national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in
> multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK.
>
> That would be English Heritage here.
Um, I thought that WMUK covered all of the UK, not just England.
There are equivalent organizations for other parts of the UK too:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Heritage#Equivalent_organisations>
Andrew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BabelStone
Charles Matthews
> Sorry I seem to have put a cat amongst the pigeons with my query about the
> UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
The discussion is certainly worth having.
> Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page (
> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr/spatial-data/
> ).
>
> I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI?
> After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this
> format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf but
> it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump
> (technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use?
Yes, that looks like progress. Technical matters tend to be the long
suit among Wikimedians.
rod...@rodward.plus.com
UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page (
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr/spatial-data/
).
I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI?
After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this
format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf but
it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump
(technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use?
Rod
> On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost,
>> and couldn't resist to comment.
>>
>> 2011/7/9 Charles Matthews <charles.r...@ntlworld.com
>> <mailto:charles.r...@ntlworld.com>>
WereSpielChequers
that the data seems to be stored by local authority rather than postal
geography - which is possibly why one of the sites I previously looked
at was riddled with errors.
WSC
Lodewijk
Charles Matthews
> Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no
> volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were
intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to
find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
Thomas Dalton
> On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no
>> volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
> That is quite true; but simply tagging an issue with {{sofixit}} isn't
> in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were
> intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to
> find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
There are two approaches the chapter could take with this kind of
thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and
volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what
they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask
for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the
job description clear).
The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there
are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is
more likely to see the project through and do it without too much
involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very
busy board would need to find the time the put together the request
for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.
Charles Matthews
> On 13 July 2011 14:17, Charles Matthews<charles.r...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
>>> Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no
>>> volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
>> That is quite true; but simply tagging an issue with {{sofixit}} isn't
>> in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were
>> intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to
>> find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
> There are two approaches the chapter could take with this kind of
> thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and
> volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what
> they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask
> for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the
> job description clear).
>
> The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there
> are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is
> more likely to see the project through and do it without too much
> involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very
> busy board would need to find the time the put together the request
> for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.
>
the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK
participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it
was not put on the board agenda. It may have course have been discussed
on the board list; but nothing clear was communicated to the outside
world about it.
The Dutch experience with WLM is apparently that it brings in new
people. There are limitations to the argument that there is too much to
do and not enough people to do it. If not enough is invested in the
right sorts of research and communications efforts that could improve
matters, it becomes self-defeating.
Charles
Michael Peel
On 14 Jul 2011, at 10:09, Charles Matthews wrote:
> There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of
> the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
>
> I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK
> participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it
> was not put on the board agenda.
The board has a huge amount to discuss at each meeting, so it not being on the meeting agenda or in the minutes is not a sign that we haven't been thinking about it. It's certainly been on my mind for a long time, and I doubt that there would have been any problem with supporting or funding such a project - but we didn't have anyone that was willing to lead it, set out its needs, and foster a critical mass of involvement.
> It may have course have been discussed
> on the board list; but nothing clear was communicated to the outside
> world about it.
Please see my email from 15 December, and the ensuing discussion (which you participated in):
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2010-December/005507.html
Lodewijk's prod on 4 February:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-February/005627.html
and a second prod on 18 February:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-February/005656.html
It has also been discussed both on the board mailing list, and also offlist (I approached several individuals about this - without luck). I'm not sure whether we could have done much more (without starting to bug uninterested people with lots of emails) - I'd welcome insight into this, though.
> The Dutch experience with WLM is apparently that it brings in new
> people. There are limitations to the argument that there is too much to
> do and not enough people to do it. If not enough is invested in the
> right sorts of research and communications efforts that could improve
> matters, it becomes self-defeating.
We need a mixture of both - involved community members that can drive this sort of project forward and make sure it matches up with online activities, and then new people to participate, provide fresh enthusiasm, and help out with the project (and hence becoming involved community members ;-) ). One without the other doesn't work
Mike
Charles Matthews
> On 14 Jul 2011, at 10:09, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of
>> the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
>>
>> I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK
>> participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it
>> was not put on the board agenda.
> The board has a huge amount to discuss at each meeting, so it not being on the meeting agenda or in the minutes is not a sign that we haven't been thinking about it. It's certainly been on my mind for a long time, and I doubt that there would have been any problem with supporting or funding such a project - but we didn't have anyone that was willing to lead it, set out its needs, and foster a critical mass of involvement.
certainly ensures that no actions for board members will arise. Saying
that a volunteer must "set out its needs" assumes too much, it seems -
sets the bar too high for a volunteer to come forward. I would have
thought, given the discussion in this thread, the need to be able to
contact English Heritage or other people using WMUK's name is central;
nothing even exploratory could properly be done at arm's length from the
board. I don't think the matter was given the attention it deserved, and
I suppose you might admit my opinion as informed (at the very least for
what did get discussed and how).
All comes down to saying that interested parties must lobby the board
members for proper discussion of issues about which they care, in a
timely fashion. (If there is anyone out there involved in OpenStreetMap,
they at least have a page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments and signs of
interest.)
Charles
John Byrne
messages were before the GLAM task force, in at least some form, when we
discussed the matter. The term and concept of a "National Monument"
does not exist as such in the UK, as opposed to other countries, in
itself something of a problem. I believe the Netherlands has a single
list, some 30,000 strong, covering all types of sites, buildings, and
things. That is certainly not the case in the UK where (I forget the
exact figures) when you add listed buildings to Scheduled Ancient
Monuments and other types, you get well over a million, but for the most
part without easily accessible listings. As Andrew rightly points out,
these are not all centralized - listed buildings are by local authority
and SAM's under different bodies for the constituent counties of the UK.
The time available to assemble such listings, which seems to be a
very large task, although in theory the information is available, was
probably inadequate.
As well as photos, many Dutch NMs received WP articles, (also in
English) apparently on the basis that NM's were inherently notable, but
there are several precedents for eg UK listed buildings being held not
to be notable, and the same would be true of the lesser sort of SAMs
which form the majority (hut circles, medieval moats etc). We felt a
rash of deleted articles as a result of a NM project might have a
negative effect.
Overhanging all this was the 80,000 (is it now) mostly good quality,
photos that are already on Commons from Geograph, that are still
unsorted, or incorrectly categorized. Bearing in mind that many of the
326 photos in
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_Loves_Art_at_the_Victoria_and_Albert_Museum
from February 2009 are still otherwise uncategorized, or not well
categorized, we thought that pressing on with digesting the Geograph
material was a priority.
In the light of this, and the number of other projects the chapter has
taken on, and the lack of anyone pressing to lead the iniative, we
decided not to involve trhe chapter this year, and I still think we made
the right decision.
John
Lodewijk
Charles Matthews
> I think in fact all the points mentioned in Charles' and Lodovik's were
> messages were before the GLAM task force, in at least some form, when we
> discussed the matter.
> In the light of this, and the number of other projects the chapter has
> taken on, and the lack of anyone pressing to lead the iniative, we
> decided not to involve trhe chapter this year, and I still think we made
> the right decision.
>
I suppose my angle, as a Wikisource person for much of my time, is that
"monuments" as a general concept fits well with "historical biography",
on which I work, coming next after "portraits" as defining the type of
image that adds value to old-time biographical articles. I'd like to see
the two issues, Commons categorisation of relevant images, and getting
listings of "missing monuments", as complementary.
Charles