Niektórzy z uczestników debaty byli zaniepokojeni faktem, iz Flickr The Commons zalezy od komercyjnych jednostek takich jak serwis Yahoo! (który jest wlascicielem Flickr). Dla nich taka zaleznosc kwestionuje mozliwosc dlugotrwalego istnienia projektu, jak równiez jego obiektywnosc. Wymieniona zostala inicjatywa alternatywna dla Flickr The Commons: fotopedia. Jednakze Maaike Toonen zapewnila, ze tresci dodawane przez uzytkowników byly poddawane gruntownemu sprawdzeniu zanim trafialy do bazy danych, gwarantujac w ten sposób, ze gromadzona tam wiedza idzie w parze z polityka DNA i bedzie dlugotrwale dostepna.
Jeden z uczestników zauwazyl, ze wiekszosc instytucji moze nie byc gotowa na takie wyspecjalizowane, cyfrowe dzialania. Jednak mniej niz rok od momentu rozpoczecia projektu, DNA wysoko sobie ceni ten nowy sposób gromadzenia wiedzy, i ma nadzieje na jego rozwój, który pozwoli przeksztalcic pasywnego odwiedzajacego archiwum w aktywnego kreatora. Pierwszy krok w strone nowej wiedzy juz za nami…
16:05 <@timothee> hi all - and welcome to this first online debate
16:06 <@timothee> today Lodewijk will discuss with Maaike - you are welcome to interact with the speakers
16:07 <@timothee> for your information, ChanServ, NewKnowledge are technical tools that we use to log the discussion
16:07 <@timothee> pike is your technical support, if you have any problems
16:07 <@timothee> i am the website editor of www.labforculture.org
16:07 <@timothee> enough talking, let's start the debate!
16:08 <@Lodewijk> welcome everybody, also from me
16:08 <@Lodewijk> Our main guest is Maaike Toonen from the Dutch National Archive
16:08 <@Maaike> Hello Everybody,
16:08 <timmietovenaar> Hi there
16:08 <Goran> Hi!
16:08 <@Lodewijk> I believe one of your colleagues has joined us as well, Maaike?
16:09 <@Maaike> We will do the debate together, behind one computer; I expect her any minute
16:09 <@Lodewijk> great
16:10 <@Lodewijk> let's start with a simple but important question:
16:10 <@Lodewijk> why did the National Archive decide to join Flickr the Commons
16:11 <@Maaike> Because we wanted to increase the exposure of our historical photo collections
16:11 <@Lodewijk> so the main interest was in better access?
16:12 <@Maaike> yes, and a broad, international audience
16:12 <@Lodewijk> so mostly trying to find a slightly different audience
16:13 <@Lodewijk> I assume by the way that everyone in the audience today knows about the project "Flickr the Commons"?
16:14 <@Lodewijk> just in short: it is a way in which a number of museums and archives are using the photosite Flickr
16:14 <Goran> Yes
16:14 <@Maaike> Not a different audience, but a bigger and broader audience
16:14 <@Lodewijk> The official statement about the COmmons project: There are two main aims to The Commons project, starting with the pilot: firstly, to increase exposure to the amazing content currently held in the public collections of civic institutions around the world, and secondly, to facilitate the collection of general knowledge about these collections, with the hope that this information can feed back into the catalogues, making them richer and easier to search.
16:15 <@timothee> you can access the project through http://www.flickr.com/commons
16:15 <@Lodewijk> ok, back to Maaike, indeed a broader audience, so people who had not accessed the National Archive before
16:16 <@Maaike> yes, but also people who have accessed the NA before can have a look :-)
16:16 <@Lodewijk> ofcourse ;-)
16:17 <@Lodewijk> So when i compare that with the above statement about the Commons project, exposure is most important.
16:17 <@Maaike> They are two sides of the same coin: exposure and getting more metadata
16:17 <@Maaike> win-win situation :-)
16:17 <@Lodewijk> the metadata was indeed what I wanted to talk about
16:18 <@Lodewijk> The project has been running for over half a year now
16:18 <@Maaike> yep
16:18 <@Lodewijk> What is the experience so far with metadata, the comments and tags people leave behind?
16:19 <@Maaike> We've found that the tags have been more useful than the comments
16:19 <@Maaike> Comments are often opinions of the users
16:19 <@Maaike> tags are usually about the content of the site that enrich our metadata and make the photographs easier to find
16:20 <@Maaike> We've had over 1,000,000 pageviews, 2,000 comments and 7,000 tags!
16:20 <@Maaike> back to you ;-)
16:20 <@Lodewijk> so I understand the tags are the most important metadata you get, and comments are less usefull for searching
16:21 <@Lodewijk> I assume there have also been comments that have enriched the pictures?
16:21 <@Lodewijk> can you give an example of that?
16:21 <@Lodewijk> (the stats are impressive by the way)
16:22 <@Maaike> some comments are very useful but others are more like 'Cool picture'. Some comments are very detailed though, for example about the types of vehicles used in our WWI + WWII photographs.
16:23 <@Lodewijk> In the evaluation that Library of Congress did, they mentioned: When Flickr commenters provide corrected place and proper names, more precise dates, and event names, Prints and Photographs Division staff verify the information and have used it to update more than 500 records for the Library’s catalog (with many more in the queue), citing the Flickr Commons Project as the source of the new information.
16:23 <Tomasera> but aren't better online tools than flickr to allow this kind of online collaborative enrichment of the material?
16:23 <Tomasera> (i'm thinking about fotopedia for instance)
16:24 <@Lodewijk> I'll get back about that Tomasera, good point
16:24 <@Maaike> Flickr the Commons is a project that was started specifically for online access to collections of cultural institutions.
16:24 <@Maaike> So it was a logical choice for us to display our collection.
16:25 <@Maaike> Flickr is not only a tool, but also has a wide community interested in photography. This not only increases access to our collection but also taps into a large knowledge base about photography.
16:27 <@Lodewijk> a clear explanation, and the fact FLickr is probably the most widely used photography place on the web helps as well.
16:27 <@Maaike> exactly!
16:28 <@Lodewijk> Is the information that is provided in flickr also feeding back into the National Archive?
16:28 <@Lodewijk> like the Library of Congress example above?
16:28 <@Maaike> Sometimes, if it's useful. We update the descriptions in our image bank using information provided by Flickr users.
16:29 <@Maaike> The image bank is the place where we maintain our metadata. Flickr is derived from that.
16:29 <@Lodewijk> so it's not only the web descriptions at Fickr, but the records in your "vault" as well.
16:29 <@Lodewijk> an interesting point you just brought up is the knowledge base of flickr
16:29 <@Maaike> We check the Flickr corrections first before updating our main metadata.
16:30 <@Lodewijk> is that knowledge base the fact there are "hard core" photography people there?
16:30 <@Maaike> that's nice about Flickr, you can have the informal discussions there while maintaining the historical accuracy of our main image bank.
16:30 <@Lodewijk> or also connections with pictures other people or organisations have uploaded?
16:31 <@Maaike> The hard core photography group is especially interested in the technical aspects of our photographs, like exposure or retouching.
16:32 <@Maaike> Sometimes there are interesting links that can be made with other collections, like the joint tag 'Armistice day' all Flickr The Commons members used to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the end of WWI
16:32 <@Lodewijk> Are there also examples of links outside the "flickr the commons" project?
16:33 <@Maaike> Some of our images have been used on Wikipedia, to illustrate articles.
16:33 <@Lodewijk> maybe we can continue to focus on the metadata, the "new knowledge"
16:33 <@Maaike> We have also been invited to add our photos to several Flickr groups, like 'black and white photography" or "food photography".
16:34 <@Maaike> sure
16:34 <pdietach> Another interesting project with a more historical/heritage but then very daily life oriented aspect is the Arab Image Foundation www.fai.org.lb
16:34 <@Maaike> Thanks for the link, we will check that site out.
16:35 <pdietach> I quote from their website: The Arab Image Foundation is a non-profit foundation that was established in Lebanon in 1996. The Foundation aims to promote photography in the Middle East and North Africa by locating, collecting, and preserving the region's photographic heritage. Our collections will be made available to the public at large in museum and gallery exhibitions and in published monographs.
16:35 <@Lodewijk> you indicated that a lot of comments are not very useful, as its mostly comments about how nice the pictures are
16:35 <@Lodewijk> but how are the tags useful to the National Archive?
16:35 <@Maaike> They are not useful to update our metadata, they are very useful in making us know people appreciate our photographs :-)
16:36 <@Lodewijk> have you done any comparison between the tags users leave, and the keywords the NatArchive adds to pictures itself
16:36 <@Maaike> The tags help people find our photographs. We are currently researching whether we can re-import the tags automatically into our main image bank as user-generated tags
16:37 <@Maaike> We are going to start a research project to investigate the quality and the tags. Our current tags comply with international standards used in the heritage sector. They can be more structured than single tags.
16:38 <@Lodewijk> so you think about having the two systems of organising parallel: the standard thesaurus that National Archive uses, and the user generated next to that?
16:38 <@Maaike> We haven't decided yet, we're looking into the different possibilities at the moment. But it is possible, yes.
16:39 <katherine> I think the Powerhouse Museum has made this connection between the commons and their main site
16:39 <@Maaike> @katherine I think you're right.
16:40 <@Lodewijk> is this commons project also a pilot to get the audience to add this kind of metadata to all your pictures?
16:40 <@Lodewijk> I believe there are 1,2 million pictures in your pipeline waiting to be digitised?
16:40 <@Maaike> We've already had a comments function on our main image bank for several years so we're not totally new in user-generated content. We also have a large group of volunteers that help us improve the descriptions.
16:41 <@Maaike> Yes, we are digitizing about 1.2 million pictures.
16:41 <@Lodewijk> but I guess its diferent here that your volunteers are people you know, and at flickr it is complete strangers
16:42 <Tomasera> how do you feel towards the fact that flickr the commons is funded by a private/commercial company, and that there is no guarantee that the massive efforts engaged to build this collaborative knowledge bank may not be annihilated if the interests/means of yahoo change in the future?
16:42 <@Maaike> many of them only have a limited description or just keywords.
16:43 <@Maaike> @Tomasera We keep control of our own metadata using our own systems. Flickr is an additional service.
16:43 <@Maaike> That's why we filter back the results from Flickr into our own image bank.
16:44 <@Lodewijk> and that filter back is always factchecked I bleieve you mentioned
16:45 <@Maaike> After a while you get to know the people online as well, often the same people respond and help you. We do fact check the information, whether from our volunteers or from our online visitors.
16:46 <@Lodewijk> so it is actually a relative small group of people that are involved deeply?
16:47 <@Maaike> It depends on the theme. There is a small group of people that you often see but there are also many many people who only contribute once or twice.
16:47 <@Maaike> We do see that a lot of people mark our photographs as a favorite. So they do interact with the photos without necessarily adding metadata.
16:48 <@Lodewijk> one relavant question before I want to ask the other listenerrs to ask more questions as well
16:48 <@Lodewijk> is the flickr project also reflecting on your "first life" work at the physical archive in The Hague
16:49 <@Lodewijk> are you organising yourself sometimes differently then before you started this usergenerated crowdsourced way of working?
16:49 <@Maaike> Flickr is just one of the projects we're doing at the moment to go from a paper-only organization to also being a digital organization.
16:50 <@Maaike> All of our employees are getting a course in using web2.0 technology :-)
16:50 <@Maaike> Flickr is one of the ingredients, of course!
16:50 <@Lodewijk> so it is starting to be a big Facebook Myspace bunch there...
16:51 <@timothee> Maaike: so using web2.0 technologies actually changes your way of working, both internally and externally?
16:51 <@Maaike> Yes, sometimes we even get questions about our archives through Twitter and other web2.0 websites!
16:52 <@Maaike> @timothee Yes, but slowly. Our customers are in new spaces so we need to be there too. But nothing trumps the historical sensation of seeing the actual document!
16:52 <@timothee> heheh
16:53 <@timothee> I have another question - the photographic skills of the community on Flickr is sometimes criticised
16:53 <@Maaike> And web2.0 technology also challenges us to re-think what we need to archive. We have a Twittering minister of foreign affairs...
16:53 <@Lodewijk> you mean, are those tweets also archived?
16:53 <@Maaike> @Lodewijk not yet, but we will have to think about whether we should...
16:54 <@timothee> Google archives them, though :-)
16:54 <@Lodewijk> @timothee yes but that brings back Tomasera's point
16:54 <@Maaike> @timothee The photographic skills of many of the photographers in our database are first rate though ;-)
16:55 <@timothee> @Maaike: I just had this Cartier Bresson example in mind, where the community assessed the 'masterpiece' as not interesting
16:55 <@timothee> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366
16:56 <@timothee> I suppose this relates to what you were saying at the beginning - you learn about your audience via Flickr too
16:56 <@Maaike> It's art, not science. People will have different opinions about photos. We haven't had comments like 'delete me'.
16:56 <@Maaike> @timothee That's true.
16:57 <@pike> maaike, you mentioned your 'own' metadata system is more standardized. what standard is that, and how do you merge this with plain 'flickr tags' ?
16:57 <@Maaike> Often Flickr tags can be mapped to our tags.
16:58 <@Lodewijk> are you considering other metadata as well, like geotags?
16:58 <@Maaike> We have selected a thesaurus but we haven't standardized all of our tags yet. It is one of the goals of our project 'images for the future' to improve the descriptions and tags. Standardization is one step in that process.
16:59 <@Maaike> we are looking into geotagging. At the moment we're doing a pilot project with the University of Utrecht to look into geotagging our map collection.
16:59 <@Maaike> It would be interesting to see whether we can use crowdsourcing to geotag our images as well.
16:59 <@Lodewijk> so at the same time you are working on standardisation and on "free form user generated tags"? isn't that sort of opposed to each other?
17:00 -!- Irssi: #newknowledge: Total of 24 nicks [6 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 18 normal]
17:00 <@Maaike> no, they can complement each other. In presenting the information we make it clear which is the information we can vouch for and which information is user-generated.
17:02 <@Lodewijk> so basically, you have web 2.0 metadata and "controlled metadata" as paralel systems?
17:03 <@Maaike> at the moment, yes. It's still a pilot. we will first research the quality of the tags and then decide how we will preserve the tags and comments by users in the future.
17:04 <@Lodewijk> were are coming to the end of our one hour chat... are there any things you want to add that you didn't get to before Maaike?
17:05 <user36> By "quality of tags" are you referring to "quality of standards"
17:06 <@Maaike> @user36 no, we are referring to the accuracy of the information added by the Flickr community. For example if someone adds a tags 'Renault' for a car, we check if it really is a Renault.
17:07 <@Maaike> Any last questions by the other chat members?
17:07 <@pike> it's still a pilot, but I'm curious how much freedom you plan to give to the 'crowd' in your own archive in the end. would you remove a 'ugly' tag ?
17:08 <@Maaike> if it's offensive, we will. We try to leave as much as possible online.
17:08 <@pike> but 'ugly' is also just subjective; is that usefull information for you ?
17:09 <user36> i think the pike was referring to "difference"
17:09 <@Maaike> our pictures are too beautiful, we haven't had anyone tagging our pictures as 'ugly' ;-)
17:09 <Goran> One very open question is, taking a step back, is the cultural field ready for a new defenition of the "visitor" when opening up towards social media and consumer/producer produced content?
17:09 <@pike> well, 'beautifull' then :-)
17:10 <@Maaike> visitor still sounds very passive to me. There is a trend to see our visitors as partners and not just passive users.
17:10 <@Maaike> Flickr proves how users can actively participate in creating online access to our collection.
17:11 <@timothee> Maaike: would you consider 'regular audience' of the museums as 'passive users', then?
17:11 <Goran> A trend yes, but i sometimes feel that people working in the field don´t understand the full extent to turning the previous passive visitor into an active producer. Statistics turned into a face and a name.
17:12 <@Maaike> They may enjoy the collection without actively contributing to it. Archives are different than museums since more people actively use our collections anyway. For example to do historical research.
17:12 <@Lodewijk> As fas as pilots go, the intention "to leave as much as possible online" and to see the audience as partner is a promising way of looking forward.
17:12 <@Maaike> Thanks, we feel the same way!
17:13 <@Maaike> Any last questions?
17:13 <globalarts> so you mean goran the audeince is an active community with personality? - what do you mean the full extend - do you mean how difficult it is?
17:13 <@Lodewijk> Maaike, maybe it is time to thank you while we continue discussing this
17:13 <@Lodewijk> It was great that you took the time to join us
17:14 <Goran> Yes, since i come from a school background I know wat it takes to include people in an active process of let´s say learning
17:14 <@Maaike> Thanks Lodewijk. We (Maaike and Yvette) would like to thank you all for dropping by this chat and hope to see you online and maybe IRL some day!
17:14 <@Lodewijk> and you are welcome to come along in the other sessions...
17:14 <globalarts> Thanks to you too Maaike!
17:14 <Goran> Thanks!
17:14 <@Maaike> You're welcome!
17:14 <@Maaike> Bye everyone, signing off!
17:15 <@timothee> This conversation will be edited, annotated and posted on www.labforculture.org
17:16 <@timothee> you can of course enrich the debate by adding comments
17:16 <@Lodewijk> We will also add some extra background literature and links
17:17 <@timothee> and members willing to carry on the debate are welcome to do so!
17:17 <@timothee> the LabforCulture debate space will stay open for a couple of hours at least
17:18 <@timothee> thank you all for your participation!
17:18 <Tomasera> thanks
Possibly art and culture might be able to play a significant role in this process.
Isn’t art exactly about attributing and allocating meaning to reality, providing new ways to relate to existing data? How can culture help us sail the oceans of digital information and knowledge, by creating meaning?
LabforCulture jest inicjatywą partnerską Europejskiej Fundacji Kultury. LabforCulture jest wdzięczna swoim fundatorom za wsparcie