Here’s a post I wrote on Liam Wyatt’s blog (@wittylama) about our work documenting public art using Wikipedia and Flickr. I summarizes my IUPUI student’s final project at the Indiana Statehouse and discusses and discuss the future of Wikiproject Public Art.
This is an interesting summary and question-filled post by Huffington, but I think she, along with many others, miss what I understand to be the big difference between “2.0” and “1.0”. Contributions from users is what’s different, and what makes me think there might actually be a next version of the web, this 2.0 shift. Sure, showing visitors more information and getting them to use it and interact with it is cool, but how can we get them to contribute in a meaningful way, or even help take ownership of the information?
While asking users to contribute to important museum work can be terrifying for many museum professionals, the point of this ask is for us to find the work that we need help doing and then trying to get users to pitch in.
For years now I thought that the greatest need is for visitors to help document artworks in the collection and put that information online. Think of how many cultural institutions that don’t have good records of their collections online (or in real life) and then think of how easy it is to put basic information online. Of course, this is the basis for our research project, Wikiproject Public Art, but how else could it play out?
The effort to document Milwaukee’s public art collection in Wikipedia hit a milestone today: 30 articles are now live. Very exciting!
Quantitative data in the humanities? Imagine that.
This is the kind of project that makes you realize that we really are in the midst of an information revolution of a proportion that we’ve yet to even partially realize.
As part of an ongoing series of 10 Tips for Becoming a Conservator, Heather Brown interviews Laurie booth. Previously, Heather gave her #1 tip: visit conservation labs and #2 Tip: join professional organizations. I wonder what #10 will be …
An interesting summary article about museums using technology, but it doesn’t really point to the future. Who doesn’t like a little bit of pointing to the future?
His coverage of the @NPG exhibition Hide/Seek has been excellent from the start and his awareness of the “Fire in My Belly” controversy superb.
When are we going to have more arts journalists in the US of A that take art and museums seriously?
