" What would be great to have (but probably doesn't exist) is a case-study
showing: here's what happens when you provide metadata, versus here's what
happens if you don't, with clear differences in uptake or re-use of media.
"
I am not sure how I would start that research question, there are a number
of tactics we could take:
- Do analysis of use of media files in Batch uploads, by percent/time:
as a success indicator, and then evaluate that against some type of
measurement of quality of metadata?
- Try to look at the success of "Challenge campaigns" based on different
kinds of metadata -- and do some qualitative studies of that work ---
asking editors, how it easy it was to use, etc.
- Do some type of "Google and Wikimedia Commons search comparison" --
where we do google searches around topics adjacent to upload, and see which
GLAM projects get represented in them.
In part, I think we are a bit hampered by the extant metrics tools, to
getting a good story here. I had a meeting recently with Giovanni Profeta
who has been partnering with WMCH and WMIT to investigate how to visualize
the data that we can access:
http://www.gprofeta.it/visual-tools-for-glams/index.php?title=Visualizations_to_be_included_in_the_website
. Hopefully, this will make its way into WMCH's GLAM metrics tool (once its
deployed), but I think some of these visualizations might provide us easier
methods of analysis here.
I also think what is missing is a reasonable way to give guidance for and
analyze the quality of the metadata to begin with in our context:
- Should we develop a metric based on the % of fields used in
Artwork/Photograph/Information templates?
- are there fields that we could prioritize as important? (Creator
template, institution template, long vs short descriptions?)
- Can we describe the use of categories in that metric?
- Do we generate this from their upload model or from a random sampling
of content?
I, personally, don't have time to do something like this by myself, until
we get closer to the need for GLAM user research for structured commons.
However, I would be happy to sit in on/help organizing a working group in
this (like we are doing on the documentation-front based in followup to
the conversations at the GLAM-Coordinators meeting).
Alex
Post by Arne WossinkThanks all for your feedback; keep it coming if you are aware of any other
case-studies!
@Alex, Whatamidoing: those are good and valid points. As a Wikimedian I
know that the system works this way, and I know the benefits of providing
categories and metadata that are ready for Wikidata. However, when I talk
to museums, most of that knowledge is lost. What would be great to have
(but probably doesn't exist) is a case-study showing: here's what happens
when you provide metadata, versus here's what happens if you don't, with
clear differences in uptake or re-use of media. We have anecdotal evidence
that this is the case (as shown in this discussion), but that's not always
enough to convince GLAMs to support us.
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 <+31%206%2011000505>
* Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht
2017-05-17 20:34 GMT+02:00 Whatamidoing (WMF)/Sherry Snyder <
Post by Whatamidoing (WMF)/Sherry SnyderLet me expand on what Alex says with two examples of what's great about
1) You can get information about art in general. Have you read
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/23/wikidata-glam/ ? There is a map
in the middle of the blog post that shows where notable works of art are
from, and it was generated from metadata that had been imported to
Wikidata.
2) Metadata puts your art into Wikipedia articles. A number of the
Wikipedias are using Wikidata-aware infobox templates, which means that
when Wikidata has an entry about the artwork, then the artwork or details
about it can instantly appear at any Wikipedia that pulls metadata from
Wikidata. Look at the infobox at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wi
ki/Paysage_de_la_vall%C3%A9e_de_l%27Arno Everything in that box at the
moment is pulled from Wikidata, from the image to the name of the art
museum that holds it. The article itself only contains {{Infobox Art}}.
Post by Alex StinsonHi Arne, et. al.
I think the greatest benefit right now, in practical terms, is
increasing the discoverability through search and through the current
category and linking structured between Wikidata and Wikipedia (for
example, interwiki language links on the left-hand side of Wikipedia pages
are increasingly including Commons Categories from Wikidata). We don't have
a huge amount of evidence, that these things support access (and would
welcome any examples folks want to share, like Jos -- or if they have a
tactic for examining this data).
In the long term, the greatest benefit will be ease of migration to
Structured Data on Commons -- which has lots of discovery and arbitrary
query potential. Recently, I wrote a couple recommendations for Martin
Poulter, which, if done with GLAM collections now, I am imagining will help
- Including as many descriptive metadata templates as you can in
existing Commons infoboxes (Institution templates, creator templates,
technique templates (basically every type of sub-template type listable at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Artwork
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Artwork> ). These are
mapped almost 1-to-1 by a few folks on Commons, so should be fairly easy to
migrate long term.
- Ensuring that Commons categories are mapped one-to-one with how
Wikidata concepts are being used (depicts, vs topics related to an object),
and doing it on Wikidata with Property:P373 property.
- If items are described in Wikidata, adding as many fields as possible.
The Structured data on Commons team is still being assembled, and will
be doing research that builds on some initial research from the Wikidata
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HeavyCom
monsUserQualitativeResearch.pdf . I am not sure what the final shape
of the project's impacts will be/look like, but the more metadata that is
consistently displayed now, the easier it will be for the community or
institution to take advantage of the benefits of structured Commons later
(such as easing attribution and embedding of the mediafile in other
sources, surfacing media files in multilingual search, etc).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
Post by Arne WossinkHi Jos,
Yes, those would be the kind of interaction that would be interesting
to see happening as a result of providing metadata to images.
Best,
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 <+31%206%2011000505>
* Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht
Post by Arne WossinkHi Reem,
Metadata, in this case, refers to the data from the information or
artwork (or other) template that's used when an image is uploaded to
Commons. So it's not the exif-data, but information about, for example,
who's the maker of a painting, when did he make it, what techniques did he
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NL-HlmNHA_53004672_Kaaiman.tif
Best,
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 <+31%206%2011000505>
* Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht
Post by Jos DamenAfter adding Category:People_being_vaccinated to this file
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ASC_Leiden_-_
Coutinho_Collection_-_G_07_-_Ziguinchor,_Senegal_-_Vaccinat
ion_-_1973.tiff by User Hans Muller, it was picked up by
User:Kopiersperre, who added: Category:Jet_injectors and added the image to
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impfpistole
Other example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ASC_Leiden_
-_Coutinho_Collection_-_A_37_-_Surgery_in_Sara,_Guinea-
Bissau_-_Suturing_the_wound_-_1974.tif
best regards,
Jos Damen
Post by Arne WossinkHi all,
As best practice we usually encourage GLAMs to provide as many
metadata as possible for media donations. However, providing these metadata
and "wikifying" them (for examply as part of an upload using Pattypan) can
be quite a bit of work, either for a Wikimedian or a GLAM volunteer/staff
member.
Do we have any case studies outlining immediate benefits of
providing more metadata? For example, does providing more metadata lead to
better uptake of images in articles on WP?
Best
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 <+31%206%2011000505>
* Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167
Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
--
Alex Stinson
GLAM-Wiki Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and
http://glamwiki.org
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
--
Sherry Snyder (WhatamIdoing)
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
--
Alex Stinson
GLAM-Wiki Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other
Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations:
http://glamwiki.org